It didn't take very long in the 2-year marathon presidential campaign for now-President Obama to project himself as the Great Unifier, that last great hope for America. No longer would we embrace the divisive politics of the past, he assured us. Instead, we can now embrace the unity of the future. That was the change so many Americans have hoped for. But it has only taken two weeks for that campaign promise to go the way of so many promises before it.
As this latest battle surrounding the stimulus package reveals, Obama has set aside the attempts at unifing and has embraced a much more combative tone, publicly chastizing those who disagree with his view of the stimulus package. It seems to me that when you unabashedly harangue the oppposition for their different perspective on something, that hardly invites those who see things differently to want to set aside differences and embrace your version of reality. This kind of partisan, combative tone doesn't seem to be the approach that a true unifier would take. (But, hey, maybe that's just me? :) I would concur with Indiana's own Rep. Mike Pence, who, as FOX News reported earlier today, issued a written statement saying he was "disappointed" that Obama seemed to have "so quickly abandoned his call for bipartisanship and has resorted to tough political rhetoric" to pass the bill. If brow-beating the opposition is Obama's approach to unifying the country, he will find it may backfire on him in the long run.
The trouble is that is leaves anyone who holds a different view than Obama in quite a difficult spot. On the one hand, attempts at bipartisanship within the new definition of "compromise" and working together actually means, according to Obama's approach, "It's my way or the highway." Thus, "compromise" by members of the opposition party means abandoning their own beliefs. Or, those who have legitimate arguments against passing the largest spending bill in U.S. history are portrayed as standing in the way of "progress" and saving an ailing economy. Never mind the fact that Obama's solution to saving the economy is not the only possible alternative (and many economists are predicting) will actually do more to dramatically hurt our economy in the long run (by increasing inflation, among other things).
I find it also quite ironic that in Obama's biting attack on Republicans (and other opponents to the stimulus bill), he is quick to dismiss the argument that passage of this behemoth spending plan will dramatically increase the budget deficit. He responded to this argument saying,
We're not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that in eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin...I found this deficit when I showed up...I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.
To be sure, Obama is exactly right in his assessment of that particular aspect of George Bush's presidency. As The Indianapolis Star's Andrea Neal described in this insightful, honest, opinion piece from just after the election, the road to socialism did not start with Obama. President Bush did much to water the seeds of out-of-control spending during his eight years at the helm. But that being said, just because our president may have inherited out-of-control spending does not provide sound rationale for taking government spending into a completely new stratosphere. The justification that, "because I inherited a huge national debt means I can grow the debt that much larger" doesn't seem to hold water, as many average Americans intuitively understand.
In a very candid assessment in today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer warns against the fierce urgency of pork. And as he points out, the bloom seems to have come off the rose where Obama's transformation from Great Unifier to "politics as susual" is concerned. He summarizes it this way:
After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.
I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.
Indeed, this has been a tumultuous two weeks. I can only imagine what the next 206 weeks of Obama's presidency will bring us. And from my particular perspective, I actually fear where these next 4 years will take this country.
UPDATE: According to recent reports, the Senate version of the stimulus spending bill has secured the support of two Republicans (possibly three Republicans, depending on a possible additional vote from Sen. Olympia Snow, R-Maine) to give the remaining 58 Democratic Senators a veto-proof majority, thus, ensuring its eventual passage. We'll see what the final vote actually is on the bill, but if it translates as predicted, then this stimulus package will have passed the House with no Republicans voting for it, and will have passed the Senate with only two very moderate Republicans (Arlen Specter, R-Penn and Susan Collins, R-Maine). No matter which way you slice it, that hardly lives up to Obama's promised goal of increased bipartisanship in Washington.