Advertisement

Obama's Mandate: The Jury Is Still Out

Obama's Mandate: The Jury Is Still Out

By Steven Stark - April 29, 2009

A tension lies at the heart of the Obama presidency. After 100 days in office, the public still seems uncertain how to interpret the historic nature of the election last November.

One camp claims President Barack Obama's inauguration marked a decisive break with the patterns of American politics over the past four decades or so, giving him a mandate to forge ahead with sweeping changes. Another believes that while voters were ultimately fed up with President George W. Bush, the financial crisis, which broke in the fall, played the decisive factor in his election. More than just a matter of opinion, the resolution of this dispute will go a long way toward defining Obama's success, since it will determine how much change the nation is willing to tolerate.

Obama subscribes to the first version of events, which is to say that he seems to believe he would have won the election decisively in November even if there had been no financial crisis at all. In this scenario, the crisis is thought to be merely the culmination of a series of wrong-headed Republican policies over the last few decades, which Obama should now set about to undo.

Under the opposing theory, our emerging economic disaster tipped the election. Consider, for instance, that despite all the hoopla over Sarah Palin and the widespread anger at Bush, the polls between John McCain and Obama right before the crisis broke were essentially even last September. Under this interpretation, Obama won primarily because the voters believed he was better equipped than McCain to get the country out of its specific and immediate financial mess.

To its proponents, this version of events is confirmed independently by comparing Obama's election margin - six points - to the much larger victory margins of realigning figures like Ronald Reagan (10 percentage points in 1980), Lyndon Johnson (23 points in 1964), and Franklin Roosevelt (18 points in 1932). Obama's "mandate for change" pales in comparison.

Whatever the perspective, the administration's first priority should be to jump start the economic engine of the country. But beyond that, the correct course of action is uncertain.

If the opposition is correct and Obama is misinterpreting his mandate, there is not much of a constituency in the country for comprehensive health-care reform, a new energy policy, and most of his other progressive measures - especially until the financial crisis is over. Moreover, under this view, if the downturn lingers or even worsens, Obama runs a great risk of being seen as worsening matters by his failure to understand what got him elected.

Over time, the continuing downturn won't be seen as a result of the politics of the past. It will be viewed as the result of his attempt to implement his own political agenda, much as the congressional Democrats were seen to be more interested in spreading pork during stimulus-bill negotiations than actually stimulating anything.

Time to choose

Despite the current hard times, Obama has had a fairly easy first 100 days. Yes, he's impressive on the stump. But he has followed a president so unpopular that he's bound to look good by comparison, especially every time he announces a change in policy. The massive symbolism of his victory also lingers, as does the media's love affair.

But so far, no one has had to choose between the different interpretations of Obama's election. The stimulus package didn't create a massive new domestic program, after all. More money was spent on old ones - and that fix is difficult to oppose during a severe economic downturn, unless, of course, you're a Republican. Obama's budget proposals also promise great change, but at this point they're only plans and not worth much more than the proverbial paper they're written on.

But if Obama continues to insist he has a mandate to implement a sweeping social agenda, he'll soon have to confront two political realities. First, organizing opposition to something is a lot easier than organizing support for it, even if you're Obama. And second, he still has to convince members of his own party - most of whom face re-election two years before he does - that the country really wants massive change.

So far, the answer he's getting in response to his proposals to curb carbon emissions or limit tax deductions for the rich has been decidedly lukewarm. Not a good sign.

What's past is prologue, wrote William Shakespeare. The first 100 days were just that - and not much more.

To read the "Stark Ravings" blog, go to thePhoenix.com/blogs/starkravings.

Boston Phoenix

A President Who Is Hearing Things
Richard Benedetto · November 12, 2014
Obama Is No Clinton
Larry Elder · November 13, 2014
Bret Stephens' Call for Robust U.S. Foreign Policy
Peter Berkowitz · November 16, 2014
Red Tide Rising
Charles Kesler · November 9, 2014

Steven Stark

Author Archive

Follow Real Clear Politics

Latest On Twitter