Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
For the last nine days, I have wracked my brains in search of a silver lining, and I have to confess that I do not see any. Barack Obama may have won a squeaker on the 6th of November, but what he eked out was nonetheless a victory -- which means that Obamacare and Dodd-Frank will be implemented, and which makes it very likely that he will be able to reshape the Supreme Court to his liking. That we lost ground in the Senate on the same day merely adds to my dismay, and I regret to have to report that we were outvoted in the elections to the House of Representatives as well. If the Republicans retain control, it is because of majority minority districting and because of gerrymandering in states where the Republicans controlled the legislatures.
There may, however, be this as a consolation. Barack Obama is not likely to have a pleasant second term. Few second-term Presidents do, and he is especially ill-placed. Nearly all Presidents who have run for reelection and actually managed to win have garnered a greater margin of the votes the second time than when they first ran. Like Woodrow Wilson, however, Barack Obama saw his margin decline -- and decline dramatically. Had Mitt Romney had a better ground operation, had he merely secured as many votes as had John McCain, the race would have been exceedingly close, and Romney might have eked out a victory in the electoral college. What happened on the 6th of November was that the voters chose between two individuals and selected the one they disliked the least. This leaves the President exceedingly vulnerable should he misstep.
And, of course, he has done just that. He ran a viciously negative campaign against a thoroughly decent man, and he did everything that he could to divide the nation bitterly along racial, ethnic, and sexual lines. It worked in the end, but it has left a bad taste in many mouths, and payback is in the offing.
Even more to the point, as Stanley Kurtz explained in an important blogpost entitled Get Ready for Obama’s First Term, “in order to secure re-election,” Obama “backloaded nearly all of his most transformative and controversial changes into a second term. Obama’s next term will actually put into effect health-care reform, Dodd-Frank, and a host of other highly controversial policies that are already surging through the pipeline yet still barely known to the public.”
While reelection may bring sullen public acceptance when Obama’s most controversial policies actually take effect, the reverse is equally possible. Once people actually begin to experience de facto health-care rationing, for example, they might get even angrier than they were in 2009–2010, when rationing was only a prospect. The same principle applies to a host of other issues (cap-and-trade via regulation, financial regulations, comprehensive immigration reform, national school curricula, urban-suburban policy). And this time, the public could be angered not only by the policies, but by growing recognition that actual enactment of Obama’s agenda was delayed for political purposes.
You could argue, Kurtz concedes, that “a barely-reelected president would be smart to pull in his horns and govern from the middle.” But Kurtz doubts that the President will do so, and he is surely right:
[T]hat’s not who Barack Obama is, and it’s certainly not the premise upon which he ran his campaign. Obama took the intentionally risky path of alienating half the country with an in-your-face negative campaign because he believed that demographics now allow him to cobble together a leftist majority in support of transformative change. Whether that demographic vision is accurate or not, Obama and his advisers believe that it is, and so will govern with relative disregard for opposition, however vocal.
The reelection of a Republican House of Representatives might also seem to have a moderating impact on the president, and to a limited degree it does. Yet Obama has cast aside conventional restraints on executive power with his pre-election orders on welfare reform and immigration. He will thus interpret reelection as a license to rule by executive order — well beyond the traditional limits on executive power. In the absence of intense populist pressure on a Congress facing another tea-party electoral wave in 2014, it will be impossible to prevent Obama from abusing his executive authority.
Even the conventional post-election honeymoon period may be short-lived. A huge controversy over the fiscal cliff looms in the lame-duck session of Congress. Obama has predicted that in the wake of his reelection, the Republican “fever” will break. Given the stakes, his conduct of this campaign, and Obama’s evident transformative intentions, a bitter showdown is more probable.
The long and short of it is that President Obama has won reelection, but in a way likely to propel national polarization well beyond its current level. By delaying his most controversial policy changes to a second term, laying the basis for (arguably unconstitutional) rule by executive order, and running a negative campaign designed to realign the electorate leftward, Obama has laid the foundation for a high-conflict future. What’s more, he knows it, and he’s ready for it. Obama is willing to pay the price of national division for the sake of making the transformative changes he seeks. So a massive increase in polarization is exactly what we’re likely to get.
Think about it. A host of seniors are about to be thrown out of Medicare Advantage. Innumerable Americans will soon, contrary to Barack Obama’s solemn promises, lose their health insurance, and they will have to turn to the healthcare exchanges. To this we can add that another recession is on the horizon, that taxes will go up, and that the deficit will continue to balloon.
There is, of course more. Barack Obama is given to lying, and he can rely on the likes of Candy Crowley to cover for him. You can fool the American people, and Barack Obama did just that. But you cannot fool them indefinitely. Sooner or later the chickens come home to roost, and those who have been fooled get angry. Obama’s troubles may be about to begin, as Barack's Benghazi Bungle gets exposed.
