Outsider in Chief
Saturday 30 January 2010
by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed
Washington - President Obama's first State of the Union address didn't signal a political shift to the left or the right. It sounded more like a shrewd attempt to move from the inside to the outside -- to position himself alongside disaffected voters, peering through the windows of the den of iniquity called Washington and reacting with dismay at the depravity within.
In the course of a 70-minute speech, Obama slammed almost everybody in town. He even included a little self-deprecation and self-doubt -- "I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change -- or that I can deliver it." But that followed a lengthy indictment of how Washington works, or doesn't work. It is a tribute to Obama's rhetorical gifts that the man at the center of our political system could position himself as an exasperated but hopeful outsider.
Unsurprisingly, the president called out the Republicans for being consistently obstructionist: "If the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town ... then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership."
But he also called out the Democrats: "I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills."
He called out both parties at once, in a passage that was about reducing the deficit but could have applied to health care or just about any other issue: "Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. A novel concept."
He called out the media: "The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away." Hmmm, who on earth would do such a thing?
He even called out the Supreme Court , with six black-robed justices in attendance, for its recent ruling on campaign finance: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections." With all due respect: Some deference. Justice Samuel Alito should have been able to restrain himself from mouthing what appeared to be "Not true, not true," but he probably hadn't expected to find himself in a free-fire zone.
All of this excoriation, it looks to me, serves a political purpose. One obvious lesson from last summer's town-hall shoutfests, the rise of the Tea Party movement and the victory of pickup-truck-driving Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election is that many voters are deeply alienated from Washington. Another lesson, especially from Brown's Senate win, is that the legions who were so enthralled by Obama's candidacy that they elected Democrats across the country are now unmotivated and perhaps disenchanted.
But polls show that Obama remains personally popular -- and that voters hold him less responsible for government dysfunction than either Republicans or Democrats in Congress. In Wednesday's speech, Obama used his campaign theme of "change" not just to reignite the fervor of disappointed supporters but also to speak to angry critics for whom "Washington" is an epithet not uttered in polite company.
No, he won't be able to appease the hard-core Tea Party crowd. But independent voters who are fed up with partisan gridlock heard the president invite Republicans to offer their ideas on health care, energy, education and other issues. I believe he may have succeeded at making it more difficult for Republicans to keep giving "no" as their all-purpose answer to anything the administration proposes. The president sounded reasonable and open; the opposition risks sounding truculent and Machiavellian.
Obama was at his most popular when he was seen as a different kind of politician, one who would speak harsh truths to friends as well as adversaries, one who offered not cynical calculation but unapologetic hope. In his State of the Union speech, he sought once again to sound the themes -- and inhabit the persona -- of his remarkable campaign. He's been president for a year, but he sounded like an outsider again.
Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
THis seems like a possible-
Sat, 01/30/2010 - 14:59 — Auntie Tom (not verified)THis seems like a possible- and very happily received- reading of Obama's speech. Time will tell. Meanwhile, we ought to pressure him as visibly as possible for the changes we want. For example, how's about a renewed Civilian Conservation Corps or other New Deal-style projects that directly pay the workers rather than corporate contractors? And don't forget the artists!
Auntie Tom, you are right
Sat, 01/30/2010 - 17:58 — Jeanie Kilgour (not verified)Auntie Tom, you are right on! The country is still benefiting from some of those projects today.
Sounds great and would be
Sat, 01/30/2010 - 18:04 — Sharon Toji (not verified)Sounds great and would be great, but the "powers that be," which is the Obama Administration have already decreed that, just like Single Payer for health care reform, no such program will be part of the jobs discussion. The major offering is a tax credit to small business for hiring new employees. That's great if you made a profit and owe taxes, but if you didn't, like our business and most people we know, you owe no taxes and have no money to hire anyone.
A WPA or CCC type program would give money directly to people who would spend it, and who would pay taxes, including income and sales taxes. That would prime the pump and we could all prosper.
The only argument offered for not doing this is that such jobs are not "real jobs." Tell that to the people who would be working and earning money to pay their rent and buy their food.
When Rahm Emauel goes, we'll
Sat, 01/30/2010 - 19:29 — Anonymous (not verified)When Rahm Emauel goes, we'll know he's backing up the rhetoric
MY OPINION : I agree..,
Sun, 01/31/2010 - 07:19 — Anonymous (not verified)MY OPINION : I agree.., Rahm Emanuel should go... and so should just about all the 'Washington Regulars' in the White House... They're all Corporate Lackeys and the Public is aware of it. Though I believe that CONservatives should bear the most blame for their relentless drive to take us down the road to 'Less and Less Government' at the greedy behest of Global Corporations, Democrat insiders are just as guilty for their 'Go along to get along' ways which has led US all to the transformation of our Republic into a Corporatacracy, ... Obama, could Bunker-up' the White House and his Presidency and tear this disastrous CONservative-Corporate Flim Flam down and give us back OUR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and perhaps become one of the Greatest Presidents in US History... Or... he could just keep trying to Get Along with the 'Elected' Smily-Faced Indifferent Republic-Backstabbers while they continue to destroy Our Republic through their Corporate Glad Handing Ways...
Our DULY ELECTED (finally!)
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 09:52 — granny (not verified)Our DULY ELECTED (finally!) President should get rid of Emanuel, Geithner and Holder, and Senate leadership should give Lieberman a very public rebuke for being the lying traitor he is. Let's get real - President Obama is being ill-served and the country deserves better.
I'm with you, granny.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:09 — Frances in California (not verified)I'm with you, granny. Emanuel has not been the friend of Middle-Class Americans since he went so far out of his way to ruin the Kerry campaign in '04. He stonewalled the Public who wanted to talk to the President about the need for a Public Option. He's totally the Pentagon's lapdog . . . I don't even like sharing my oxygen with him. As for Geithner, only people with their fingers in their ears for the last nine months could NOT know what a failure he is as Treasury. Holder doesn't have the cujones to prosecute the torturers so, between just the three of them (and I have no use for Duncan and not much for Salazar)(still waiting for Hilary to purge Blackwater from her Dept), the Executive Branch of our Government is missing essential body parts (like brains, heart and balls).