Interviewing with ABC News's Diane Sawyer, Barack Obama said,
I would rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.
My first thought was to question the premise: What's Obama trying to do that's "really good"? Why does it sound like the better Obama does, the less likely he is to get re-elected? Somewhere in all this is the implication that whatever Obama's trying to do, voters aren't going to like it.
I've always thought the majority of voters on both sides want the same things. Jobs, opportunity, prosperity. Security, justice. To me, the difference has always come down to a disagreement over policy: Liberals believe policies like the minimum wage reduce poverty, while conservatives believe such policies cost jobs.
On most any matter, liberals and conservatives could argue over whether a given policy would create the proper incentives to reach a common goal. Both sides both want prosperity and an employed, well-paid workforce, we just disagree over how to achieve them. But it's the policy and the incentives that divide us -- not the goal.
With that in mind, Obama should be insisting that his policies will solve any number of social injustices that we all want solved, with the disagreement centered on what those policies will really accomplish. He should be pleading with us to pass his policies, reasoning that we will like the results when we finally see them.
But what Obama's telling Sawyer is that we're not going to like the results. We're no longer unified in a desire for prosperity and an employed, well-paid workforce -- benchmarks that would get any president re-elected. Obama wants something else.
We no longer disagree about whether Obama's best policies will get him tossed out by a miserable electorate -- he's just implied that they will. Obama agrees that we're not going to like the results. Is that the kind of change you were hoping for? Because I believe it's exactly the sort of agenda Limbaugh would like to see fail.
Last night, from the Associated Press:
In a remark underscoring the political sensitivities Democrats have about their two top issues, Rangel said, "The major things we're talking about now are, one, don't let health care even look like it's not on the front burner. And don't forget that the priority of people in their districts is jobs."
These are not Democrats' two top issues. One is the politicians' top issue, and the other is the people's top issue. In fact, they are conflicting priorities. The healthcare situation is made worse by unemployment, and the Dems' idea of healthcare "reform" is a jobs killer. As is Cap and Trade.
At this point, I'm confident the electorate understands that what the Democrats want is not what Americans want. I just wonder if they've figured it out in time.
And I'm pretty sure of one other thing: It will be a long, long time before we see such a big Democrat majority in Congress again.
Recent Comments