Obama’s ruthless campaign
WASHINGTON — “We’re not going back. … We’re going forward,” said President Obama during his formal campaign kickoff in Ohio. This rallying cry was pedestrian, and appropriately so. Obama is no longer a leader on horseback. His campaign—on the evidence of its first day—will be a long, unimaginative, partisan march to the sea.
Gone are the vast ambitions of national progress and healing. In Ohio on Saturday, Obama made a methodical appeal to various voting blocks—college-educated women, gays, Hispanics. He waded into the culture war on abortion, something he rarely did four years ago. And he accused the GOP of trickle-down hostility to the middle class.
To every interest group, a sop. On every wedge issue, a swat. To every class enemy, a turn in the tumbrel. Obama has gone “forward” all the way to the strategy of Walter Mondale.
The president may persuade voters with this message, but he apparently has given up trying to inspire them. And this is not a small thing, since the Obama brand once consisted mainly of inspiration.
The brand of the Obama re-election campaign, so far, is ruthlessness. It has accused Mitt Romney of being soft on bin Laden. It has singled out some Romney donors by name for public attack. Romney, we are informed, enjoys shipping jobs abroad, which is “just what you’d expect from a guy who had a Swiss bank account.” Obama has accused Republican congressional opponents of Social Darwinism and indifference to autistic children.
American politics has a long history of ruthlessness, which is not always a Nixon-like negative. Franklin Roosevelt matched the ruthlessness of dictators in his defense of democracy. Lyndon Johnson ruthlessly broke filibusters in pursuit of civil rights legislation. Robert Kennedy reportedly joked about his reputation: “I am not ruthless. And if I find the man who is calling me ruthless, I shall destroy him.” There is a political case for Obama’s early, hardball tactics. It has Democrats excited. Liberals—who have occasionally complained that Obama is not confrontational enough—are no longer complaining.
But there are downsides as well. Obama is already one of the most consistently polarizing presidents of the last 60 years. His current campaign strategy, win or lose, will deepen our national divisions. It was unreasonable to believe that Obama could reverse the long-term political trend toward polarization. But it is still sad when a leader ceases to fight the current.
Obama’s political identity is particularly vulnerable to inconsistency on this issue. More than any recent presidential candidate, his initial appeal was based on changing the political atmosphere. He would end the “partisan food fight.” There are no red or blue states, he said, just the United States.
Obama’s agenda, strategy and rhetoric are now solidly blue—perhaps for sound political reasons. But Obama’s talent for inspiration was the single most interesting thing about him as a politician. Without that aspiration, what is left of his appeal? This is the reason his Ohio speech seemed so boring, particularly in comparison to his speeches four years ago. There was little that couldn’t be said by any liberal politician, at any time. Obama has lost more than a campaign talking point; he has lost one of the main reasons for his rise.
What principle or purpose unites Obama’s initial campaign with his current re-election effort? There is little obvious continuity—apart from one, unchanging commitment. The cause that has outlasted hope and change is Obama himself.
There have always been two parts of Obama’s political persona, both of which were essential to his rapid advancement. There is the Hyde Park Obama, lecturing on constitutional law, quoting Reinhold Niebuhr and transcending old political divisions. There is also the South Side Obama, who rose in Chicago politics by doing what it takes.
This is not unusual. All politicians believe that their tenacity and competitiveness are servants to their idealism. But as the Hyde Park Obama fades, the South Side Obama becomes less appealing.
All of the atmospheric elements of politics—unity, bipartisanship and common purpose—are significantly worse than four years ago. This is not all Obama’s fault. But he is choosing—in a campaign so nasty, so early—to make it worse. At some point, ruthlessness just leaves ruins.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.
May 8, 2012 at 10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Che, Obama's only real job was passing out leaflets in Chicago, job training to be a POTUS.
May 8, 2012 at 9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
smh
May 8, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
POLL: Kaysbrew 40, SarahB 40, Mouse 15(I assume voter fraud), and Feduptaxpayer deferred his 5 to Walker.
May 8, 2012 at 4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
POLL: ROMNEY 49, OBAMA 44...
May 8, 2012 at 3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
916WI, I know, I know. Republicans are the real victims. Mitt Romney regularly dines on ramen noodles. David Koch worries about his retirement money lasting. Diane Hendricks has to sit in line in an office to make sure that her health care is activated this month. Pity all of them. Those Democrats -- man, they don't have any valid complaints, they just enjoy holding signs and standing out in the cold. Yep. It's Republicans who are the true victims in our society.
.
Thank God they have dopes like you to help them out, because without you, where would they be?
May 8, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Janesvillean......You could definitely say the same thing about the democrats.....except for the comment about being cute though. There's really nothing cute about these constantly whining, crying babies:)
May 8, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pointing out the obvious, it seems, is now "ruthless". I love when Republicans writhe on the floor and play the victim card. They look so cute.