In the course of the campaign, when Al Waeda and its associates assassinated the American ambassador to Libya, Barack Obama and his minions -- including his ambassador to the United Nations, his Secretary of State, and his CIA director – conspired to misrepresent to the American people what had taken place. What happened in Benghazi was a demonstration that got out of hand, they told us. It was all the fault of a wicked Copt who made an offensive film, and we are going to make him regret it. So they told us.
Thanks to leaks from the CIA -- which the administration had tagged to take the fall for the disinformation peddled by the President and his subordinates -- we learned that, within hours of the disaster in Benghazi, the White House had been told that the assault was a terrorist act, and it had been informed as to the name of the local militia responsible for our ambassador's murder. In the face of these leaks, the flacks who pass themselves off as reporters working for the mainstream press successfully ran interference for the President prior to the election, deep-sixing embarrassing information and directing the attention of the public elsewhere. But they can now no longer do so -- for there is very little other news to report; Barack Obama wants to make UN Ambassador Susan Rice Secretary of State: and this morning, in his testimony to Congress, David Petraeus spilled the beans.
On the eve of Ambassador Rice’s appearance on the Sunday morning talk shows on 12 September, the CIA sent the White House a set of talking points that included the truth about the role played by the terrorists in the catastrophe in Benghazi. Someone in the White House then edited these talking points in such a fashion as to eliminate this awkward fact, and Susan Rice vigorously peddled the party line.
There are only two possibilities. Either Rice lied or the White House lied to her. If the former is the case, she has blotted her copybook. If the latter is the case, she is damaged goods. No one wants a Secretary of State who does not have the confidence of the President.
It is, of course, possible that Barack Obama will have the good sense to dodge this bullet and sacrifice Susan Rice, who has outlived her usefulness. It is possible that he will nominate some inoffensive Democrat in her place. But the man is so full of himself that I doubt that he will back off. We are already hearing that to criticize the woman he singled out as the administration’s designated liar is to be a racist and a sexist. I suspect that we will hear more of this nonsense down the road.
If the Republicans in the Senate have any backbone, they will take advantage of the President’s foolishness and quash the nomination – and Barack Obama will get the first taste of what he has coming. Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans failed in 2012 to force a correction of course. Given the lay of the land, the strength they have in the Senate, and their control of the House of Representatives, the Republicans still in the game may be able to lay the groundwork for a comeback in 2014. Barack Obama is distinguished from his predecessors by the depth of his arrogance and his propensity to overreach.
None of this, which exists only in prospect, could be described, even were my prognostication precise and accurate, as a silver lining. But it is a reminder that nemesis exists. What goes around has a tendency to come around, and Barack Obama is overdue for a comeuppance. Let’s hope that Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their merry ladies and lads have the moxie to deliver the blow.
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
I do not see this happening.
Dec '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Arguably the worst thing to come out of the Great Depression was the idea that free-market policies under Herbert Hoover had caused the entire mess. No other explanation was offered or asked for until Milton Friedman came along decades later, and by then the damage was done. We need to make sure that Obama is blamed for America's current economic malaise, that the textbooks of 2040 remember things our way. That silver lining would be enough for me.
Mar '12
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Does this make Condi a much more likely candidate in 2016? A Senate run in 2014 would be a good precursor to that.
Not sure I'd like her policies, but it might be good politics for the GOP.
P.S. McConnell is a skilled Parliamentarian.
Mar '12
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
"Whoever considers the one and the other of these states will find difficulty in acquiring the state of the Turk, but should it be conquered, great ease in holding it. So inversely, you will find in some respects more ease in seizing the state of France, but great difficulty in holding it."
Jun '10
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Call me nuts, but I think one of the reasons that Susan Rice was trotted out on Benghazi was to get at the folks who only read headlines: "Rice says video to blame for Benghazi!"
I say that because I was almost roped in--until I read the article--to believing that Condi was on their side. Will the unread Americans be able to differentiate the Rices?
Apr '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Mr. Rahe, I can't help that sinking feeling that you are whistling past the graveyard. I fear that this month's election was the tipping point for American exceptionalism.
May '10
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
I hope you are right. I'm not optimistic. The narrative is already set: "You lost, get over it."
The ones who voted for him will voluntarily remain fooled. For many, it's their meal ticket.
Sex scandals, warm puppies, global warming, so-and-so is a bigot. The media will find plenty of drivel to fill the time.
ROTFLMAO!!
We can only hope.
Sep '10
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Benghazi will be another "fast and furious" a lot of noise and no action. The GOP lacks the courage to take on Obama. He has run two Presidential campaigns and barely a negative word has been said about him. Not because there is not a lot in his past that is negative, but because the GOP is too scared to raise any of these things.
The silver lining is that the election of Romney would not have meant significant movement toward limited government.
