The Unreality of the Liberal Reality

Drew Westen, a liberal professor at Emory University, published an article for CNN in which he argues that the Obama Administration is plagued by a lack of clear, strong messages. Westen contends that the unpopularity of Pres. Obama's policies is due to this ineffective communication. I find his analysis fascinating because it reveals the alternate reality that liberal academia have created in their minds.

In that sense, there's something deeply ironic about Republicans attacking the vacationing Obama for failing to prevent a Nigerian from blowing up his underpants in mid-air.

This is clearly a straw man. Republicans are not attacking Pres. Obama for his vacationing tendencies, but for the lackadaisical way in which his Administration has approached terrorism (Demint, Cheney, Gingrich). To dismiss criticism of the President based on this unfair characterization is brutally fallacious.

 Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano initially suggested, in a tone intended to reassure, that the failed terrorist attack proved the system works. A few days later, when that comment could no longer even pass through airport screening machines, the president reversed course, calling the event a systemic failure of catastrophic proportions.

Napolitano's gaffe (which, to be fair, she later sought to correct) was not an isolated incident. It is emblematic of a seat-of-the-pants approach to speaking with the American people about issues that really matter to them that is increasingly undermining the administration's credibility (and with it, its poll numbers).

First off, this Administration has clearly shown that it does not speak from the "seat-of-the-pants", but rather is very scripted and methodical in its rhetoric. Pres. Obama's use of a teleprompter has been well-documented. The President has controlled the exact wording used by many high-ranking officials in his Administration (apparently Napolitano wants us to call "terrorism" "man-caused nuances").


In addition, however, I would contend that it is belittling the American public to contend that they are more influenced by rhetoric than by policies. Americans were disturbed by Napolitano's gaffe because it confirmed a long-standing suspicion that they have about the Democratic Party – that Democrats don't take the threat of terrorism seriously. Napolitano's comment was not disastrous because it failed to "stay on message"; it was disastrous because it portrayed the Administration as weak on terrorism.


For example, polls have indicated that the American public, including a significant majority of unaffiliated voters, oppose the health care plan offered by congressional Democrats.  The media has spent hours upon hours broadcasting the details of the plan, the pros and cons of the plan, and the rhetoric of the Administration – and yet they still overwhelmingly oppose the plan. The lack of support for the President's health care plan is not a mythical miscommunication; rather, the cause of the fierce opposition is the very substance of the plan. Quite simply, American's oppose a government intrusion into health care, regardless of what the President and his Administration says. 

It is difficult to find an issue on which the White House has offered a coherent, compelling message. Consider the administration's stance on deficits, which will constrain every piece of legislation the president attempts to pass.

President Obama never made a concerted effort to explain to the American people, in plain language, the most basic lessons of modern economics as to why deficit spending is essential to breaking a downward spiral in which major banks fail, the stock market collapses, businesses lay off employees, people who've lost their jobs can't buy or pay their mortgages, more businesses collapse as consumer confidence and spending plummet, banks stop lending, and home foreclosures skyrocket, leading to further layoffs and decreased demand. 

When no one has the money to spend or invest, the only one left to do it is the federal government. Breaking that spiral (and beginning to reinvest in America) was the primary purpose of the "stimulus package"-- something the president should have repeated dozens of times. 

Instead, the administration has been mixing messages -- often in the same sentence -- about the need for government spending and the importance of deficit reduction and making any new spending "deficit neutral." To the average American, it's difficult to see how those messages fit together, and with good reason: They don't.

Westen is both correct and incorrect in his analysis. He is correct in his argument that the argument of "making any new spending 'deficit neutral'" is inherently contradictory. There has never been a period in American history where the government has dramatically increased spending and yet been able to contain the deficit. Westen is correct when he points out that the average American can see this contradiction in the rhetoric of the Obama Administration.


However, Westen is incorrect when he assumes that if Obama had made a classical Keynesian argument "dozens of times" then he would have gained the support of the American people for his policies. I have previously contended that the American electorate no longer supports Keynesian economics. Further, I would argue that public opinion is firmly against the rising government debt. In the end, Pres. Obama's continual use of anti-deficit rhetoric is evidence that even the members of his Administration agree that the public will not support increases in the deficit.

What would that story have offered? A description of the problem in terms everyone can relate to, an explanation of how it came about that people have seen with their own eyes, a clear plan for solving it that passes the "common sense" test, and an appeal to core American values like security, hard work, competition and fairness. I happen to know that message would have garnered 2 to 1 support for health care reform because I polled various versions of it during the election and have done so recently.

Again, Westen's argument is filled with glaring assumptions that contradict reality. The American public doesn't support the Administration's health care plan because of the substance of the plan. American's simply do not want a government-run health care system. Many polls have indicated that the American public, including a significant majority of unaffiliated voters, oppose the health care plan offered by congressional Democrats.  The media has spent hour upon hour broadcasting the details of the plan, the pros and cons of the plan, and the rhetoric of the Administration – and yet the people still overwhelmingly oppose the plan. Quite simply, American's oppose a government intrusion into health care, regardless of what the President and his Administration says. 


The polls that Westen took during the election are no longer valid. First, the public often changes its opinion on a policy issue. Further, big government plans have historically seen dramatic decreases in support once that have actually been proposed in Congress. Finally, there is no way that we can logically side with the results of polls taken over a year ago, when they contradict the conclusions of polls taken just weeks or months ago.

As the president moves into his second year, it is time for a course correction. As one of the most effective communicators in modern American history, he should heed the wise counsel of the president he most admires, Abraham Lincoln: "...public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible."

It is time this president makes statutes and decisions possible, not by compromising at the outset with the people who dug the holes in which we find ourselves or staying "above the fray" as legislators and lobbyists work out the details, but by articulating clearly what he believes in and putting the power and prestige of his office and his presence behind it.

In this final point, Westen exposes the fundamental flaw in his analysis: he believes in an alternate reality. To Westen, the American public is politically liberal, much like the Europeans, and supports liberal dogma of government solutions. Why else would Westen argue that the public sentiment in America would flock to the banner of big government? He truly believes that the American public will rally in support of Pres. Obama if he becomes a spokesperson for big government. 


This is fundamentally wrong. Any person who takes a fair-minded view of the political environment of the United States could see a clear picture of an electorate who does not support big government liberalism. The people of the United States (unlike many of the students/professors/staff in the universities where Westen works) are not confused about Pres. Obama's plan; in fact, they understand it clearly and oppose it.


This alternate reality that Westen calls the U.S. is not the reality that I, and my fellow 300 million citizens, know as the United States of America.