May 8, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
"When you gonna get off the bong Pan Red?"
-
Great retort Che and certainly worthy of your troll status.
May 8, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
'I would rather Romney pay big bucks for his clothes than the taxpayers paying big bucks for Michele to go on vacations all the time'
Whose dime do you think Mrs. Romney would travel on??
May 8, 2012 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
I would rather Romney pay big bucks for his clothes than the taxpayers paying big bucks for Michele to go on vacations all the time
May 8, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sarah, re: Romney pays big bucks for his clothes. Glad to see you are noting the important things we should look for in a candidate!
May 8, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ignore previous post. It was supposed to be on another article. Sorry.
May 8, 2012 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kaysbrew: Yes, I actually am a Vietnam and Persian Gulf War Veteran. I am sorry I made a comparison to teachers or in your case, bus drivers. Maybe it is not the same, but I just feel we cannot keep criticizing a specific group of people for causing our State's problem when it is NOT just one group. I will sign off now and probably not blog again. What I say does not and will not ever matter to people who think differently than me and vice versa.
May 8, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
SarahB1, I sure hope that other folks' nasty isn't rubbing off on you. Say it ain't so!
May 8, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
"It is obvious that you made that determination based on this one post by me despite my hundreds of other posts that have established my position."
-
Several of your previous posts have shown support for Republican candidates and conservative ideas Third Eye, regardless of how "independent" you may think you are. Wow, so sorry I misinterpreted your sarcastic remark. I think mine is quite clear.
-
FYI SarahB1, "premier" is troll for President.
May 8, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
PanamaRed, good catch on third_eye's comment implying Gerson a liberal. But it should give you an idea just how far to the right and off the conservative cliff third_eyes views are if Gerson is seen as a liberal. We are dealing with raging lunatics here.
May 8, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
PanamaRed; "Face it Third Eye, you would vote for a Republican no matter WHO it was running for office. So what is your point?"
It is obvious that you made that determination based on this one post by me despite my hundreds of other posts that have established my position.
My point???? to further the conversation. Yours???
Re: Gerson, I guess for some people sarcasm has to be spelled out. I will try to use the universal /s (sarcasm off) in the future.
May 8, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hardtobelieve, I agree with you on Huckabee. I think he would have drawn more votes than McCain in 2008. He should have taken a shot at 2012.
Hillary would have been a better choice in 2008 for the Dems. She at least 'knows when to hold em and knows when to fold em' (and she knows where the bodies are buried). She would be coasting to a second term in 2012 while Obama has a good chance to lose his bid for a second term.
May 8, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
jcommon
.
Hardtobelieve,
Remember this saying:
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Mitt isn't great, but Obama is worse.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc...
.
May 8, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Liberals know it's over when they have lost Michael Gerson."
-
Say what? That would be like saying Republicans know it's over when they have lost Bill Maher. Gerson is an ultra conservative. So much so that Time magazine named him as one of the 25 most influential Evangelicals in America. Face it Third Eye, you would vote for a Republican no matter WHO it was running for office. So what is your point?
May 8, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Third-eye. You are right, I have no defense of Obama but I still feel he is a better choice of the two. I voted for Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, so I am not inclined to just vote Democratic. I would have liked to seen someone else besides Romney. I was always a big Huckabee fan in the past. The good ones never make it for some reason. I also wanted Hillary to win the nomination in 2008.
May 8, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not a big fan of Obama for going against his word and actually using federal resources to arrest state law biding citizens but I feel he has done as well as could be expected w the economy. It may not be the same path McCain would have taken, but I believe we would be in a similar position either way. I also believe that it will continue to ebb and flow in the same mojo it ALWAYS has, regardless of who wins this fall.
May 8, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hardtobelieve presents no defense of Obama, just critisism over the Republican's choice of Romney.
Did you want somebody better to vote for? Who would have met your qualifications?
Face it Hardtobelieve, you voted for Obama and you will vote for him again no matter what the Republicans do.
Liberals know it's over when they have lost Michael Gerson.
May 8, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
350 million, 250 million, what does it matter? Still hard to believe Mitt is the best you can come up with? I am better off now than I have been since 1999. Like I said, I WILL vote for President Obama AGAIN.
May 8, 2012 at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hardtobelieve,
Remember this saying:
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." Mitt isn't great, but Obama is worse.
May 8, 2012 at 6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
hard, you got the population number wrong as well.
May 8, 2012 at 6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hard...well YOU came up with Obama. Boy, were you a sucker!
May 8, 2012 at 6:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
And I will vote for him again. I can't believe this country has over 350 million people and the BEST the Rebubs can come up with is Mitt.
May 8, 2012 at 5:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Obama has no pride, just ego. He is the emperor with no clothes.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.