IN “The Audacity of Hope,” Barack Obama described himself as “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” This is a powerful tool in elections and explains why liberals, moderates, Democrats, Independents and Republicans joined together to give him 53 percent of the vote last November.
Since his election, this “blank screen” has been an asset, allowing the new president to maintain an illusion of progress, even as he has avoided the hard choices necessary for progress. But, as Americans ponder the unavoidable consequences of the president’s policies — particularly health-care reform — the illusion is wearing thin.
The government has spent $3 trillion to prop up Wall Street and take over the big insurance and auto industries — yet the middle class and small businesses continue to suffer. Fifteen million workers remain without jobs; 32 percent of Americans’ homes are worth less than their mortgages — and a whopping 61 percent of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck.
For these reasons, the American people have begun to judge President Obama on his record, not his rhetoric; on his policies, not his narrative — and on his ability to govern, not on his campaign machine.
The cool and reasonable candidate who gave hope to his voters, who promised to rise above the ugly politics and big money of Washington, is turning out to be as conventional a politician as any other. Indeed, as he runs a permanent campaign from the White House, he is proving to be more committed to protecting the vested interests of his party than standing up for actual change.
A gentleman I met recently in Washington, DC, could well be the poster child for Obama’s problems. Like many Americans, he greeted Obama’s entry to the White House with high expectations. But increasingly, he finds himself at odds with the president. He came to the United States from Haiti in the ’80s with nothing; he was able to learn English, get a job as a driver and put two children through college.
I asked him if he would not have preferred if our country had guaranteed him a job, a pension, health care and a college education for his children. He told me no — and gave three reasons.
First, he said, he takes pride in knowing what he has done for his family. Second, he knows that the government does not, cannot, know what he wants for himself and his family. Third, he knows that what government gives, it can take away.
Having lived the American dream, he realizes that the individualism at the heart of American democracy is what is actually at stake in the present debates over the president’s many policies.
Immigrant or native-born, it’s written in the American DNA: A paternalistic government threatens our independence, our individuality and our right to self-determination. It’s why Jefferson sang praise to the yeoman farmer and Jackson to the common man. It’s the principle that Reagan placed at the heart of his presidency, and that Clinton built on by advancing policies that empowered individuals — not policies that made individuals beholden to the state.
In contrast, President Obama’s praise for the free market and individual liberty just doesn’t ring true — because his record does not reflect his rhetoric. His actions show a fundamental disconnect with American values — a disconnect that won’t be dispelled with captivating speeches, no matter how masterfully delivered.
It is for this reason that so many Americans are uneasy about Obama’s health-care plan. The promised benefits don’t add up. It’s just not possible for the government to simultaneously a) provide care for 30 million more people, b) not increase the budget deficit and c) allow anyone who is satisfied with their health care package to experience no change.
In repeatedly insisting that he’ll deliver all three results at once, Obama has lost credibility: 80 percent of Americans polled said that his health-care reform will raise costs or diminish quality of care.
On the back of total federal debt that is already over 70 percent of our total GDP, and in light of $34 trillion of existing unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the president’s lack of actual, as opposed to rhetorical, fiscal discipline further erodes his authority.
In light of all the political capital that true and sensible health-care reform would cost him, it is most likely that President Obama will accept legislation that fails in all but name. In such a case, the president will claim victory — but not solve our health-care problems. It will be another empty triumph of his “blank screen” politics.
And voters will find that they elected not another FDR, but another Jimmy Carter.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild is CEO of E.L. Rothschild Ltd. and founder of Together4Us.com, a political Web site.