Mandate? What mandate?
Clive Crook writes in the Financial Times that Obama has squandered his overwhelming mandate for health care reform:
The paradox is that the White House has tripped up over healthcare reform—an initiative that the country both wants and needs, and which was at the centre of Mr Obama’s stunningly successful election campaign. For this, the administration has no one to blame but itself. Its own mistakes have brought it to this perilous point.
Crook is correct that the administration has itself to blame for its failures. But he is incorrect about the reasons behind Obama’s “stunningly successful election campaign.”
It is certainly the case that Obama spoke of wanting to reform health care, among other plans. But Obama’s appeal was never really based on policy, except for the liberals and Leftists who would have voted for him (or almost any other Democrat) anyway.
The specifics of exactly what programs Obama would put into place as president were less important, and certainly far less clear, to many moderate voters—the ones who put him over the top and were responsible in large part for his election—than what and who he seemed to be as a person. The perception was that whatever successes he was going to have in terms of policy would stem from qualities inherent in the man himself and his ability to bring people together, inspire confidence, and persuade. If most of his moderate supporters had been asked to predict the course of an Obama presidency prior to his inauguration, my guess is that the majority would have said he that would govern as a temperate, moderate, and bipartisan leader. And that would include his plans around health care reform.
So there’s no reason to believe that the 52% of the vote that Obama received in the election ever represented a powerful majority groundswell of popular demand for RADICAL AND SWEEPING HEALTH CARE REFORM, NOW!
It’s also instructive to remember that the financial climate during most of the run-up to the 2008 election was very different than the climate at the time of the election and beyond. When the economy went belly-up very late in the game, it’s pretty clear that most non-Leftists who voted for Obama assumed that he would put the financial state of the economy above other considerations, and place large and destabilizing policy changes on hold until it had recovered.
What Obama did instead was the exact opposite. He attempted to push through a major overhaul of health care at lightning speed, minus an explanation of the details, and assured us that we should trust him that it would not impact negatively on the economy. What’s more, he branded those who objected as being insincere and having bad motives. This combination of factors seems to have stunned a substantial segment of his moderate supporters, and caused them to view him more negatively.
One of Obama’s many errors may have been to assume that his election meant he had a strong mandate for the policy changes he had in mind. But my guess is that he was well aware that this was not the case. I think he believed, however, that he could be successful in pushing his agenda through despite its unpopularity, if he managed to do so fast enough and furiously enough.
That, or course, has not happened. And it has exposed the fact that there was never any mandate to begin with for the sort of changes Obama envisioned.
I wrote this post before I saw Fouad Ajami’s excellent piece in today’s Wall Street Journal. But Ajami makes a similar point, and expands on it as follows:
American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the “mandate of heaven” is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.
Ajami believes that the American public has reasserted its American-ness, and is now talking back to Obama and telling him just what it doesn’t like about what he’s doing. Let’s hope so. But my guess is that he won’t be listening, except to make some strategic adjustments. There’s too much at stake. As Press Secretary Gibbs said recently, Obama is “quite comfortable” being a one-term president:
I have heard the president say that if making tough decisions in getting important things done that Washington has failed to do for decades means that he only lives in this house and makes those decisions for four years, he’s quite comfortable…The way he approaches this issue…is not in a mode of self preservation, but in a mode of how best — given all the information out there– how best to make decisions that he thinks is in the best interest of the American people, not what’s in the best interest of his personal career.
Every president must follow his own conscience and do what he thinks best. Obama is no different that respect. I fervently hope, however, that Americans will keep asserting their American-ness, and will let their legislative representatives know that there will be consequences to them and to their re-election chances if they pass bills that go against the will of the people.
Mandate or not, Obama can do a great deal of damage in his four years as president. But Congress can stop some of the bleeding—especially if enough of its members see such action as in their own self-interest.
I just sent the following e-mail to my Congress Critters. They may not listen, but there is a movement afoot, even in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound, to defeat these rascals if they continnue on their present course.
“I am a retired 76 year old Navy pilot and airline pilot. I’ve always been a voter and tried to stay informed about political issues. However, I’ve never been involved in any kind of protest on the streets……..until now! In the last few months I have participated in two TEA Parties and two Healthcare Reform protests. Never did I ever think I would be involved in such a thing. Let me tell you why I have taken to the streets.
!. I don’t feel my elected representatives are listening to me.
2. I don’t feel my elected representatives are paying any attention to the Constitution.
3. I am frightened that this Democrat controlled Congress is out of control as far as fiscal responsibility goes. You folks are spending too much money! And it’s most all borrowed money! You give drunken sailors (I know because I was one once) a bad name – at least we were spending our own money.
4. You people are passing bills (The stimulus bill, the omnibus budget bill, the Waxman-Markey bill) that you haven’t read. You have become so reckless in your legislative work and fiscal duties that I, and many other good citizens like me, are alarmed.
5. We, unlike many of your colleagues, have read HR 3200 and found its provisions alarming and primarily aimed at producing – over a period of time – a single payer health insurance system run by the government. When we look at single payer systems in Canada, England, and other countries we don’t like what we see. Which is primarily rationing based on bureaucratic decrees. We also do not see how it reduces healthcare costs. These things alarm us!
6. You, your Democrat colleagues, and President Obama seem to be intent on passing this healthcare reform over the objections of a majority of citizens. This alarms us!
I am just one voice, but I have found others who see the issues much as I do and we have met freely, openly, and publicly to petition you, our representatives, to hear our voices. Yet, your Speaker has called us hired demonstrators, astro-turfers, or even Nazis. We citizens are shocked and insulted that our representatives would be so disdainful of the voluntary and peaceable assembly of citizens. Shame on Speaker Pelosi and others who have deigned to insult us.