Jul '12
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
From much of the comments and from what I've been hearing from Rush Limbaugh this week, conservatives are becoming very cynical. I know we've been let down too often in the past and now it seems that everything has been corrupted and that our fellow citizens are complete brain dead zombies feeding at the government trough. But I really think this cult of personality that Obama has will wane, especially when all hell breaks loose on pretty much everyone when Obamacare is fully implimented. I think too many people were relatively unaffected by the economy over the past 4 years (with unemployment benefits, disability, etc....) but everyone will feel the sting in the next year or so, and those 3 or 4 million folks that stayed home and didn't vote (for whatever reason) will come out and vote in 2014 and Obama's base will not vote in a midterm election since he won't be on the ballot and its likely republicans can get control of congress. I have to try to be cautiously optimistic.
Apr '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
This is not true. It appeared true to some people when fewer of the votes had been counted. Now that more of the votes have been counted, Mitt is closing in on McCain; Adam Schaeffer has him up 5.2% on McCain's vote when the counting is done (see Comment #29).
Obama is already well ahead of McCain's vote; far enough ahead that an electoral college victory would have been unprecedented.
I don't know why the meme that the vote was down so went round so fast and so effectively, but it was always a silly claim; Reagan didn't get much of a popular vote compared to Ford if you only count those that were counted by midnight EST.
May '10
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
As a practical matter, I don't see that we have much leverage on this fiscal cliff stuff.
If we let all the Bush tax cuts expire, Dems will immediately propose a middle class tax cut, which we can't possibly vote against -- and so Obama will get, in essence, the tax hike on the rich that he sought. And we won't get any spending cuts.
Or we could just give him the extension of the non-rich Bush tax cuts, and maybe perhaps possibly get a few measely spending cuts in return.
Either way it's a win for the bad guys. Losing elections really stinks.
Mar '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
I agree, Garrett, but the problem was made evident in the President's last press conference. Between Christi Parsons' revolting smitten schoolgirl act (note to the Chicago Tribune: you can not go bankrupt fast enough) and Mark Landler's insipid global warming question, getting the word out is going to be an uphill battle.
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Scarlet Pimpernel: Does this make Condi a much more likely candidate in 2016? A Senate run in 2014 would be a good precursor to that.
Not sure I'd like her policies, but it might be good politics for the GOP.
P.S. McConnell is a skilled Parliamentarian. · 20 minutes ago
I rather doubt that Condi wants it. You have to be driven.
Jul '10
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
As much as I admire Professor Rahe's valor in a losing cause, I think it's game over. The Republicans have been outwittted and outplayed at every level of the game. More Americans will become wards of the state in the years to come, and the Democrats' greater sophistication in using data mining and the social networks to get these people to the polls will guarantee further victories. The popular culture and media will continue to denigrate and marginalize the right. Does anyone think our cause is enhanced by the fulminations of cranky old man John McCain and fawning follower Lindsey Graham? We see them so much because there is an understanding among the media that these stale figures from the past are just the people to showcase a political message that can win only a third of Congress -- and how much longer will that be the case? The ordinary American can't be bothered to think about politics because there are so many other circuses going on, including watching Honey Boo Boo. She endorsed Obama, BTW.
Edited on November 17, 2012 at 4:09amMay '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
This is the reason I was so very disappointed with the voters in AZ and SC 2 years ago. There was chance to get rid of McCain and replace him with a conservative but it didn't happen.
May '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
when has Barack Obama ever paid a political price for anything?
you could say 2010 I suppose
Jul '12
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Since I seriously doubt the old RINO band of McConnell, Boehner, McCain, Graham et al. will develop spines this late in the game, I propose that they play "dead." Don't push back on anything...you tell the Dems, you're on your own and the Dems will freak out. They've gotten very used to playing the "what can we do with these obstructionist Republicans" excuse.
Wait'll the "takers" find out that rich people can't save the day. There's not enough tax revenue to be had at any tax rate that will stop the bleeding. GOP should have let this happen a year ago.
I'm ready to start working towards a "Founders' Party". We won't win any elections for awhile but working toward something of value sure beats getting ignored by a bunch of RINO's with no new ideas.
Edited on November 17, 2012 at 6:16amJun '12
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Here's the mistake I think Republicans make too often: applying the precedents of history to this Democrat party and this president. I think Romney thought this was a '76 rerun to his disadvantage. I mean, by any - ANY - empirical standard, Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like George Washington. And yet he prevailed.
I no longer count on the norms and patterns of past presidencies applying in this case. For one, the mainstream media is now utterly in the tank for Obama. For another, I think there is a cult-like following around this president that neutralizes criticism and logic. Third, he has a shameless and ruthless campaign organization and administration that will say and do anything with a straight face.
I hope Paul Rahe is right, but I am no longer making any assumptions that favor our side.
Edited on November 17, 2012 at 6:20amJun '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
The Republicans in the Senate are the last place to look for any backbone. I have never seen any evidence of it. Maybe Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will be able to stir up some trouble or maybe they'll become part of the problem.
Jun '11
Re: Barack Obama’s Pyrrhic Victory
Embrace the cult.
I did not think that people would fall for the snake oil a second time. I was wrong.