Obama blah blah

[update below] [2nd update below]

Liberal pundits and talking heads are giving the thumbs up to Obama’s deficit speech yesterday, expressing relief that he has come out swinging—verbally at least—after last week’s cave in to the Republicans over the budget. I didn’t hear the speech and have no intention of looking for it on YouTube. I’m sure it was perfectly fine but I just don’t care about Obama’s speeches any more. Not that I did up to now. I’ve never been a fan of his speechifying; I mean, he’s good and all that, but his oratory just doesn’t move me (and I wish he would cut back on the teleprompter; he’s a smart guy, exceptionally articulate, and just doesn’t need it). Bill Clinton was better. On this score, Clinton impressed me more than Obama ever has (like that time the teleprompter failed during one of his later SOTU speeches, with him continuing for an hour without skipping a beat or anyone knowing what had happened).

The important thing re the budget and deficit, of course, is what the White House and congressional Democrats do. On this, Glenn Greenwald has a hard-headed, somewhat cynical, but lucid and no doubt accurate assessment of Obama’s strategy. Greenwald insists that Obama has not been weak or negotiated poorly with the Republicans, as conventional wisdom in the liberal-left punditocracy has had it, but that he is in fact a shrewd negotiator and achieves the results he seeks. The Democratic leadership in Washington is perfectly satisfied with the compromises—or compromissions—it makes with the GOP, because its center of gravity is precisely there, in the center of the political spectrum (which is considerably further to the right than it was three or four decades ago). Some DC Dems may be center-left in their personal convictions—and possibly Obama is too—but their overriding concern, as politicians, is being re-elected. And the polls, as Greenwald reminds us—and also Clintonian triangulating centrists such as this one—, show the public largely supporting Obama’s deals. Obama and the congressional Dems regrettably have nothing to gain by lurching left and taking a hard line with the GOP, as it would not win them new supporters. If politicians know how to do anything, it’s read public opinion polls.

Greenwald argues that Obama could shift public opinion to the left through his powers of oratory (his oratory does captivate a lot of people, after all). He could use the “bully pulpit” to advance a progressive agenda (as the American public is in fact further to the left on economic issues than inside-the-Beltway and media CW assumes; the public just doesn’t know it). But he doesn’t, as that’s just not where he’s at, either temperamentally or ideologically. Obama is no Ronald Reagan, as Greenwald observes. Reagan had decided ideological convictions and used his skills as the “Great Communicator”—though he did need a script and teleprompter—to pull America to the right. And Reagan knew how to keep his base happy, even when he was making deals with the Democrats and watering down his agenda.

Obama has not been anywhere near as effective here. I’ve been listening to lefties kvetch about Obama since even before he was inaugurated (and while I sympathize with the kvetching, I have mostly defended Obama). (American lefties are perpetual malcontents who will never be satisfied with anyone in power, but that’s another matter). Obama will mollify the liberal-lefty base with a speech from time to time (which is likely what the operation yesterday was mainly about) but he KNOWS that no matter how unhappy liberal-lefties may be with him, they will not desert him come election time. They will not sit out next year’s election or vote for a Nader or Kucinich. And there will be no significant primary challenge to Obama, if there is one at all. Liberal-lefties will dutifully vote for Obama and their Democratic congressional candidates, because that will be their reflex and they will have no choice. That’s just the way it will be. And we all know it.

UPDATE: Krugman’s column today (April 15) gives Obama’s budget plan a qualified thumbs up. Says that it “really is serious.”

2nd UPDATE: A reader wrote the following to me in an email: “Something puzzles me: why do you and some others object to Obama using a teleprompter?  Should he instead read from a paper copy set on a podium as public speakers used to do?  Or should he speak before a national audience on issues of public policy without any text from which to read and risk saying something that will set him up for attacks?  Clinton did wing it successfully when his teleprompter didn’t work but I didn’t notice him not using a teleprompter after that.  Obama does very well in question periods and less formal situations.”  My objection to Obama here is that he seems to always use a teleprompter, even when speaking to small groups and when TV cameras are not present. I’ve read this, in any case. Formal speeches are one thing, but he doesn’t need it all the time. Like I said, he’s articulate and can extemporaneously express complex thoughts in complete sentences (unlike his predecessor).