White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told the New York Times, "As I understand it, triangulation is the idea that you demonstrate to some set of swing voters that you are politically palatable by poking the extremes of both parties in they eyes." After President Obama's press conference I wrote to a veteran pundit friend. The press conference reminded me of President Clinton's Sister Souljah moment. The statement by Pfeiffer affirms my suspicion.
In triangulation all points are stable and necessary. In this context the left and right are needed to position Obama. They are used "to demonstrate to some set of swing voters that you are politically palatable." The "you" here is Obama. This is the gut reaction analogy I made to my veteran pundit friend. As Clinton needed to prove to swing voters that he could offend the black community really badly and they remain on his side, Obama needs to prove the same but he does so on the left and right with half the skill. He has been called “divisive.” Perhaps triangulation is the genesis of that critique.
It was obvious to the black community what Clinton was doing, but what happened? He was dubbed “the first black president" until the real first black president emerged. He disrespected black people who were so loyal to him by openly making veiled racist statements when Obama ran against Hillary Clinton in the primary. President Clinton responded in shock by the response. What? The triangulation isn’t working now? The offense is not taken? Blacks aren't rallying to me in spite of the offense? Behold! A native son had arrived and one with great potential.
In this context of triangulation Obama makes both the left and right extremely offended by poking them directly in the eyes in order to secure swing voters. Where else would the left go? And the right is never counted upon for votes. This is how Obama seems to have governed. But there is a problem. He does not seem to be as smooth as "Slick Willy" and perhaps not as dishonest either. There had often been contradictions on his face. But they seem to be fading with each year as president.
The last press conference seemed to reveal Obama's contradictions in the uncharacteristic anger he showed toward the left. Had he not given them what they wanted? Had he not played his triangulation role well enough? It was a moment of self-indulgence. The anger seemed to fit perfectly into his sense of failure of not being like "Slick Willy." So, what happens? The real "Slick Willy" appears once again in the White House press room.
The Obama triangulation may not work because of the lack of deftness in delivery. But perhaps all that is needed is time.
23 comments:
Toni Morrison was the person who said Clinton was the first black president. This this from Wiki
In 1998, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison in The New Yorker called Clinton "the first Black president", saying, "Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas", and comparing Clinton's sex life, scrutinized despite his career accomplishments, to the stereotyping and double standards that blacks typically endure.
*******************
At the same point in his Presidency, after he took his own shellacking, Clinton was visibly shaken for a good period of time - he didn't pull himself together nearly as quickly as Obama has. One reason is because he did not have a highly successfully democratic President to pull into a press conference.
In my view, Obama should be angry at the left . They have been dumping on him since the spring of 2009. I think their noise has a lot to do with pushing moderates away from Obama. There is a professional left who make a good chunk of money playing to their base. For example, Keith Olbermann makes 6 million a year to keep his 1 million audience watching him. Pundits are as driven by fame and fortune and are therefore as susceptible to corruption as any politician. They are rarely held accountable for what they write or say. They never have to face tough questions in a national forum. Yet many of them have as much influence as many people in congress.
I agree with Zorro and it remains to be seen if President Obama NEEDS to be deft as much as he needs to be accomplished.
His 'playbook' is similar to his true ideal president, Ronald Regan. It took him a while to get things going but by the end of his second term, he was hailed as what was needed at the time.
Certain aspects of about President Obama has left me wondering. The Tax Cuts will eventually disappear and become permanent, which is amazing since they can only muster less than their 1-3% population at the polls... so who is voting in the congresspeople who continue to extend these breaks?
Anywho, there has been a lot done... and maybe the 'magic black man' thing that he inheirited along with the debt, the wars and fickle democrats will fade and he will be what not 'we' need but the entire country needs.
Hey, Zorro! It's been a while. Good to hear from you. I smile at your comment but largely disagree. But I do so love Toni Morrison. Huge smile there! I don't altogether see how the quote contradicts my points in the post regarding race in the very least. In fact, it indeed bolsters the success of triangulation of black people by Bill Clinton of various strata. This does not negate his veiled racist comments during the 2008 campaign or Hillary's either. February of 2008 she spoke of appealing to "good, hard-working, white people." But she's cool with me. I'm thinking that since you used Morrison to begin your comment that there would be some correlation to the rest of it. I failed to see that. By the way, there are quite a few economic policies--NAFTA and the do nothing policies of bank deregulation--that Bill Clinton enacted and allowed that are the seeds of many of our economic woes today. It's the deference of pain as with this current tax bill. The issue is jobs. There is no trickle down and nothing in the bill has long-term stimuli. As I know you appreciate Krugman, I'm sure you've read his positions.
"There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." --Mark Twain
I put in the Morrison quote, because it is the source of Clinton being tagged as 'the first Black President', but is surely does no describe the first President with African blood.
Bill Clinton was a successful President. Suppose he had not been successful? The GOP could have sold line that only Reagonomics works. If he had been followed by another Democratic President, we'd have a Supreme Court that tilts left. (the extreme left through Nader gave us Bush) The federal court system would not be as conservative as it is today and would be less likely to strike down provisions in the new health care bill. There would not have been a '10 year temporary tax cut' signed into law. NAFTA might well have been amended when it was seen that it was being used as a way to ship jobs to China and not a way to bolster the Mexican economy. We need several successive terms of successful Democratic Presidents to get lasting change. We need to take stock of what is positive and build on this instead of pointing out what we don't like.
