Something about Obama's strategy that makes no sense to me

[jpgray]

It's very simple. Voters can be galvanized into outrage over a trivial issue very easily, such as we've seen with federal workers' pay and earmarks. These are not massive contributors to the deficit by any means, but can be cited as part of a larger assault, a focused narrative intended to paint the Democrats as wasteful and corrupt spenders.

Yet actually -addressing- these concerns does not win gratitude comparable to the outrage. Voters are not going to be cheering about Obama freezing federal pay in '12, or Congress ending earmarks. They will not say to themselves "Ah, the narrative was wrong--time to register D," they will simply be fed another superficial issue that furthers the narrative, forgetting all about the previous issues. Their anger on such things can be stoked for years--all the way to election season if necessary. Their support and respect for anyone actually -addressing- them is marginal at any point, but becomes nonexistent once election season comes around.

I don't imagine anyone here seriously believes that attacks will die off as Obama addresses piecemeal each Republican concern. New outrages are easily manufactured. Obama could concede on every major outrage, and never get any closer to neutralizing GOP attacks. There is no number of concessions that will prove the narrative false--that is the whole point of the narrative.

We have a tailor-made narrative of attack on the GOP, which does not rely at all on superficial issues, but on the biggest issues of our time. Poll after poll shows the GOP is out of step with the nation, and on the most critical policy.

So the political value of each concession is marginal at best, while the practical cost is often terrible. If the concession destroyed the narrative, the political value would increase, but that doesn't happen. We simply eat the practical cost, and a new attack arises while the narrative survives, demanding further concession.

Obama would be no worse off if he failed to concede, for this reason. No one knew he cut taxes in the midterms, and no one will know he conceded on the pay freeze. He would be far better off if he swatted down petty complaints, as they address little or nothing of practical value ($5 billion over two years for the pay freeze). He might instead focus on laying out the -real- complaints every voter should have on the GOP. He can't do it alone, but if it was his sole focus, he would reap more benefits than he has from concession.

Shorter version: Obama should spend more time arguing the GOP needs to come down from its radical stance on welfare for the rich. He should spend less time chastising himself for being a big-spending anti-business partisan.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Well said.

Recommended!

[leftstreet]

2. I think voters are confused as to why the Republicans are even at the table

Voters kicked them to the curb in 2006 and again in 2008

The party was dead. Reaganomics failed.

:shrug:

[jpgray]

3. After constant concessions, what must the voters think about that?

They must either imagine that the Democrats are weak and wrong, or the GOP is strong and right. Otherwise, why should the party in majority concede readily to the party in minority? I don't believe this is anything like an exact picture of events, but it's easy to lock casual voters into such a narrative.

[leftstreet]

4. True. Obama doesn't need to slay this dragon...we did it for him

So it's confusing. We cleared the battle field, but he's still fighting??


"They must either imagine that the Democrats are weak and wrong, or the GOP is strong and right"

The two parties just seem to trade these positions/narratives over and over, election cycle after election cycle.