Obama's Debt Talk Edge Lost Amid GOP's "No Taxes" Rhetoric

In Debt Ceiling Fight, Obama Has the Edge

Last year, President Obama and House Republicans managed to reach a last-minute accord on preserving the Bush tax cuts, and then in April they just barely averted a government shutdown. But now, in this debate over the debt ceiling, each side seems ready to make a stand at last and find out whom the voters really trust when it comes to righting the nation’s finances.

The question is whom you would rather be if this thing does, in fact, escalate into a full-blown crisis. As things stand today, I’d much rather be in the president’s shoes than in those of his adversaries, and not only because he tends to dress better.

I say this because politicians very often get themselves into trouble when they subscribe to what you might call the transference theory of political popularity. This is the theory that suggests that the enemy of the person voters don’t trust is someone they will inherently trust more. Or to put it another way: if you’ve lost faith in that guy over there, and I walk up and kick him in the teeth, then your faith will be somehow transferred to me.

This is the political theory under which George W. Bush’s advisers were operating when they predicted spontaneous outpourings of support from Iraqis once American troops toppled Saddam Hussein. Anyone who’d spent a little time in Iraq should have known that while most Iraqis were going to be glad to be rid of Saddam, that didn’t mean they were ready to embrace his deposer, either.

And this is effectively the same theory that Republicans in Washington have adopted since last November. They mistake disappointment with Obama’s policies for an emphatic validation of their antigovernment rhetoric. They think the voters have to trust someone, and since they’re not so enamored of Mr. Obama’s performance, that someone must be them.



But politics really isn’t binary; it only seems that way. It’s possible for voters to rebuke Mr. Obama and trust his opposition even less. And in fact, polling shows that’s exactly what’s going on.

In a New York Times/CBS News poll from a few weeks ago, Mr. Obama maintained a tepid approval rating of 47 percent, with 44 percent of the voters registering disapproval. But only 20 percent approved of Congress, versus 70 percent who disapproved. Those are Roger Clemens-type numbers. They don’t get you anywhere near the Hall of Fame.

Polls also show that the president remains personally liked by large majority of the public. But really, the discrepancy in their approval ratings probably has less to do with Mr. Obama or House leaders personally than it does with the nature of our system. Presidents always seem bigger and more commanding than members of Congress. Even a beaten-down president tends to be more compelling than some guy who needs to wear a lapel pin just to make sure he can ride the right elevator.

This is why President Clinton squashed his Republican opponents during the government shutdown in 1996 and again after his impeachment in 1998. Even disgraced, he managed to come off like the only grownup in town, a real-life Gulliver tottering while tiny people scurried to bind his ankles together.

The Republican nominee in next year’s election, whoever that turns out to be, might be able to stare down Mr. Obama on something as consequential as the debt ceiling and come away looking larger and more capable. But not so for your average Congressional leader, which is probably why the shrewd Mr. Boehner appeared so eager to cut a deal until his caucus rebelled over the weekend.

Working in Mr. Obama’s favor, too, is that he seems now to understand this power dynamic and how to use it. Earlier in his presidency, Mr. Obama seemed to think he could best his opponents by appealing to their sense of shared responsibility and chatting them up at Super Bowl parties. It didn’t work.

Now, though, he seems to get that a president wins when he boxes in his adversaries, forcing them either to compromise on his terms or to risk the political consequences of appearing intransigent. For the past week or so, the president has relentlessly sought the mantle of maturity, casting himself as the guy seeking bold and far-reaching compromise while his opponents seek the lower ground of marginal change.

Republicans may be right on this point; it may not be the wisest thing in the world to remake the entire federal budget in the space of a furious few days. But to the extent that Mr. Obama gets his message across more effectively, he hands Republicans the unenviable choice or either joining him in a comprehensive solution or looking self-interested for backing away and imperiling the economy.

Does that mean voters won’t blame Mr. Obama for a crisis over the debt ceiling? It doesn’t. But they’ll probably blame Congress even more. If you’re Republican right now, the flawed theory of transference is one you’d probably rather not put to the test.

Sources: CNN, NY Times