Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
As my colleague Holly Yeager noted the other day, the spate of Rahm Emanuel stories that have lately been clogging up the Internet draw some startlingly different conclusions about the cartoonishly profane White House chief of staff. In the space of two weeks last month, there were three much-discussed itemsâEd Luceâs Financial Times story, followed by a long blog post by Steve Clemons at The Washington Note and a Daily Beast column by Leslie Gelbâthat placed Emanuel among a group of White House insiders who are dragging down the presidency. More recently, a âcontrarian narrativeââpushed by columnist Dana Milbank in The Washington Post, and in a front-page story by Jason Horwitz in the same paperâhas emerged: the problem is not that President Obama listens to Emanuel too much, itâs that he doesnât listen to him enough. Predictably, the backlash immediately sparked a backlash: see, for example, Dan Froomkinâs Huffington Post column haranguing his former WaPo colleagues and dubbing Emanuel âObamaâs Chief of Sabotage.â
But for all the disagreement about Emanuelâs sins or virtues, these pieces share a common assumption: that something has gone badly awry within the Obama administration. Luce asks: âWhat went wrong?â Clemons declares: âObama is not winning. He is failing.â Gelb refers offhandedly to âbad judgments on priorities, practicalities, and steadiness.â Milbank asserts in passing that âObama’s first year fell apart.â Horwitz uses more measured languageâhe is ostensibly writing a news story, after allâto describe the administrationâs âcurrent bind.â But Froomkin takes the rhetoric to new heights, referring to âthe wreckage of what was once such a promising presidency.â
I have no sources within Washington, so readers looking for an account of how influential Emanuel really is should look elsewhere. (Iâd recommend Noam Scheiberâs profile in The New Republic, the bestâand, hopefully, the lastâin the recent slew of Rahm-ologies.) And Iâm not going to wade into the debate over whether Emanuelâs policy views and his approach to politics are good for the country, or for the Democratic Party. But the conclusion that Obama has been a failure at implementing his agenda, and that there is anything about his political standing that requires special explanation, is misguided, incomplete, and premature, whatever the inside-the-Beltway chatter may be.
In terms of policy accomplishments, thereâs a general consensus, even among the stories mentioned here, that Obama got off to a good start: the president âgot 11 substantive bills on this desk before the August recess,â Milbank writes. Whatâs happened since that point, of course, is that health care consumed the agenda. While thereâs room for disagreement about Obamaâs performance on many important issuesâdetainee policy, the war in Afghanistan, the Arab-Israeli peace process, and financial reform among themâthe âfailureâ narrative is all about health care.
But does that make any sense? National health care reform, which has been an unrealized goal of the Democratic Party for more than half a century, was a centerpiece of Obamaâs campaign platform. It was unsurprising that he made it a priority as president, and it is unsurprising that it has proved awfully difficult to pass. But, during Obama’s first year in office, Democrats came closer to overhauling health care than they ever have before. If not for the events in Massachusetts, they would have done so already, despite lockstep GOP opposition. And while Scott Brownâs election created some real uncertainty, judging by the stories of the past few days, itâs again looking more likely than not that comprehensive reform will pass.
Even if it doesnât, the reform campaignâjudged strictly as an effort to achieve a political goalâwas a risk well worth taking, and one that very nearly paid off. And if it does pass, it will beâagain, judged strictly as an effort to achieve a political goalâa historic triumph. (Meanwhile, as health care has overwhelmed the legislative calendar and eaten up the news hole, Obama has continued to advance his policies on other fronts.)
How about Obamaâs political standing? After their sky-high beginnings, Obamaâs approval ratings went into a long, steady decline before stabilizing right around 50 percent. Health care probably had something to do with thisâwhile thereâs support for its component parts, the total package hadnât polled well, and itâs possible that the association between Obama and reform made both the president and the plan less popular.
But the bigger causes are structural: the country is highly polarized, so about half the country is predisposed, in the long run, not to approve of the president. (By the same token, Congressional Democrats, now enjoying unsustainably large majorities, are due for a drubbing.) And the economyâa powerful determinant of political outcomes, and one that that president has limited means to addressâstill stinks. In that context, Obamaâs standing with the public, much like his record on implementing policy, is far from perfect, but itâs not bad. Itâs alsoâagain, like his policy recordâentirely within the range of what a rational observer would expect.
Now, these journalists didnât manufacture their complaints out of whole cloth. No doubt there are plenty of folks in Congress, in the Cabinet, and on the Internet who are angry at Obama and/or his advisors, in part because their interests donât always align. Further, the Obama presidency has not lived upâbecause no presidency couldâto the sometimes rapturous acclaim and out-of-control expectations that surrounded the Obama candidacy (encouraged, to be sure, by the campaign). And, of course, the Obama presidency hasâas all presidencies doâmade tactical, strategic, and policy-oriented missteps; in some cases, internal dysfunction surely played a role. All of that is, appropriately, fodder for the press.
But most of these Rahm storiesâwhether they fall into the âblame staffâ or âblame Obamaâ campsâread like explanations in search of a problem, or, to quote from David Broderâs terrific WaPo column today, like âpetty Washington gossipâ being channeled by âjournalists who fancy themselves great campaign strategists.â The country is in bad shape. All things considered, the presidentâwhatever the merits of his staffâis doing okay.
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.