Running Against Congress

For those who have been following the Congressional health care debate, watching Obama’s poll numbers slip as the bill began to flounder was confounding. The bill was not failing or being watered down due to Barack Obama’s lack of passion or concern. The bill was suffering because of the supermajority requirement in the Senate, something over which Obama has next to no control. It was suffering because conservative legislators were determined to either filibuster anything and everything or use their power to mold the bill to their liking. How could Obama be blamed for such perfidy?

The simple reason is that most of the people in the United States have better things to do than master the inner workings of congressional politics and its impact on various policy debates. The government was failing, the public’s reasoning went, and Obama is leading it. Thus, the buck stops with him. Without a more sophisticated understanding of how Congress operates, its failings were doomed to reflect upon Obama.

But last night, in a rather unexpected fashion, Obama decided to use his State of the Union address this year to attempt to provide the public with just such an understanding. The speech was peppered with references to Congress and its failings, refusing to play into the convenient faux-humility of taking responsibility for the other branch’s unwillingness to govern.

He took direct aim at Congress’ reputation for a supermajority requirement to govern. If they want the ability to help formulate legislation that comes with this approach, they need to exercise it and not fall back on convenient obstructionism. “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership,” he said pointedly.

The filibuster critique is a familiar one, but his decision to target Senate holds, which have rendered much of Obama’s administration unstaffed and much of the federal government ungovernable, was less expected and just as biting. “The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators,” he affirmed, referring to the potential holdup of the re-confirmation of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as the Senate plans a vote today. It was a much-needed jolt for a cause that could get lost in the shuffle as the Senate attempts to finish health care, tackle jobs, and perhaps take on climate change this year.

While the word count of Obama’s speech devoted to health care was low, Obama still stressed as much as he could the need to pass health care. “Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close,” he implored. “Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.” He did not specify a method for passing the bill, nor could he have. With Speaker Pelosi in the midst of heated negotiations with Senators to ensure that a supplement to the Senate bill can be passed, a call to pass the Senate bill verbatim would have been disastrous, ruining the chance of a deal on a supplement and potentially killing health care reform with it. Still, Obama did not leave his allies off the hook. “The people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills,” he urged. Without upsetting a delicate process, Obama satisfied, or should have satisfied, liberal wishes for a renewed push on the issue.

Critics will say that the calls for tax cuts and a budget freeze bought into conservative rhetoric and reinforced anti-government sentiment, as though such feelings are the mere creation of the conservative movement and all Americans would back a robust welfare state in the absence of such rhetoric. Obama knew better than to be so dismissive, and instead co-opted conservative terminology for progressive tax reform and a limited freeze that will barely touch most spending. By equating already popular sentiments with liberal policies, he is helping make the political landscape friendlier, not more hostile, to social democratic policies.

With this speech, Obama informed the American public of who was really responsible for the gridlock and inaction of Washington in the face of economic calamity. While no one can know how persuasive this effort was, that it was made at all suggests a welcome and useful shift in the administration’s strategy.

Dylan Matthews is a staff writer for Campus Progress. He attends Harvard University.

Related Stories

• Citizens United: Two Years Later, Still Terrible
• Obama To Congress: Make College Affordable, Invest in Worker Training
• Obama: Let’s Build An ‘Economy Built To Last’
• LIVE COVERAGE: State of the Union Tonight, 9 P.M.
• Biden Focuses on College Costs—Foreshadowing Obama’s State of the Union?