The Question About Obama Is Not “Will He” But “Can He” Tack Right?

posted at 1:32 pm on January 23, 2010 by
[ Fiscal Stimulus ]   

Now that the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy is in the history books and the implications thereof are clear to any observer with a working brain, comparisons between 1994 and the political landscape now have begun to surface. It was in 1994 of course when Bill Clinton, along with other Americans, watched control of Congress shift from Democrat to Republican for the first time in forty years.

Clinton’s now-famous reaction was guided by pragmatism. Following the old adage about joining ‘em when you can’t beat ‘em, he abandoned his lofty liberal ambitions and tacked politically right — and won a second term two years later.

The similarities between then and now are inescapable. Clinton, like Obama, was trying to push a massive health-care reform through Congress and down the throats of the American people. Obama, like Clinton, has now failed. By any intelligent reckoning, ObamaCare is dead. What’s more, the future of Democrat control of one or both houses is in peril, owing to their leadership’s ham-handed and devious approach to get their agenda passed.

The question everyone now seems to be asking is “Will Obama tack right in an effort to salvage his party’s damaged reputation and possibly earn himself a second term?” That question is the wrong one to ask. The correct question is “Can Obama tack right?” The answer, I am convinced, is no. The facts as they are known suggest otherwise.

First, consider Obama’s political upbringing. He was raised in the Chicago political machine. His friends include a number of shady far-left characters whose names are so well-known that repeating them here would be an act of redundancy. Anyone that far left on the political spectrum has no clue where the center is. In Obama’s world, he probably fancies himself to be close to the center right now. And he’ll be damned if he’s going to become some blanking conservative.

Second, look at Obama’s personality. I understand that many Americans when polled profess to like him as a person, though I can’t for the life of me understand why. The constellation of personality traits he has revealed — haughtiness, think skin, readiness to heap blame on others (or at least “other”) for his shortcomings, unwillingness to accept responsibility for mistakes, ingenuousness, naivete, and rigidity — do not add up to a flattering picture. Perhaps I am discounting the power of his silver-tongued oratory, but I think it is more accurate to assume that people formed an image of him early on that they were eager to accept and that old habits die hard. In any case, the last of the character traits cited, rigidity — coupled with his massive ego — does not suggest a man who will change even when political expedience recommends that he do so.

Obama has already made it clear, most recently in his town hall yesterday in Elyria, Ohio, that he plans to dig in. Consider this statement he made:

Now, here’s the message I want you to take away — and we’re going to have a lot of time for questions, but I want to make this absolutely clear. I did not run for President to turn away from these challenges. I didn’t run to kick these challenges down the road. I ran for President to confront them — once and for all.

And what was one of the challenges he doesn’t intend to run away from? He gave utterance to it in his next comment: “to deal with the problem of runaway health insurance costs that are breaking family budgets and breaking business budgets and breaking our national budgets.”

Yessir, that’s what the American people want to hear their president talk about right now — runaway health insurance costs. If it were anybody besides this guy, you might actually feel sorry for him.

In an old Gahan Wilson cartoon in Playboy, two men standing at the stern of a boat stare at the water, out of which emerges the middle finger of their companion who moments earlier drowned. “Young Smithers,” one of the men says. “Bitter to the end.” Keep that image in mind this coming week, when Obama delivers his first State of the Union, during which that raised middle finger will be prominently displayed in his words and demeanor. Keep it in mind again in November of 2012, when Democrats stare down at the water and lament, Young Obama, bitter — and clueless — to the end.”

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Strategically, I’m not certain it does not make sense for them to dig in. They’ve got nothing accomplished except a tanking economy, spent political capital, burned bridges, and a pi$$ed-off electorate.

The future only is going to get tougher politically, so they better foist what they can, now.

Punditpawn on January 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM

I agree with other mental health clinicians that Obama is a narcissist and the above arguement that he is too rigid and clueless to turn politically to the right. Even now that he theoretically but desperately needs to do this for his political survival. However there is another possibility I believe that is also in play. Not mutually exclusive with the above.

