This Washington Post article essentially questions Obama's competence as a 'manager.' More people are slowly beginning to see more clearly. John A.
Obama got elected on competence.
For all of the talk about "hope" and "change" — and both were powerful
slogans for Obama in 2008 — the core of Obama's appeal to many
independents and even some Republicans was the idea that he would
restore competence back to the White House after President George W.
Bush's eight years, years defined by mistaken intelligence about Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction and a mishandling of the devastating
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast. Obama openly embraced
the idea that he was the anti-Bush on nothing much more than his
commitment to putting the best people in the right places within his
administration. (Remember the whole "Team of Rivals" thing?)
As conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby writes in the Boston Globe: "Running to succeed the deeply polarizing George W. Bush, Obama held himself out not just as a leader who would never 'pit red America against blue America,' but as a natural-born manager whose hallmark was smarts and competence."
Which
is what makes the series of problems within his administration of late
all the more politically problematic for Democrats trying to hold onto
their Senate majority — and narrow their House minority — this November.
The current scandal engulfing the VA is the latest example of
competence questions surrounding this White House, but they include
everything from the rollout of HealthCare.gov to the targeting of tea
party groups by a Cincinnati IRS office. While none of these problems
are easily tied directly to a decision Obama made (or didn't make), they
have all eroded the public's faith that he knows what he's doing.
"I
think there is an increasing appetite and desire for just fundamental
competence and accountability," said Republican media consultant Mark
McKinnon. "A steady hand on the wheel. Or even a shaky hand on the
wheel. Just find the wheel."
The collapse is striking. In CNN/Opinion Research Corp. polling in
December 2008, more than three quarters of Americans said that the
phrase "can manage the government effectively" applied to Obama; by
March 2014 — before the VA debacle — just 43 percent said the same. A
late 2013 Washington Post/ABC poll found a similar result, with just
41 percent of respondents saying that Obama "is a good manager." Andpolling by Pew also gets to this competence erosion. Here's their table on the question of whether Obama is able to get things done or not.
Now,
it's worth noting that every president — those named Obama and those
not — tends to have strong poll numbers on virtually every measure at
the start of a term. And it's also true that those numbers — again,
across the board — tend to fade the longer he's in office.
"I
think that confidence in government competence started to be undermined
with the war in Iraq and Katrina, the collapse of the economy and the
roll-out of the [Affordable Healthcare Act]," said Anna Greenberg, a
Democratic pollster. "It's hard to see how it gets much worse."
Maybe not. But Obama's numbers on competence are
already low enough to trouble many party strategists charged with
electing (or reelecting) Democrats to the Senate and the House. In
conversations over the past several weeks with these folks, it's become
clear that worries over Obamacare specifically have given way to a
broader concern that the combination of the pained rollout of
HealthCare.gov, coupled with the problems at the VA and other motivators
of the Republican base (IRS, Benghazi), could combine into a toxic
"This guy (and his party) don't know what they're doing" message this
fall.
It's
not clear whether Republicans have picked up on the "competence trumps
all" message. The party does appear to be moving away from its
insistence on the repeal
of the Affordable Care Act to a less absolute position focused instead
on replacing parts of the law that they believe don't/won't work.
And Republicans like Mitch McConnell have made quite clear that they
believe their path to victory lies in tying their opponent to Obama.
As
we saw with George W. Bush in the 2006 midterms, a collapse of
confidence in competence can have disastrous effects. Not only does it
serve as a jolt of energy to the other side's base, but it also can turn
independents from your side and even dampen enthusiasm for your side.
Given the seats Democrats need to hold to keep control of the Senate —
Arkansas, Alaska, North Carolina, Louisiana, etc. — any sort of damage
done among independents might well be impossible for Democrats in those
states to overcome.
What
can Obama do? Hope that the VA scandal doesn't linger for months at or
near the top of the news. Act swiftly to get rid of the people who
clearly didn't do their jobs. (Obama started that process with Eric Shinseki last Friday.)
And hope like hell there is no other management issue lingering in his
administration that bubbles up between now and November.
No comments:
Post a Comment