President Obama (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT) and NJ Gov. Chris Christie (Robert Sciarrino/The Star-Ledger) .
President Obama is a fine man, but he just got rolled by Republicans again.
He wanted a grand bargain, and they said no. He wanted a balance of spending and tax changes, and they said no again. And now, with 14 million Americans out of work, he’s about to sign an agreement full of job-killing spending cuts. This, he tells us, is good for the country.
You get the feeling that if they kidnapped his dog, he would pay them money to return it. And say thank you.
The solution here is obvious: Obama needs a blood transfusion from someone meaner, someone who doesn’t shy away from a fight, someone who is willing to take his case to the people and force change.
He needs a dose of Gov. Chris Christie.
Yes, this is a dangerous business. With too much Christie in his system, Obama might invade Iran, or even France. And we really don’t need another president who favors the rich over the poor at every turn.
But Christie is a strong and natural leader. He is clear about what he wants. He fights like an angry pit bull. And he cuts a deal only after he’s roughed up the other side a bit.
“The problem, in the end, is that Obama doesn’t want to be nasty,” says Professor Gerald Pomper of Rutgers University. “Machiavelli has this great line in which he says it’s better for a leader to be feared than loved. And people don’t fear Obama.”
Video: Chris Christie talks about the debt crisis resolution in Washington New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie talks about the debt crisis in Washington DC and how he was glad that the President and Congress were finally able to get something accomplished. Christie talked about how NJ has been able to accomplish real change in a divided government because people talk to each other, not at them. (Video by Ed Murray/The Star-Ledger) Watch video
What we have in the Oval Office today is a law professor who doesn’t like to make enemies. He likes to play it safe, and to float along with the tide. That passivity has hurt him throughout this ordeal.
First, he appointed the Bowles-Simpson commission to suggest a way to tackle the debt. The idea was to give bipartisan cover for a painful mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.
The commission did its part. And then Obama cut them loose, saying nice things about their efforts without endorsing any of the moves they suggested. Support for the plan evaporated.
Try to imagine Christie punting like that on anything. It’s never happened. Never will.The fight over taxes on the rich was painful to watch. The American people were with Obama on this one, according to the polls. Some polls showed that even a majority of Republicans wanted to hike taxes on the rich.
Again, go to Christie. This one takes a little effort because it’s hard to imagine Christie pushing for tax hikes, but play the game. If Christie wanted tax hikes on the rich, he would travel the country staging events at yacht clubs and golf courses, and most assuredly on Wall Street. He would pound at the rich mercilessly, and he would call the members of Congress who support them chumps and stooges.
Obama gave a few measured speeches, and then was reduced to chirping at press conferences about the need for “balance.” Not exactly a rallying cry that inspires troops to rush the barricades.
One final big one: The 14th Amendment card. That amendment says that the public debt of the United States “shall not be questioned,” and some scholars believe it gives the president power to borrow money to avoid default, with or without the approval of Congress.
Bill Clinton saw right away that this was a great bargaining chip, at the least. If House Speaker John Boehner were worried that Obama might ignore Congress altogether, he might have been willing to bend. Clinton said he would play that card.
Not Obama. He consulted his experts, who said the Supreme Court might stop him, and the House might even impeach him. And he backed down.
Christie, remember, threatened to defy the Supreme Court when it was considering the school-funding case. It was a bluff, and a despicable one to those who care about the rule of law. But the point is, Christie understands the use of power in a way that Obama does not.
In a way, the comparison is not fair to Obama. Democrats in Trenton helped Christie get pension and health reform passed. In fact, they were working on it long before he arrived.
Republicans in Washington have gone haywire. If Ronald Reagan were alive today, he couldn’t win a primary in California because he repeatedly raised taxes and made deals with Democrats. To the tea party crowd, that is strictly verboten.
Still, Obama didn’t fight like Christie would have. He never seems comfortable in combat.
“I don’t think he has the fire in the belly,” says Fred Greenstein, a professor emeritus at Princeton University. “He’s more of a think-tank intellectual. Kennedy is the closest match.”
Yes, this temperament in a president has its advantages. Kennedy didn’t pick a fight when he found Russian missiles in Cuba. Obama is not likely to invade a country to find weapons that didn’t exist.
But in a day when the political discourse resembles a cage fight, Christie’s personality is a more natural fit. You can decide for yourself whether that is a compliment or an insult.
Interesting analysis that many Obama supporters like me probably agree with. Brian
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment