Clowns to the left, jokers to the right

Michael Gerson: Clowns to the left of him, jokers to the right ...

Is that the attitude with which the president hopes to achieve things?

Last update: December 16, 2010

Commentary

The tax deal is reasonable policy, supported by majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents -- an easy sell by presidential standards.

Not really. It will increase the deficeit.

And still President Obama managed to blow the politics of the thing.

 Yes. Obama always manages to blow the politics of everything.

Rather than explaining the economic benefits of the bill and taking quiet credit for a moment of bipartisanship, Obama launched into an assault on both partners and opponents.

Republicans are "hostage-takers" who worship the "Holy Grail" of trickle-down economics.

 Exciting rhetoric. Meaningless in reality.

Liberal opponents are "sanctimonious," preferring their own "purity" to the interests of the poor. The president did not just attack the policy positions of nearly everyone in the political class.

 Mo da same.

He publicly questioned their motives.

 He ought to have done so in private first.

It is difficult to imagine the president's advisers sitting in the Oval Office and urging this approach: "Mr. President, the best course here would be to savage likely supporters of the bill and to embitter your political base. This will show just how principled you are, in contrast to the corruption and fanaticism all around you."

 B U T .... it seems the the one & done bland one has done just that, whether by advice of his advisers, or by dint of his own political instincts.

There can be little doubt this communications strategy was Obama's own.

It is the president's favorite rhetorical pose: the hectorer in chief. He is alternately defiant, defensive, exasperated, resentful, harsh, scolding, prickly -- both the smartest kid in class and the schoolyard bully.

Boo hoo! How can we ever win with the Big O calling the shots?

There are many problems with this mode of presidential communication, but mainly its supreme self-regard. The tax deal, in Obama's presentation, was not about the economy or the country.

It was about him. It was about the absurd concessions he was forced to make, the absurd opposition he was forced to endure, the universally insufficient deference to his wisdom.

The administration further complicated its communications task by presenting Obama as ideologically superior to his own agreement. The upper-income tax rates and the estate tax provisions, in David Axelrod's description, are "odious."

 Obama has no ideology.

As a rule, staffers should not use such a word to describe policies a president has agreed to accept.

Maybe B.O. has no control over his staffers?

At this point in the Obama presidency, even Democrats must be asking: Is he really this bad at politics? In some areas, such as education reform or the tax deal, Obama's governing practice is better than his political skills.

 No. The Democrats are DECLARING: "He really IS this bad at politics1"

But these skills matter because political capital is limited. The early pursuit of ambitious health care reform was a political mistake. But every president has the right to spend his popularity on matters of principle.

Political risks taken out of conviction are an admirable element of leadership.

We ain't done seen the bland one do anything out of conviction.

Yet political errors made out of pique undermine the possibility of achievement. Rather than being spent, popularity is squandered.

Perhaps Democrats did not elect another Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy but another Woodrow Wilson -- a politician sabotaged by his own sense of superiority.

 Perhaps? Oh, HOW you insult Woodrow Wilson.

Michael Gerson's column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.

Hack. Just what we excpect from the WaPo's Writers Group.