December 21, 2009--"Total Victory"
The original headline for the New York Times story was “Denied Total Victory, Obama Accepts Validation.” It was subsequently changed on the Web from which I have linked it below. Published Sunday, it reported about the results of the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen and the vote in the U.S. Senate on health care reform, pointing out the obvious—in neither case did President Obama get all he wanted. In neither case did he achieve “total victory.”
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted as having said that “the only thing not negotiable is success.” But, the Times reports,” the last few days in Denmark and on Capital Hill reveal how the president applies Emanuel’s maxim to governing, to Obama’s definition of success—get as much as you can and declare victory.
For anyone who even casually follows politics the only appropriate response is, “Duh.”
What political leader doesn’t put the best face on things? Though to his credit, Obama did indicate in both instances that what was achieved was only a start, not the end of what he says he will continue to strive for during the next three to seven years.
Deeper into the article Rahm Emanuel says more about Obama’s governing style, a style I have repeatedly criticized here, but since the jury is still very much out on his presidency, it may be benefit of the doubt time, at least in regard to climate change initiatives and health care reform. And it is important to be reminded that the Senate vote early this morning was not for the final full bill but only to break the Republican filibuster and that when the Senate version of a health care bill is approved later this week it will need to be reconciled with the House version—which is much more liberal—and passed in that form back in the Senate where it will again face full Republican intransigence. Remember, for the GOP the real goal is to destroy the Obama presidency.
About that governing style Emanuel said that Obama “sets out the North Star for us,” in terms of broad and ambitious goals, and then asks Congress and his staff to work out the details. “He doesn’t negotiate the ends. He is very open to discussing alternative routes.”
Perhaps this is the only approach that has any chance of accomplishing anything during these hyper-partisan times. A president who blusters and tries to twist arms in the mode of Lyndon Johnson is unlikely to succeed even partially where every Senator now is a prince or princess.
As an example of what Obama is up against, the Times quotes John Feehery, a representative Republican strategist who is perhaps more revealing in what he has to say than he might have liked. It is thus worth quoting in full. Referring to the global warming and health care deals, and reflecting what was behind the meaning of the original “Total Victory” headline, he says:
“They are pyrrhic victories. Neither will necessarily improve his poll ratings with swing voters, nor will they energize his base. And neither take[s] the necessary steps to put the American economy back on track, which should be the only thing he is thinking about right now.”
First, I am impressed that he knows the meaning of the phrase “pyrrhic victory,” which we liberals of course all know is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered devastating casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. This gives Feehery some cred.
But how debased our consideration of issues has become that the opposition to Obama and the Democrats can only deal with things in a political perspective—about improving poll numbers and energizing bases.
And what kind of advice is it, if I can call it that, that the President of the United States in these complex and dangerous times should be thinking about only one thing? Yes, politically, it’s still “the economy stupid”; but then there is also Iraq and Afghanistan and the environment and education and nuclear proliferation and, least we forget, health care too.
But Feehery as well as his Republican and also his Democratic kind know that they will not get quoted in the New York Times or be invited to appear on Fox News or MSNBC unless they come up with these kinds of catchy sound bites. It’s sadly become mostly about the contesting and little about the substance.
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted as having said that “the only thing not negotiable is success.” But, the Times reports,” the last few days in Denmark and on Capital Hill reveal how the president applies Emanuel’s maxim to governing, to Obama’s definition of success—get as much as you can and declare victory.
For anyone who even casually follows politics the only appropriate response is, “Duh.”
What political leader doesn’t put the best face on things? Though to his credit, Obama did indicate in both instances that what was achieved was only a start, not the end of what he says he will continue to strive for during the next three to seven years.
Deeper into the article Rahm Emanuel says more about Obama’s governing style, a style I have repeatedly criticized here, but since the jury is still very much out on his presidency, it may be benefit of the doubt time, at least in regard to climate change initiatives and health care reform. And it is important to be reminded that the Senate vote early this morning was not for the final full bill but only to break the Republican filibuster and that when the Senate version of a health care bill is approved later this week it will need to be reconciled with the House version—which is much more liberal—and passed in that form back in the Senate where it will again face full Republican intransigence. Remember, for the GOP the real goal is to destroy the Obama presidency.
About that governing style Emanuel said that Obama “sets out the North Star for us,” in terms of broad and ambitious goals, and then asks Congress and his staff to work out the details. “He doesn’t negotiate the ends. He is very open to discussing alternative routes.”
Perhaps this is the only approach that has any chance of accomplishing anything during these hyper-partisan times. A president who blusters and tries to twist arms in the mode of Lyndon Johnson is unlikely to succeed even partially where every Senator now is a prince or princess.
As an example of what Obama is up against, the Times quotes John Feehery, a representative Republican strategist who is perhaps more revealing in what he has to say than he might have liked. It is thus worth quoting in full. Referring to the global warming and health care deals, and reflecting what was behind the meaning of the original “Total Victory” headline, he says:
“They are pyrrhic victories. Neither will necessarily improve his poll ratings with swing voters, nor will they energize his base. And neither take[s] the necessary steps to put the American economy back on track, which should be the only thing he is thinking about right now.”
First, I am impressed that he knows the meaning of the phrase “pyrrhic victory,” which we liberals of course all know is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered devastating casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. This gives Feehery some cred.
But how debased our consideration of issues has become that the opposition to Obama and the Democrats can only deal with things in a political perspective—about improving poll numbers and energizing bases.
And what kind of advice is it, if I can call it that, that the President of the United States in these complex and dangerous times should be thinking about only one thing? Yes, politically, it’s still “the economy stupid”; but then there is also Iraq and Afghanistan and the environment and education and nuclear proliferation and, least we forget, health care too.
But Feehery as well as his Republican and also his Democratic kind know that they will not get quoted in the New York Times or be invited to appear on Fox News or MSNBC unless they come up with these kinds of catchy sound bites. It’s sadly become mostly about the contesting and little about the substance.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:52 AM
2 Comments:
The reporter asked me a question about the political ramifications, not about the substance, of the two so-called victories. Had he asked me about the substance of either deal, I would have given my concerns about the cost and effectiveness of both, but he didn't. He asked me about the politics. Don't blame me because I answered the question.
John Feehery
You may have answered the political question but in your answer revealed that all you care about is winning, not what's good for America. That was my point. And if you had been asked about the substance, what would you have said about what needs to be done to reduce global warming and provide health care for the uninsured? I can only imagine.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home