Let me tell you this. The actions of this Democrat controlled Congress have stirred anger and resentment among citizens who much prefer to worry about other things. But you have, by your actions, (innumerated above) given us no other choice. We are in this to the end. November 2010 is fast approaching, and we are working to retire those who don’t listen to the voters.”
Everybody knows
America won’t re elect a black man
Everybody knows
I am still stunned at how much damage he has done in just half a year since his inauguration.
To think that we have three and a half more to go, and possibly four more beyond that, is downright depressing.
I hope that the 2010 elections deliver some kind of correction, but we’re still literally in the early stages of this presidency. Sadly.
I think [Obama] believed, however, that he could be successful in pushing his agenda through despite its unpopularity, if he managed to do so fast enough and furiously enough.
That is pretty clear.
The fact that no one has corrected Gibbs’s claim that Obama is “quite comfortable” being a one-term president means that must be true too.
In the past month the picture of Obama has gained far greater focus.
Obama is indeed a leftist ideologue willing to sacrifice his second-term to remake America to his vision. Furthermore he has no compunctions about running roughshod over the high-minded principles of honesty, transparency, bipartisanship, post-racialness and unity on which he campaigned.
So ideology trumps narcissism. I got that one wrong. And it does make him a more dangerous person.
The good news, though, is that America is not a left-wing country and it will not accept the rough rule of a leftist ideologue president.
Obama has revealed himself and squandered most of his political capital in a mere seven months.
He may pull a few head fakes, but otherwise I believe he will continue to double-down to get his way, as in the latest move of his administration to set the dogs of Holder and the DOJ on the CIA. That will backfire too.
huxley: It was an understandable error, since Obama is also very much a narcissist. But for quite a while his performance as President has indicated the sorry truth that he is an idealogue above all else.
That doesn’t mean he couldn’t reverse course somewhat, if only for strategic and temporary reasons, because he might calculate that he has revealed his true nature a bit too much.
Obama may have revealed himself but America’s ethical violations and delusions that lead to Obama’s throne is still here and very much prospering.
I do not believe he can neo.
He believes in his ideology so much that it will pain him to do otherwise.
I hope I’m wrong.
I posted this quote before from Richard Epstein, a law prof colleague of Obama’s in Chicago.
His positions are not close to the middle, and so he sees no reason to compromise with Republicans unless and until they can mount a veto threat in the Senate. He is very, very dogmatic about his substantive positions. He knows what he believes and he knows why he believes it, and it is extremely difficult for people on the outside to change his mind.
It seems more true than ever. Thank you, Prof. Epstein.
Let us pray that our politicians’ most important goal in life, to stay in office, will remain paramount. With the ire of “the silent majority” becoming manifest and their actually taking notice, this turkey is hopefully going nowhere.
Given his takeover of the census, his appointment of dozens of unaccountable czars, and ACORN gaining billions in tax money for their election activities, I don’t believe that Obama is worried about future elections.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether Congress rams through the government takeover of healthcare. If they do, then that means they aren’t worried either.
Obama and the Democrats will never stop pursuing their Marxist agenda until the entire country is under their thumbs. They will always grasp for the fruit of your labor. They are rapacious, rejecting all limits. “Not for me, but for thee” is their slogan. The question is this: Do you still want to be free men and women, or do you want to be serfs of the state?
Maybe some legal types could start legal proceedings against legislators who pass bills without reading them.
Surely there are laws against “dereliction of duty” or whatever.
If you believe Obama is “quite comfortable” being a one-term president, I have a bridge I can sell you.
Steve: I agree that he’s not the least bit comfortable with it.
But I have come to believe that he’d rather be a one-termer than give up his far Left agenda.
I always believe he thinks he can have both. If necessary, though some ACORN plus census machinations.
I will bet money that his current poll numbers and general unhappiness with his performance are being concealed by his staff, possibly involving fear of reprisal. I doubt he will have any idea of the shifting mood of the country.
In his mind its just special interests “manufacturing it” and besides he has a mandate to change everything in his image, after all, its what the voters wanted.
Check this out:
Supporters of President Barack Obama’s health care agenda are ramping up their efforts with rallies and bus tours starting this week
ASTROTURFERS!
I wonder if Pelosi will call them UnAmerican.
neo-neocon Says:
I always believe he thinks he can have both. If necessary, though some ACORN plus census machinations.
Check this out:
Our Unconstitutional Census
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332950796281832.html#mod=rss_opinion_main
Why is that not front page news?
If that info has been previously posted, I apologize to all.
CV Says:
To think that we have three and a half more to go, and possibly four more beyond that, is downright depressing.
It could be longer than that if Rep. Serrano (D-NJ) gets a repeal of the 22nd Amendement passed. He’s pushed it for years, but with a Dem Congress, passage of a repeal is now possible. Just like Chavez, we could have Emperor For Life Obama!
Welcome, huxley. Obama is and has always been best understood as a quasi-Marxist quasi-academic of no particular distinction other than a pleasant speaking voice. You and I should lift a glass to the shade of FredHjr.
It is my fervent hope that he will resign before his first term is up. When Congress is reorganized next year he will no longer have the willing participants he needs to advance his agenda and he will quickly lose interest. He will give some spectacular speech about racism, stir up a race war and then drop it all in Joe Biden’s lap.
Mandate is that thing the media talks about when the lefty wins.
If they dont stop them for violating the constitution to irrelevency they certainly arent going to prosecute themselves for deriliction of anything. at that point what is their duty?
Supposedly, 53% now oppose Obamacare. If his 52% win was a mandate, wouldn’t that make opposition to Obamacare a “mandate” as well?