Electoral Score Card

This election is supposed to be about the economy but neither side has provided specifics on how they would improve economic performance if elected.  I was surprised that Obama did not bring up the major jobs bill that he sent to Congress; it provided a clear road map of his likely intentions.  The Democrats made a credible glass is half-full argument, but I wonder if anyone was listening.  If the Republicans have a plan, they are keeping it close.  I think Clinton’s ‘mathematics’ criteria comes into play here.  Also, since they are the party of ‘something new and different’ on this one, all they have to do is run against Obama’s record. 
  
The Democrats gain an edge on the ‘debt’ issue.  The idea of a tax cut, as proffered by the Republicans flies in the face of a need to balance the budget.  The Democrats make the case, unchallenged by Republicans, which any Republican ‘balancing’ will come through cuts in deductions that will fall heavily on the middle class.  The Democrats also pointed out that –with the military scheduled to get a major increased in Federal funding- the burden of the cuts will be borne by massive cuts to non-defense discretionary spending.  The Democratic answer, drawing on Simpson-Bowles, requires cuts in defense and non-defense spending along with tax increases, primarily on the rich.  To me the Democratic plan is more sensible and plausible.

The Democrats win the national security argument hands down.  T he Obama administration can point to one success after another in this area.  Romney’s talking points – we should not have left Iraq, we may need to invade Iran – raise the specter of a return to the neoconservative approach of President Bush.  Romney’s foreign trip yielded several vignettes of a naïve and simplistic approach.  The fact that he did not take the time and effort to become well briefed speaks volumes about where his interests lie and possible his arrogance that it didn’t matter.

The difference between Republican and Democratic approaches to economic safety nets is particularly stark.  Clearly Republicans will seek to cut spending and otherwise lower the burden on the well endowed to lend a hand to the less fortunate.  Clearly, the Democrats will continue to support, if not expand, medical coverage and aid to education.  If you share President Obama’s view of citizenship, than your choice is clear.  If you believe, instead, that government support to the less fortunate -by rewarding a lack of planning and personal industry- is counterproductive, than your choice is equally clear.

President Obama and the Democrats have not done well over the last four years dealing with Republic intractability: one of the traits of a successful President is the ability to marshal the political consensus required to get his programs passed and this has proven to be the President’s Achilles heel.  The Republicans have won the public relations war: most Americans think we are worse off than when Obama took office, and most Americans haven’t a clue about the full set of advantages offered by Obamacare.   It took President Clinton to make the case in a way they could understand. 

President Obama did not use his bully pulpit to punish the Republicans for their intransigence, despite the rampant evidence – including specific statements by Republican Congressional leadership- that denying him a legislative victory took precedence over solving America’s problems.   The fact that most American’s do not understand how they have benefited from Obama’s leadership is his problem and his alone.   It is neither necessary nor sufficient for a President to care about the welfare of the average American, it is necessary that the average American believe that they have benefited from the President’s stewardship.  Whether the President can make this case over the last several weeks of a four year term is problematical.