Obama’s entire upbringing starting with his childhood mentor (Soviet Communist Frank Davis) to Rev. Wright to Ayers and others suggest he has another agenda. One which he has been trying to cloak but one that explains all his anti-business economy destroying efforts. These continue relentlessly despite his retoric to the contrary. It also explains his backwards approach to handling terrorists.

Beck this week warned that Obama was in increasing physical danger from his far left cronies as they see themselves losing their grip on power as a result of his failures. But what if instead of his programs being failures (to make things better) they are designed to continue to make things worse. What are the chances he will continue take steps to weaken this country economically and security wise intentionally until there is public outrage so strong he feels justified in some sort of militaristic crack down and takeover to stifle dissent, where he imposes martial law and we revert another Cuba? He continues to take steps to push forward his agenda by fiat, without the approval of Congress, simply by executive order. The public is largely unaware of this. What will happen when these stealth socialist programs are confronted and attempts are made to halt them? Does he really want to foment public anger and outrage till he has an excuse to excercise what may be his endgame? I think these are the questions no one wants to confront. I think it’s time to consider the unthinkable.

shmendrick on January 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM

Obama has too many socialists shaping his world view to tack right:

Obama Sr.
Frank Marshall Davis
Saul Alinsky
Rev. Wright

Disturb the Universe on January 23, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Oh, forgot Ayers.

Why do I get the feeling Obama has spent a lifetime trying to symbolically recapture daddy’s love?

Disturb the Universe on January 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Hmmmm

@ Howard Portnoy

Obama cannot move to the center because there is no process that would allow it. Basically in order for a President to move to the center, from Left or Right, he has to have at least some credibility amongst those that he would appeal to. Like ballroom dancing it isn’t something you can do on your own.

So who does Obama had credibility with? Not conservatives. Not Republicans. Almost definitely not with moderates or independents. And a significant number of moderate Democrats oppose him now. And even the far left doesn’t really trust him, though that is somewhat irrelevant for this discussion.

The reality is that even if Obama wanted to or tried to move to the center … who would believe him?

Obama put down a lot of markers during the campaign to get elected and then once in office he basically piss on all of them in very public ways. If Obama came to you and promised you something … would you believe him? Or would you look back on all of the failed promises and consider when and how he would instead shove a stiletto in between your ribs?

Obama can’t move to the center. Not because of ideology. But because nobody will trust that any such move is either legitimate or not a cover for a future backstab.

memomachine on January 23, 2010 at 5:20 PM

In additon to the above-expressed reasons why Obama can’t/won’t tack right – he is owned by big labor.

. What are the chances he will continue take steps to weaken this country economically and security wise intentionally until there is public outrage so strong he feels justified in some sort of militaristic crack down and takeover to stifle dissent, where he imposes martial law and we revert another Cuba?

What Shmendrick said – I think Beck talked about the possibility of this very scenario. Scary stuff.

4Freedom on January 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM

The best Democratic strategy on Helathcare, from their point of view, is to push straight ahead and declare defeat as soon as possible. That way they can “hard pivot” with a semi-clear conscious, plus they can shift the blame to evil Republicans and a whole new bunch of villains this November. After all, someone on their side is going to break first and put these bills out of their misery. So who better to blame?

Fred 2 on January 23, 2010 at 7:48 PM

And as a scary postscript to what I said earlier, remember what he said during the election about wanting a domestic military, “just as strong, just as well funded” as the regular armed forces. Why would he need this, why would he want such a thing?

shmendrick on January 23, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Obama can’t move to the right at least until 2011 with any hope of winning back the swing voters because he has no tangible Republican power structure to triangulate against — Nancy Pelosi is the leader of the House, not John Boehner, and Harry Reid runs the Senate, not Mitch McConnell. Clinton after 1994 could attack Gingrich with the confidence that the big media would have his back and blame Newt (and Trent Lott) for any gridlock, as with the ’95 budget battle. Obama can’t do that directly, which is why he’s using the banks as a surrogate for the GOP, and hoping Republicans will come to the defense of the big banks so that he can deal class warfare cards out all over the place.

