Obama’s Stalingrad

As we enter the second year of the Obama Presidency, with a castrated health care bill limping towards the finish line, we are left with a vexing question: how did this much-heralded savior, with a super-majority in the Congress, virtually the entire media on his side, overwhelming goodwill overseas, and stratospheric approval ratings fail so quickly and comprehensively?

The Health Care bill may well prove to be Obama’s Stalingrad. His forces having advanced against a disorganized and poorly-led opponent only to discover that the enemy possessed surprising strategic depth. Rather than adjusting to the situation they continue to fight on, wasting resources that might have proven to be the key to victory on other fronts.

That might be a unique way of putting it, but I think that it’s apt and that it goes to a central reason for the failure of the Obama Administration: none of its strategists seem to have the poetry of war in their hearts. By this I mean not merely dreams of military glory, but the deeper understanding of history that allows one to understand the subtle twists of fate that guide the destiny of men. Having brought so much of his campaign team into the White House - people who were politically born on third believing that they hit a triple - Obama appears to lack the valuable counsel in his inner circle of anyone who has truly thought deeply on the lessons of the past.

You might wish to point out to me that the Germans were defeated at Stalingrad and that the bill is likely to pass. Regarding the latter point - we’ll see. As to the former I would suggest to you that the passage of the neutered remnant of the original plan to remake the entire health care system - a plan that raises taxes now, offers no benefits to the middle class, and pays real benefits to a group of people who either don’t vote or mostly vote Democratic already years down the road - is no more a victory than the extraction of some troops from the pocket was one.

Before I return to that thought, we should consider whether it is a fair judgement to describe the Obama Administration, up until this point in time, as a failure? I believe that it is.

In a single year Obama’s approval ratings have fallen farther than those of any other new President. That might be an acceptable loss if he had accrued disapproval while making some sort of structural policy changes that offered the potential for long-term gain, but he has not. At the end of his first year in office the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still ongoing, Guantanamo Bay is still open, much of the ‘stimulus’ money has already been spent and the economy is still sputtering, GM is still failing, none of his diplomatic initiatives have had any positive effect whatsoever, no new financial regulation has been undertaken, and even his signature health care bill - already shredded by the Congress - has yet to become law. If that is not comprehensive failure, I don’t know what is.

Polls now not only give Obama an average approval rating of lower than 50%, but they also show that a race between him and George W. Bush would be a toss-up. They show him and the much-maligned Sarah Palin in a dead heat. That, given where we were a year ago, is the definition of failure.

Could Obama have wrung a victory out of the last year? Absolutely. If he and his advisors had grasped the opportunity that they had alluded to - a crisis truly being a terrible thing to waste - and had convinced and then executed a strategy for pushing through an agenda while waging war against the Republican Party they absolutely could have won.

First, if they were determined to go with health care as an issue (and, were I a Democrat, I would have), then they should have done it first and presented it as a core economic issue.

They should have begun the campaign for health care reform on or before January 20th.

They should have pitched the health care reform battle in economic terms - with the argument being made that the present health care system is sapping the ability of American companies to compete globally and driving jobs overseas while, at the same time, draining consumers of the money they need to reflate the economy. In a classic sleight-of-hand health care should have been presented as an economic issue.

All of the sob stories didn’t work because, first, most people who want to make public policy based on them are already Democrats and, second, tales of other people’s woes don’t sell when people are worried about themselves. Health care as a means to create jobs, to make business more competitive, and to put more money into your pocket - that’s a message that would have sold a lot better.

Second, they should have used the Obama brand (while it had value) to drive the plan, rather than outsourcing it to the Congress. Leaving the health care plan in the hands of the Democrats in Congress was, frankly, an incredibly stupid decision. Obama should have come out on the first day with a plan that consisted, at its core, of a half dozen simple and easy-to-understand points. Then they should have hammered at those points as the “Obama Plan.” Instead, they let health care turn into a Congressional sausage-making fest - a process that gained them absolutely nothing.

Third, in terms of what was in the plan, they should have swung for the fences. A single-payer plan, or something like it, would offer the most long-term political gain the Democrats because it would massively increase the number of public sector workers and the overall dependence of the population on the government. Also, unlike the present bill, it would be damned hard to undo.

Instead, the Obama people bumbled throughout the year - letting themselves be led rather than leading - finding themselves a year older and without most of their political capital holding the bag for a bill that no one believes is satisfactory. Instead, they found themselves getting drawn into bizarre struggles with Republican political figures that offered them absolutely practical gain. The better part of a year on, does anyone have any idea why the Obama people through it would be a good idea to go to war against Rush Limbaugh?

Does anyone have any good ideas as to the political reasoning that went into the gigantic “Stimulus” bill? They blew the better part of a Trillion dollars to give the economy a jolt that’s going to wear off before the mid-term elections and, in the process, probably ended up costing a number of the people who voted for it their seats.

A smarter approach would have been to break the bill up into a series of regional and sectoral stimulus bills - perhaps at a rate of one a month or so. Not only would this have provided more sustained aid to the economy, but it would also have created the all-important appearance of Obama moving from victory to victory while giving him and Congressional Democrats a chance to pander to various constituencies. At the same time, it would also probably have saved the Democrats some Congressional seats since this approach would allow some members of Congress to vote against all of the wasteful spending while simultaneously voting for those obviously non-wasteful projects that happen to help the people who voted for them.

Rather than move strategically in order to enact their agenda, the Obama people - because their egos were so inflated from their fluke win last November - tried to bluff and bully their way through the thing. They have failed miserably. Obama’s first year in office offered them a rare “unlocked wheel” moment in American politics where they might have shifted the centre of political life far to the left and forced their opponent to reposition or lose all relevance.

Indeed, while Obama’s reign may continue, the threat that he might fundamentally transform the nation is receding as the political calendar moves forward. His first year having passed, this one will be about the Congressional elections, then the next two about his re-election campaign and then, even if he does win in the end, come January 20th, 2013 he’ll be a lame duck.