Proving that great minds think alike, Aaron just tackled a topic I was preparing to address: stimulus war 2009.
Now let me be general before I get specific (and answer Aaron’s post). The stimulus is about to get ugly for the left. Politico reports that Obama is “losing the message war.” Karl Rove contends that Obama was “rolled” by Democrats. And only 42 percent of American voters support the package–down from 45 percent the week before. People want something, but they’re smart enough to want something that works. So far, the bizarre behemoth that is the stimulus bill is not inspiring. At all. In any way. Trust me.
So is this the albatross to hang on the necks of Obama and the Democrats? Yes, but it has to be placed carefully–and Senator Graham’s comments provide a tidy guide for how to do so. To wit:
“This process stinks. We’re making this up as we go and it is a waste of money. It is a broken process, and the president, as far as I’m concerned, has been AWOL on providing leadership on something as important as this.”
“Scaring people is not leadership. Writing an editorial that if you don’t pass this bad bill we’re going to have disaster — we’ve had enough presidents trying to scare people to make bad decisions.”
“I like President Obama, but he is not leading. Having lunch is not leading … and doing TV interviews is not leading.”
Although Graham’s blows may not matter much in policy debates (I personally don’t want the executive to make/lead/form legislation–hi Congress, that’s your job), they should be well-covered, and well-received, in the public arena. Republicans shouldn’t underestimate how much that matters. So what makes sense about what Graham says? He does two things well.
Graham prioritizes principles, not politics. People who think differently about the stimulus think similarly about the need for the president to take charge of the project he has championed. Graham doesn’t come across as someone landing partisan blows for their own sake (a practice few outside the beltway can stomach). Instead, he seems to be a concerned American and more concerned lawmaker. It makes people raise an eyebrow–and do most of the attacking in their own minds: yeah, this Graham guy may be right, so why isn’t Obama doing more?
Not to say this is entirely and innocently principled. Obama kept his fingers clean in his legislative career by not sticking his fingers in any pies. Graham’s criticism makes that practice impossible. Obama cannot rise above the tumultuous mess of Congressional policy debates (a la George Washington) without seeming like a lackluster leader. So he’s forced to pick a side in a contentious debate. Nice.
Graham attacks ideas and actions, not people. The criticism seems reasonable and resonates because it does not use any of the following terms: libs, stupid libs, lefties, Messiah, B. Hussein Obama, tax-and-spend liberals, communists, and commies. When you criticize a man (say, Obama), you draw the irritation of those who like him and will defend him from external criticism by virtue of that connection. (Think about how quickly you’ll defend your obnoxious brother/cousin/grandmother from a non-family member’s insults.) But when you criticize a man’s actions, you can critique him without igniting the tribal wrath that humans innately possess.
Therefore, to Senator Graham, I say well-played, sir. Who could guess simple honesty would work so well?
Last 5 posts by Abby Alger
- Helping the Right Online, One PDF at a Time - March 29th, 2009
- Kids These Days - March 17th, 2009
- In which I browse HR 1105, so you don't have to. - February 24th, 2009
- What does youth voter outreach look like? - January 11th, 2009
- Let’s Fix the System - December 28th, 2008
