Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, made a number of interesting comments -- presumably to burnish that "legacy" that appears to be the only thing he cares about anymore aside from golf. I'll quote it for you so that you can appreciate the nuance:
“It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency, that the rancor and
suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better”, he said. "A president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have
better bridged the divide.”
Oh, dear.
Let us first get this out of the way -- Mr. Obama, there were a couple presidents named Roosevelt, first Teddy the Bull Moose and then his nephew-in-law and fifth cousin Franklin (you see, Eleanor Roosevelt was Teddy's niece, so when FDR married her not only was she already named Roosevelt, but FDR became much closer-related to Theodore than he had been).
But I really digress.
It really doesn't matter which Roosevelt Obama was invoking, since he never heard any of them actually speak, including Eleanor, who died when little Barack Jr. was a year old. He's no idea what "gifts" they had, except by story. What matters is that somehow he feels that it wasn't his policies, or his intransigence, or his fecklessness that caused the "divide" or at least kept him from "bridging" it. No, it was his oratorical gift, or lack of one.
So let's dissect that statement more fully.
It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency ... gee, what does it say about a guy on whose watch far more people are unemployed, health care costs are far higher after his having promised the opposite, where our enemies laugh at us, our friends mistrust us and terrorists are now operating openly in our own country, well, what does it say that he thinks he should have "few regrets"? I would be, well, hiding out on the golf course if I'd been president and that were the actual state of the union. Oh, yeah, got it.
How bizarre that he feels his terms were so successful that he has little to regret, save a failure to improve civility between the opposing sides in Congress. After all, the USA thought so much of his accomplishments that in the two off-year elections during his presidency it handed first the House (2010) and then the Senate (2014) to his opponents; and he was only elected to a second term because his opponent failed to hold him accountable for the disaster in Benghazi when he had the opportunity.
The rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better ... well, I suppose that it has, not that it was any great shakes to begin with. Let's face it; the only time in our memory that the two parties have shown any semblance of cooperation was in our response to the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Even then it wasn't to get any meaningful legislative work done, except to create the Department of Homeland Security. And the jury's still out on that one.
You see, the parties have rancor and suspicion for a few reasons. First of all, because they fundamentally disagree on the issues. Well, duh. I have lots of friends who are liberals, but they're still friends because I don't talk politics with them. When it's your job to talk politics all day with people who are diametrically opposite in their views, like, say, in Congress, you're going to have rancor and suspicion. You were elected to press one agenda; those pressing the opposite are -- say it with me -- your enemy. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of YouTube clips all over the place showing fights in legislatures around the world.
Secondly, the system is not what it was 50 years ago. A series of judicial decisions and orders have forced many congressional district maps to change, on the notion that black citizens should be represented in Congress by someone of the same skin color. Accordingly, many districts were redrawn to ensure enough black voters were within their borders to guarantee their ability to vote in a black representative if, of course, they chose to.
Under the Law of Unintended Consequences, which applies universally and unequivocally, the unintended consequences indeed prevailed. Sure, we got a lot more black congressmen. But by concentrating a very liberal-voting bloc inside District A, the rulings concentrated the remainder into District B. So not only did you get two districts that were pretty safe for each party, but the fact that they were safe pushed the representatives further to the left and right. The parties realized they could run candidates a bit more liberal and conservative than previously, and still keep the district. This had the effect of polarizing the congressmen who were seated.
A Congress thus more polarized is a Congress even more rancorous and suspicious than previously. It stands to reason, and it is certainly borne out to date. Trust me, if we had a nationwide redistricting approach that created districts based on some kind of model that only took population density into account, we would push a lot of districts, if not to the middle (there's no such thing, but bear with me), at least to a point where their congressmen would be obliged to meet and talk with the opposition and get things done.
A president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have
better bridged the divide ... well, yes, at least a better president might have. And to be candid, I actually believe he said that to fish for compliments. Obama wanted us to hear that and go "Oh NO, sir, you are a wonderful speaker and it's just those bad people in Congress who don't appreciate it." Of course the truth is he is not a great speaker. He is a fine, eloquent reader of prepared text from a TelePrompTer. So am I. But as the first 2012 debate showed, his ability to defend his positions without a script is mediocre -- and almost cost him reelection.
If he even wanted to bring the sides together, which he has never given any indication in seven years of wanting to, it's hard to believe that, with his limited skills, he ever could have. Certainly his negotiation ability is atrocious, as the Iran deal, the Bergdahl deal, the Syrian "red line", the Guantanamo giveaway and his dealings with pretty much everyone overseas show. Perhaps he knows he is bad at it with his enemies overseas and so he just ignores -- and vilifies -- his opponents in the legislature?
So no, it's not your oratory skills, Mr. Obama. Abe, Teddy or Franklin (or Eleanor) might have been able to overcome the judicial-forced polarization of Congress, but if they could, it would be based on a willingness to compromise in the best interest of the USA. Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the last two generations, knew when to have a bourbon with the opposition Speaker. He got things done, even when it took a drink with Tip O'Neill to do so. Has Obama ever met with Paul Ryan as peers pursuing common good? With John Boehner more than twice? With Mitch McConnell ever?
Barack Obama blames his "gifts" far too much for the rancor and suspicion in Washington. But he blames his political disposition far too little, because it would be much harder to defend simple intransigence and unwillingness to deal than to say "if only I were more gifted."
Thank the Lord someone else will have the bully pulpit in 367 days. That will be bully for us.
Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here? There's a new post from Bob
at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving
new meaning to "prolific essayist." Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at
bsutton@alum.mit.edu.
No comments:
Post a Comment