Frank Rich's op-ed in today's NY Times strikes me as a timely, and friendly, intervention. I haven't seen it diaried today, and I thought it worth highlighting. The best parts are toward the end of the column.
The problem is not necessarily that Obama is trying to do too much, but that there is no consistent, clear message to unite all that he is trying to do. He has variously argued that health care reform is a moral imperative to protect the uninsured, a long-term fiscal fix for the American economy and an attempt to curb insurers’ abuses. It may be all of these, but between the multitude of motives and the blurriness (until now) of Obama’s own specific must-have provisions, the bill became a mash-up that baffled or defeated those Americans on his side and was easily caricatured as a big-government catastrophe by his adversaries.
I couldn't agree more that the clarity of the resonant campaign themes has been muted, if not lost, and we--supporters and skeptics of the president alike--need a compelling story to hold all of these disparate initiatives together.
Rich makes two other important points with which most of us here would agree--follow me below the fold.
First, Frank Rich's op-ed argues that simple competence and good management will not be enough to enact the kinds of change the president promised.
Obama prides himself on not being ideological or partisan — of following, as he put it in his first prime-time presidential press conference, a "pragmatic agenda." But pragmatism is about process, not principle. Pragmatism is hardly a rallying cry for a nation in this much distress, and it’s not a credible or attainable goal in a Washington as dysfunctional as the one Americans watch in real time on cable. Yes, the Bush administration was incompetent, but we need more than a brilliant mediator, manager or technocrat to move us beyond the wreckage it left behind. To galvanize the nation, Obama needs to articulate a substantive belief system that’s built from his bedrock convictions. His presidency cannot be about the cool equanimity and intellectual command of his management style.
Rich cites the president's anti-ideological sensibility as a possible explanation, but says that's no excuse. President Obama was elected on a vision of America--of its past insights and promise, of its present dangers and controversies and of a potential future that hangs in the balance--that has faded from public view. His larger speeches still capture the vision, but he doesn't seem to include it his everyday language and day-to-day defenses of his agenda.
That he hasn’t done so can be attributed to his ingrained distrust of appearing partisan or, worse, a knee-jerk "liberal." That is admirable in intellectual theory, but without a powerful vision to knit together his vision of America’s future, he comes off as a doctrinaire Democrat anyway. His domestic policies, whether on climate change or health care or regulatory reform, are reduced to items on a standard liberal wish list. If F.D.R. or Reagan could distill, coin and convey a credo "nonideological" enough to serve as an umbrella for all their goals and to attract lasting majority coalitions of disparate American constituencies, so can this gifted president.
Rich's second point is that time is running out for the president to act. On this I couldn't agree more. The GOP is circling like so many vultures, and the election of 2010 is going to be definitive.
It's time to get back to basics. What made Obama's 2004 speech at the Democratic convention so powerful was its appeal to common themes that transcended political party. Those themes, and the desires they represent, still exist across the wide swath of the nation's people, regardless of political affiliation.
The president made a good faith effort in talking to political hacks in the GOP, trying to convince them to give up party allegiance to support the people. Well and good. But they've proven now beyond a doubt that they're too petty, or too blind, or too narrow-minded, to rise above mean calculus of political gain. It's beyond time to go over their heads to the people themselves.
And what should the story be? Nothing less than a vision of America. I don't mean a simple vision that ignores the harsh realities of today's economic and political challenges. I mean a serious, complex and realistic vision of what kind of nation he projects for 2030, when today's children are adults with jobs, homes and families of various incarnations to care for.
There is a lot of common ground on what this vision would look like. It's the America he championed as a candidate; it's the optimistic, forward-looking spirit that got him elected. But it's time to be more precise and concrete. It's time to make the case for how each initiative fits into the future goal, and how his agenda will get us there.
For what it's worth, here's the way I would frame it.
America 2030.
An innovative nation, leading in discovery of smart energy production, and conservative energy use, to fuel a new, green economy and rebuild an effective, forward leaning infrastructure.
A productive nation that nurtures development of creative goods and services that satisfy human need while protecting natural resources for future generations.
A generous nation that supports its citizens with effective, cost-efficient social programs that support mobility, creativity, innovation and productivity (see above).
President Obama is a lot smarter than I am, so I suspect his vision would be broader, deeper and more inspiring than mine. That's cool. It's really all I'm asking for: a coherent, purposive narrative that can encompass and make sense of the individual legislative efforts now underway.
UPDATE: Added link to Rich's column. It's well worth reading.