There has to be a point when we just let the President do his job without constantly jumping in and offering our analysis. After this last election, the country did move to the right (like 1994) - and I'm sure that the griping from the left about TARP and the lack of public option in health care was counter productive. Many of the people who were doing the griping were not doing in the nation's interest. They were doing it for their own self interest (play to congressional district,ratings, web site hits, book sales etc) They take stands that satisfy their audience. Jon Stewart is the only national figure that points this out. Stewart has the same pressures, but since he sells humor first and center left politics second, he does not need to cater to the extreme left wing to keep his audience.
Would this happen in a GOP administration?
Tom Friedman on Obama's secretary of the Navy whose goal it to make the Navy go Green. When the Interstates were built, Eisenhower was able to make the case we need them for national defense, which helped to push the bill through. Now the Navy is saying green sources of energy are needed to national defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19friedman.html?hp
Another word for triangulation is governing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/us/politics/17bai.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
"Another word for triangulation is governing."
Nope.
What is Obama supposed to do and why would it work?
The idea of Obama not being as smooth as Slick Willie -
Slick Willie was devastated at this point in his Presidency - he had no wars, a slow economy, but nothing like this - and his job approval was 40%. Slick Willie had not shown his stuff yet. The term triangulation had not even been coined. He left office with the highest approval rating of any president since WWII. Why wouldn't a Democratic president want him by his side? As for Clintons comments during the campaign - well, at least he never thought that Newt Gingrich would make a good President (As Arianna Huffington did in 1995)
Here is the link.'
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983655,00.html
Hey zorro, a name change doesn't change the essence of who you are. Google reads just the same. :-)
Haven't read your link, but why is Arianna Huffington brought into this conversation? By the way, most politicians belong to the criminal class about which Mark Twain wrote.
"What is Obama supposed to do and why would it work?"
Leaders don't capitulate on what is right and then fight with words as Obama did at his press conference. A month or so before John Boehner said that he would capitulate. Obama did not give him that chance to do what was by far better for the middle class and the working class. Instead, he gave the likes of the Walton family, those Arkansan friends of Bill Clinton, a $30 billion dollar gift and then spoke with enraged tones about fighting for the middle class. This to me is not leadership. What it does it defer the pain on the middle and working class as they will eventually have to pay for this outrageous gift to millionaires and billionaires without a bit of stimuli for which they will be able to repay the debt in future. As I have said, this tax bill is bigger than the stimulus bill without any stimuli. There is no trickle down. Ronald Reagan economics has been proven to be a failure and Obama has adopted it. This is shameful. Period.
What about those shovel ready projects? Have you heard much about those? Outside of the initial shovel in dirt? This tax bill has got me thinking about all kinds of deals gone seemingly array.
Dennis Kusinich on theTax Deal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#40760533
BTW - aside from what leadership is or isn't, exactly what is Obama supposed to do? - and why would it work? Why would it be a good idea to call the GOP bluff and let the cuts expire for everyone (The Senate attempted to pass a bill that let the cuts expire on the top 2% and failed) - and then work with a GOP house in 2011? There would be no extension of unemployment, taxes would go up for everyone - and no one would blame the GOP.
according to the CBO, the stimulus created or saved around 2 million + jobs.
The idea that politicians are criminals is exactly what the far right wants people to believe. If government is seen to be totally corrupt, then it makes sense to vote for the party that wants to reduce the size of government.
Almost everything that is good about America is a direct result of big government. Interstates, safe medicine, food, good universities, technology, equality,
safe work places, automobiles and on and on. The 'meme' that politicians suck is a right wing meme.
Have you read Krugman's position on the tax bill? You have used him almost exclusively.
There is no us and them. There is only them.
Your philosophy is the line liberals have been using since 1968 - and it is part of the reason we are in this position today. You're in Ralph Nader territory.
This approach kept us in Vietnam longer than necessary - by getting Nixon elected - pushing for perfect Health Care is why Nixon couldn't get his plan through in 1972 - and its why Bush got elected in 2000. It is actually one of the reasons the House became so Republican. Why should independents feel confidence in Obama when everyone on the left (and the right) relentlessly attack him. The people to call into question are the pundits on the left who attack (Huffington and Ed Shultz, for example spent severals years on the extreme right and shifted to hard left positions almost over night.) The Conservatives have patience - They officially kicked off their movement in 1952 with the publication of the National Review and finally got what they wanted in Reagan's 1980 victory - that is a big reason they have been so successful. Liberals tend to want everything now - and, at least since the mid 1960's - get nothing.
Obama has had success on 85% of what he promised during the election. More legislation has been passed since the 1960's. As far as Krugman goes, I trust him. He is sincere and smart. But he might be wrong. He was surely wrong a few weeks ago when he was very upset that social security is going to raise the retirement age to 68 in 2065. The age must go up as the life span goes up. He might be too liberal.
You still haven't given an answer as to what Obama is actually supposed to do. (Chris Mathews started using this technique to guests who dump on Obama - and so far, no one has been able to answer the question. It might be an unfair question, but it seems to me if it can't be answered, the complaints don't have much merit.
zorro - It really does not matter how you term my "philosophy." It is your opinion. It is usually interesting to read your views whether agreeable or not. Here I largely do not agree. I have spent most of my time on Facebook lately in extended discussions. I am rather exhausted. My blog has become, as you must have realized, less active. So, perhaps I will respond to you question later and maybe not. Have a great holiday weekend.
Here is what we have to contend with. Article about the GOP attempting to defund what little banking regulation we have. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0327647320110103
Post a Comment