1996 Redux
We’re trying to make this 1980, when a hapless president was ousted by a popular Republican. They’re trying to make this 1996, when a popular Democrat was reelected over a hapless Republican.
Turning this into 1980 means making a case to the great center of the American electorate that government is too big (and getting bigger) and that the current president is a incapable of getting the country on the right track. Some of us are more hopeful than others about the prospects of this.
Turning this election into 1996, though, means following the Clinton strategy of a dozen or so mini-initiatives that appeal to the center. In the months leading up to the election, Clinton was whirlwind of silly-sounding – though effective – announcements: he put more cops on the street, he pushed school uniforms, that sort of thing.
It worked for him. And now Obama’s trying it on for size. From Politico:
Stepping firmly onto Republican turf, President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will ask Congress for the power to merge agencies to streamline government and improve efficiency.
The president’s initiative treads firmly on the Republican orthodoxy of reducing the size and scope of government and cutting waste. It’s not the first time that the White House has tailored a proposal that put the GOP on the defensive — the payroll tax cut fight forced Republicans lawmakers to choose whether to support the president or a tax increase.
First up on Obama’s list: the merger of the Commerce Department, the Small Business Administration, the Office of the U.S. Trade representative and other independent business agencies into a new, unnamed Cabinet agency to create a more efficient experience for businesses.
Yes, I realize this is really just a call for another cabinet post. But I also think it’s the overture to a winter and spring of Obama’s 1996-style makeover as a moderate, pro-business president.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: 1996 Redux
Simple question: Does this merger increase or decrease the size of the federal work force and by what percentage compared to the size of the individual units now?
If they are planning on serious reduction of jobs and positions with the merger, how do the government employees unions feel about the move? If the numbers are staying the same or increasing, how does a merger do anything but increase the bureaucratic behemoth?
At least there is finally a concrete jobs creation proposal: + 1 cabinet post.
Nov '10
Re: 1996 Redux
A Canadian's perspective: It seems to me that american "political analysists" are overly concerned with historical patterns. In four years, the world changes. It certainly has in the past 4, probably more than ever before. Think of all the "great" transformations in American politics, when the wind shifted and something profound happened. I think you'll find that none of them followed an established historical pattern -- all such occurrences stand alone.
So I think that, unless you are hoping for more of the same, you have to think outside the box and realise that to get something new, you've got to do something new. This could be a great argument against Romney and Gingrich. (As I like Gingrich I can explain why he's not out of the cookie cutter ... I'll let the Romnists explain why he doesn't fit.) I'm not saying, merely "non-establishment", but something different, perhaps even unanticipated. A Hail Mary pass -- in the sense this was originally used, for a play so far out of the playbook it could not have been anticipated. I am personally put off by all the attempts to conjure the ghosts of the past.
Jun '10
Re: 1996 Redux
OK, Mr. President, now how about doing some REAL good? Merge the Department of Energy into the Commerce department as well.
Oct '11
Re: 1996 Redux
Quite so. They are, unfortunately, paid by the word.
Mar '11
Re: 1996 Redux
That is how Obama thinks one streamlines things, by adding another level of government oversight to them. More oversight means more regulations. More regulations mean more regulators. More regulators mean more money to pay for regulators. More money to pay for regulators means higher taxes and/or more debt.
It's not merely that he can't fix the problem. He doesn't even understand the problem.
An aside: isn't it about time that Politico changes its name to Democratico? It's not like they're fooling anybody anymore.
Nov '10
Re: 1996 Redux
This tactic can be used to easily trip Obama up. The response is simple: If it's a popular initiative, and consistent with conservative doctrine, immediately embrace it! In B.C. people used to wonder at the longevity of the Socred government under W.A.C. Bennett. My dad explained it like this: Every time the N.D.P (our socialist party) came up with an idea for a new popular policy, if he agreed with it he made it a new centerpiece of his party's platform. He basically ran on their ideas.
The benefit of this approach is severalfold.
First of all, when your opponent floats the idea first, you have the tactical advantage of knowing what the popular response will be. They take all the risk; you split the benefit.
Second, it takes the wind out of their great plays for center field. They can't get any traction on shared ground. It forces them to compete from more ideologically extreme positions.
Third, it gives you the chance to demonstrate popular bipartisan spirit.
Fourth, it can scare the heck out of the more extreme wing of the opponent's base. They get very nervous at centrist bipartisanship.
May '10
Re: 1996 Redux
Obama doesn't realize that people are wiser now...and trillions more in debt. The public is aware of this...and also aware that he isn't just doing nothing about, but is busy asking for another trillion plus.
He's dead, Jim.
Dec '10
Re: 1996 Redux
Isn't it a little bit late in the game for Obama to be creating a record to run on?
May '10
Re: 1996 Redux
For Pat Caddell:
Dec '10
Re: 1996 Redux
Cynicism in its most transparent form of contemptuousness. Like a collectivist running his presidential campaign promising a tax cut for “95% of "working families."
Our historic first Islamic apostate president—C-list impersonator of Sun Tzu in the role of a community college instructor for the introductory course “Deception in Politics-101”—appropriates the core objective of voters in opposition to his objectives—cutting taxes and reducing the size of Leviathan—as his own. Expressions of shamelessness and prevarication are his only consistent abilities.
Jun '10
Re: 1996 Redux
Rob may be right, but the Daley resignation/ouster seems to counter the Obama as moderate theme.
In the end, I'm not sure he can help himself. He's a prisoner of his ideology.
Jun '10
Re: 1996 Redux
FWIW, in today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank is trying on the argument that it is 2000 and Romney is playing Al Gore, at least personality-wise. Wish I could link to the article, but I can't--in spite of Claire's recent tutorial (which I also can't link to).
Dec '10
Re: 1996 Redux
KayBee
FWIW, in today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank is trying on the argument that it is 2000 and Romney is playing Al Gore, at least personality-wise. Wish I could link to the article, but I can't--in spite of Claire's recent tutorial (which I also can't link to). · Jan 15 at 3:45pm
Done.
Nov '10
Re: 1996 Redux
I wasn't, by the way, suggesting that this particular Obama policy is worth embracing; I'm only saying that's how to handle his moves toward the center on issues that are consistent with conservative principles.
Jan '11
Re: 1996 Redux
Will an intern be involved?
Apr '11
Re: 1996 Redux
Obama isn't sincere in this proposal and I would argue that intelligent people know it.
May '10
Re: 1996 Redux
The Dems are utterly cynical. They believe that the voters are stupid and can be deceived with a couple Potemkin villages.
Jan '11
Re: 1996 Redux
On Meet the Press today, Harry Reid said: "I hope with some cooperation from the Republicans this time, is to do something about creating jobs. Our surface transportation bill, it'll save a million jobs, create a lot more jobs, Federal Aviation Administration, that's more than 200,000 jobs."
Harry Reid thinks that creating government jobs is what we need. This is like saying that we can expand the size of the Democrat National Committee, adding hundreds -hundreds!- of jobs!
I know many honest liberals. As for the clowns that run the Democrat party, I find them the most infuriatingly dishonest people I've ever come across.
Aug '10
Re: 1996 Redux
There are several similarities between this election and 1996, and I'll post in the Member feed about some of those this week, but I don't think the similarities spell victory for Obama.
Apr '11
Re: 1996 Redux
I'm with Steyn on this stuff. It's not a matter of who will slay the three headed bureaucratic beast, but who will campaign and win on better managing the destruction it reaps. The results of these portended 'mergers' will look less like a reduction and more like the creation of a new monstrosity with the budget of a south american country.