If the GOP does win the House and/or Senate this November, Obama might be able to move to the right, but he’s going to have to be led there by someone like Rahm who decides getting re-elected in 2012 is more important than keeping their far left interest groups happy. But even then, he can’t just expect to be re-elected by having his spinners and the big media say Boehner and McConnell are the new Bush and Cheney; he’s got to actually do something to make the swing voters believe he really has changed course.

That’s why Morris pushed Clinton so hard to sign the welfare reform bill in 1996, and that’s probably where Obama’s going to fail, because to do that means to actually go out and proactively challenge your special interests on the left. And while Barack Obama will anger his core groups by not acting fast enough on their demands, he has yet to tell any of them to their faces to pound sand, because a Barack Obama with the psyche to be aggressive and in the face of both opponents and allies would have scared off Democratic primary voters to Hillary two years ago and never gotten elected in the first place.

jon1979 on January 23, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Shmendrick, I’ve heard the “Manchurian candidate” argument before, but I think it gives Obama way too much credit. Sure he’s devious, but I just don’t think he’s smart enough to embrace such a strategy. I think he’s just so narcissistic, so steeped in leftist rhetoric, and so incredibly clueless about ordinary people, that he really believes he can still win a majority over with his “charm” and “oratory” (neither of which has ever been apparent to me). I completely agree with Howard here.

Obama’s just not that smart, IMO. Bill Clinton was smart, and Bill was able to change course when he saw that was his best option. Obama’s riding for a fall in 2012, and he will leave the WH never understanding that he was his own worst enemy all along.

Rosmerta on January 24, 2010 at 1:28 AM

Bill Clinton was/is more able to connect with people than Obama. “I feel your pain”, for example. At this point Obama could say this but no one would believe him as he has pretty much lost all credibility at this point. I think Obama’s narcissism is also now quite clear to most and I agree that it limits his options. I also agree that he’s not the brightest bulb in the White House crew but as Beck has pointed out, that crew is made up of some very far left idealogues. “Power comes at the point of a gun”, etc. Ayers old group discussed “eliminating” those who might not go along with their plans. They estimated this group to number around 25 million. If things look like they are coming to a head the Soros crew may decide it’s time for heads to roll.

And they won’t be singing “I ain’t got nobody.” Sorry I just couldn’t resist.

shmendrick on January 24, 2010 at 1:55 AM

Our only defense against an Obama coup (should one ever be attempted) is that our military is sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and I fully believe they would not support a rogue Commander-in-Chief. Especially one they so dislike.

RebeccaH on January 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM

RebeccaH on January 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM

That’s what I’m also counting on. But it would create a monumental crisis that our foes might/would try to take advantage of.

shmendrick on January 24, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I don’t think Obama is aiming to stage a coup. The military wouldn’t let him. But I do believe that he’s an agent for the Socialist International and that his objective is to Cloward-Piven the economy so that there will be additional government takeovers required. Considering that FDR used the great depression to institute fascist and socialist policies that would never have been enacted previously, I can imagine Obama planning to wreck the economy as a prelude to a Marxist restructuring.

NNtrancer on January 24, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Well if his Marxist “restructuring” goes too much further not only will he totally wreck the ecomomy but there will be a popular revolt that will make the tea parties look like… well… tea parties. This is why gun and ammo sales have been through the roof since even before the election and why the Dems are trying to reduce 2nd amendment rights every where, any way they can.

shmendrick on January 24, 2010 at 8:33 PM

I understand that many Americans when polled profess to like him as a person, though I can’t for the life of me understand why.

I agree, I don’t understand what people see in him that is likeable. I do feel over time, more people will see and recognize this ugly side of his personality. I see him leaving office in three years as one of the biggest failures and most disliked presidents ever.

PatMac on January 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM

Obama is no Big Dawg
he is constitutionally, pardon the pun, incapable of shifting unless he is suddenly surrounded by people who think the way the American middle class does, THEN and only then will he ‘become’ like us

he is Zelig, the chameleon man, there is nothing underneath his facade, he shifts like the sands, whomever he is with he reflects back at them their own beliefs

malignant narcissist
with Plouffe back telling him fight, fight, it will get much worse

ginaswo on January 25, 2010 at 10:25 AM