Opinion

Sorry: Obama’s just no good at politics

Last year, President Obama issued a warning: Republicans had been “politicking” instead of “governing,” he said. “Well, we can politick for three months,” he said. “They forgot I’m pretty good at politicking.”

That was in August 2010. At the end of those three months, Republicans controlled the most House seats since the 1940s. Republicans did well for many reasons. One was that Obama isn’t all that good at politics.

He can be forgiven for thinking otherwise. When he took office, liberals often compared him to Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt and even Abraham Lincoln. It was only natural that superlatives would attach to someone who went from being a state senator to president-elect in four years.

But Obama never had to fight for and win the votes of people who don’t agree with him. His biggest political setback and accomplishment — his defeat by Bobby Rush in a 2000 House primary and his victory over Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination — came during struggles within a liberal universe.

He didn’t have to fight for moderate and conservative voters in the 2004 Illinois Senate election because his first Republican opponent self-immolated in scandal and his second was Alan Keyes, a fringe figure.

Nor was Obama tested in the general election of 2008. Sure, he showed impressive discipline in that campaign. Even when he briefly fell behind Sen. John McCain and many Democrats started to get nervous, he kept to his strategic plan.

But he also had the most favorable circumstances for any out-party presidential candidate since 1932. The GOP had held the White House for eight years, the incumbent was deeply unpopular, wages were stagnant — and a financial crisis hit weeks before the election. The votes Obama needed fell into his lap.

Many of his predecessors had to learn how to appeal to broad electorates before they became president. George W. Bush had to beat an incumbent Democrat to become Texas governor. Bill Clinton had to market himself in not-so-liberal Arkansas.

The two recent presidents who most resemble Obama in not having had to prove themselves in this way are Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Both lost return bids.

A talented politician like Reagan or Clinton can instinctively grasp public sentiment, move opinion and reframe arguments, rallying popular support. Obama does none of these.

Even his gift of oratory has done him little good as president. He gave speech after speech about health care; none of it made the public like the health-care plan more.

Obama could still win re-election. Maybe the economy will strengthen in time to help him. Maybe the public will recoil from the thought of giving Republicans unified control of the government again. But Republicans don’t need to worry that Obama’s charisma will seduce voters.

Liberals have slowly awoken to this fact, and increasingly ask what’s wrong with him. Is he too aloof? Too conciliatory? Some would be dissatisfied even if he delivered single-payer health care. But partly, they expected Obama to usher in a new liberal era. Now they see that it’s not to be. The problem isn’t that Obama has lost his touch. He didn’t have it in the first place.

One thing Obama is gifted with is a preternatural self-confidence. In early 2010, Rep. Marion Berry (D-Ark.) said he’d assured congressional Democrats that they wouldn’t face a bloodbath in the midterm elections like the one they endured in 1994. The difference this time, Obama said, was that they had him. Berry mentioned the remarks as he announced his retirement. His seat is now held by a Republican.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review. © Bloomberg News 2011