Obama was too polite. There's no reason for anybody to be rude in these things, but his polite and collaborative style doesn't play well when the challenger is doing what challengers naturally do -- he's trying to tear you down. Speaking in culinary terms, Romney is throwing lots of red meat on the grill, and Obama is distracted by all the details involved in getting the fruits and vegetables ready for the table.
So, with the benefit of time and of 20-20 hindsight, and with the hope of a more pro-Obama outcome in the upcoming debates, here are some ideas for things that the President might have said differently and more effectively.
On the economy
(With a skeptical look at Mr. Romney) -- "Well, Mitt, it's pretty obvious that even after all this time campaigning you still don't have a clue on how to create jobs because all you do is talk this trickle-down stuff about how lowering tax rates for the wealthy will cause those people to create jobs and boost the economy, but that's never happened before and it looks like you have no idea on why it would work out differently now!"(Now turning towards the audience and the cameras with a sincere and earnest aspect) -- "On the other hand, the fundamentals of our free-market economy tell us that two big things create growth and more jobs: investment and consumer demand. Especially investment in things like infrastructure -- transportation stuff" (he uses the s-word easily; let's not try to change everything!) "like bridges so that people and goods can move more quickly, safely and economically. That means employment, which means wages, which means more consumer demand, and the consumer is 70% of our economy. That's the big lever right there!" (While firmly but quietly thumping the podium for emphasis.)
On the Federal debt
(Again with the skeptical look at Mr. Romney) -- "Mitt, you just don't seem to understand the simple math of taxes and spending. If you decrease tax rates, and don't bother to explain how other things like tax exemptions will be changed, then the Federal deficit will increase unless you cut lots and lots of spending, too. And you cannot cut the Federal spending enough by eliminating the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting while increasing what goes to defense and the military, because every year we put out 1400 times as much money on defense as we do on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting!" (This last part delivered with a wide-eyed and yet steely gaze into the cameras.)
"However," (while maintaining that steely gaze) "folks, here's the simple truth about the Federal debt: we can deal with it only by cutting down on all spending, raising more tax revenues from those who can afford to pay while not depressing their consumption, and adjusting corporate taxation and regulatory policies in such a way as to motivate businesses to do things that will cause the economy to grow, because ultimately the Federal debt is managed downward only through economic growth and balanced Federal taxation and spending policies."
(LWC note: speaking the truth can have undesirable consequences.)
On healthcare
"Mitt," (no finger-pointing here, because that's rude, but with a look of pride bordering on strutting, if that's even possible in these staged settings) "Mitt, you and our Republican colleagues have simply made no progress in understanding America's healthcare needs and solutions. Maybe you had some appreciation for this several years ago when you were governor of Massachusetts" (speaking now with a playful and friendly grin) "and you and your State Legislature put together a similar healthcare program. But I think that you have forgotten about those days. Our healthcare reforms are fully based on the same marketplace and the same businesses and organizations that Americans have used for decades. The changes make it better because now" (voice modulating to communicate triumph) "most of that marketplace's failings that have cheated Americans out of needed and affordable healthcare have been fixed, and they've been fixed by my team working with those same healthcare organizations. Why, even that $700 billion being removed from Medicare--this is the thing that you keep harping about--is being removed because the healthcare providers agreed that it is not needed as payment for services since they will no longer have to deal with huge numbers of uninsured patients!" (Cue to firmly gesturing with a slightly opened and upraised hand. . .) "Now that's how you make government and business work together for the benefit of the people!" (Say it with a look of great pleasure and success.)Finished with role-playing now; what's this all about?
None of us is responsible for what other people say. However, if we intend to let our vote be influenced because of what another says, then we have a responsibility to do some fact-checking on what we hear.
Both presidential campaigns are guilty of misstatements, omissions, deceptions and distortions. That's not telling you anything new. American politics have been full of such things since before there was a United States of America. Possibly the only American elections that have not been so afflicted were when George Washington was elected President, and those were uncontested elections. That's not going to happen again.
So, my plan is to accept the unpleasant realities of politics and deal with them by recognizing the misstatements, omissions, deceptions and distortions and learning about what's behind them.
It feels better to be running towards something rather than away from something
Much has been made about campaign "attack ads" and "negativity" in general. Both sides have indulged in this; I wish this weren't so for my side. Nonetheless, if the Obama campaign is guilty of "demonizing" Mitt Romney--as some have said--for his past attitudes and practices, then it is worth noting that none of this sinks to the depths that the right-hand side of the political spectrum has occupied for the last four years by similarly-demonizing Barack Obama on the subjects of his birth certificate, his patriotism, and a conservative-defined penchant for "class warfare."Ultimately, though, voters want to elect a President who has a well thought-out and clearly-articulated vision for the future. It's just natural that it feels better to be moving ahead and towards something, rather than to be voting against something or someone. The President and his campaign need to work on this and improve the message, both in content and in delivery.
They can do this. If the economy is the most important thing in this election, then consumer behavior is key to the whole thing, since the American consumer is generally considered to be responsible for about 70% of the nation's economic activity. Consumer behavior is the result of a fortunate combination of need, cash on hand, and confidence in financial security. The nation is sitting on a compressed spring of pent-up demand caused by four years and more of paying down debt and consequently avoiding some consumer spending; there's loads of cash squirreled away in savings and money market accounts, and employment has improved and is improving. Confidence is lacking, in large part because so much of the consumer's wealth is tied up in a housing market that is healing its wounds at too slow a pace. Devise a way to address that last piece, and the yield from it would be a convincing economic program, as discussed in an earlier posting.
Perhaps some honestly don't know where Obama is going. . .but not many
There's really not much mystery to the goals of a second Obama term as President, except in the minds of the right-wing punditocracy and any others who have been living under a rock for the last few years. Obama's commitments to using governmental leadership and activism to bring about social justice and equity, as well as economic innovation and prosperity, are already established and well-known. A second Obama Administration--in its domestic economic actions--will build further on the foundations that have already been established. These encompass his legislative achievements in healthcare and consumer financial protection, as well as targeting investments in promising national infrastructure opportunities where the risks are too great for the timid leadership that is endemic in contemporary American business. A second-term President Obama will probably find a more diplomatic way to say that last statement; by contrast, Romney as President wouldn't even want to think about it.
My advice to candidate Barack Obama is, of course, unsolicited and will probably never be seen by him or his campaign. That's OK with me. They are very busy--while probably not having as much fun with this as I am--and though they are guilty of faulty campaigning, it just seems to me that the Romney campaign's distortions amount to much bigger whoppers than anything being told by the Obama campaign. And yet those whoppers make for effective election tactics because busy voters find them easily-digestable since they are served up without a lot of facts and details.
Whoppers are full of red meat and some tasty condiments, so they show well (if you like red meat). Facts and details, by contrast, are like fruits and vegetables, and for that reason people find it easy to overlook them.
Reelecting Barack Obama as President of the United States can be done if the voters will consume the fruits and vegetables as well as the red meat. It's up to Campaign Obama to enhance the culinary experience beyond where it is now. I happen to think that the performance necessary to achieve this result will require offering fruit that is ripe and sweet, as well as vegetables that are highly-seasoned.
1 comment:
It would have been interesting to see Obama vs Christie!
Post a Comment