Obama Returns To Persuasion Mode
The national security speech Barack Obama just wrapped up is a sign that he has returned to persuasion mode with a vengeance.
One of the premises of Obama’s presidential campaign was his belief that he could win arguments with Republicans about national security; that he didn’t have to shy away from such arguments; and that Dems could frame debates about such questions, rather than always cede the game to the GOP.
That side of Obama seemed to be in remission in recent weeks, as the White House offered rationalizations for a string of national security decisions that seemed strikingly similar to those of his predecessor.
Today, perhaps out of frustration, or perhaps out of necessity, Obama the Persuader is back.
Obama directly confronted every one of the national security attacks coming from Republicans of late. Obama’s aggressiveness and coherence today was a strong reminder of just how absent this sort of push-back has been in recent weeks and just how incoherent the Dem response has been.
Obama argued that torture is not only wrong, but is also ineffective. He practically mocked the idea that we should fear housing terrorists in maximum security prisons in America. He didn’t shy away from arguing that the law, ultimately, is our most important source of strength. Tellingly, he also refused to cede ground to his liberal critics, implicitly insisting that decisions that have disappointed them do have a place in his larger vision.
Obama’s return to persuasion mode is itself an acknowledgment that Republicans have succeeded in framing the debate and that the GOP attacks were creating deep consternation among Congressional Dems. One interesting thing to watch will be whether Obama’s speech reassures Dems in Congress or whether they persist in believing that they remain vulnerable to the GOP attacks. Our bet is the latter.
Read the full speech here.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Persuasion isn’t as persuasive as it used to be. Throw some people in jail.
I just figured out one big reason Cheney isn’t going back to Wyoming. The man can’t breathe at sea level. How on earth could he breathe at altitude?
Greg – look, I don’t think Obama cares about making Congress happy with that speech. He was talking to US – the people. He knows exactly what to say to us, too. He knows exactly where to reach that part of Americans that we are fondest of: our common sense and our common decency.
Obama has always taken his case to the people, Greg. You’re such an insider that you’re getting the self-important disease and you’re thinking that DC matters more than our here.
Obama knows it doesn’t. He wasn’t talking to Congress – although he certainly was criticizing Congress. But he was talking to us. And he scored.
Tena, the behavior of Congress impacts his agenda….
Just got finished listening to Cheney’s speech… I was trying to hold my breakfast down the entire time.
Cheney doesn’t care about America… only his legacy.
Obama should change his mind and investigate Cheney just because he keeps running his mouth!
“Greg – look, I don’t think Obama cares about making Congress happy with that speech. He was talking to US – the people.”
To the extent that Congresscritters are also Americans, he was speaking to them. If, underscore if, they have any principles, they may have listened.
Obama’s speech was great–serious, mature, and he looked pissed. I have to disagree with Greg’s read that they have been ‘fumbling’ and only now get to persuasion. He has been in the same mode all along it is The Village that gets distracted by shiny objects (Cheney) and gives them credibility they don’t deserve so Obama has to go out there and remind them how adults do it.
Greg:
“Our bet is the latter.”
Who else is writing this stuff with you?
lfo,
I would agree that Obama felt the need to respond to Cheney only after the story blew up, but part of this comes from his team’s continued surprise at these pernicious media memes. The Guantanamo NIMBY idea was not crushed early on, and now has become a serious problem for Obama’s agenda.
For some reason, when the campaign ended, Obama stopped the effective immediate responses that worked so well against attacks during the campaign. And this strategy has worked well to insulate him (notice that none of the barrages of attacks have worked). Nevertheless, Obama’s goal is a policy agenda, and his lack of coherent response with the Democratic Party ended up hurting both him and his agenda. I hope the speech can get the party back on task and on message.
“Tena, the behavior of Congress impacts his agenda….”
Of course. And we have an impact on what Congress does. That’s what I think his real revolution is about. I do believe he wants to bring it back to us.
Yeah he addressed Congress, but I don’t believe he was in any way trying to mollify them.
Greg – I saw a lot of anger in Obama today. I didn’t see any backing down or flip-flopping or side-stepping. I saw anger.
“…persuasion mode with a vengeance.” + Alinsky/Progressive Permanent Campaign Mode = Statements emanating from both sides of the CinC’s mouth (with expiration dates stamped on the White Paper).
If you think about the substance of this speech rather than wondering how it specifically addresses each mini-controversy that rages for a day or a week, it’s to miss that Obama laid down very clear markers about our national security, our rule of law, and why our democracy has value. Damned if I’m going to think about it terms of who framed what debate when. That’s inside baseball in a league that doesn’t interest me at all.
One of the things that may be overlooked in Obama’s speech was his emphasis on the co-equal branches of government and on his expectation of having oversight from Congress or the courts for those things he can’t reveal because of national security. That is significant since it’s such a departure from Bush/Cheney and another way of observing and re-instating the Constitution. And though he again indicated he’s not interested in a truth commission, he made it clear that Congress and the DOJ have responsibilities to investigate and pursue illegality. This is his route to accountability.
Sorry, I’m not buying it. Eric Holder, like Gonzo before him, is doing exactly as he’s told. The idea that Holder would surge ahead with prosecutions when Obama doesn’t want them is fantasy.
tao9–you mention the Alinsky mode like it’s a bad thing.
“Sorry, I’m not buying it. Eric Holder, like Gonzo before him, is doing exactly as he’s told. The idea that Holder would surge ahead with prosecutions when Obama doesn’t want them is fantasy.”
Fine, Eeyore. You’re welcome to go through life not trusting anyone. I’m reasonably sure most people will return the favor.
ABC, which line in particular are you talking about?
Greg, is this what you mean?
“I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission. I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.”
Or did you want the part about the co-equal branches and the oversight Obama expects from Congress and the courts? Or something else?
Here’s the one on oversight, which is worth highlighting in any case: “I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued – and never will – that our most sensitive national security matters should be an open book. I will never abandon – and I will vigorously defend – the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war; to protect sources and methods; and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe. And so, whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.”
The previous administration did what they needed to do to keep us safe. Let’s see if the present one can too.
Haw Haw. Obama is running the endless and now shop worn banter of campaigning–all fluff and no substance. How’s that for hope(less) change? Meanwhile, Richard B. Cheney cleaned Obama’s clock. Next..
“Obama should investigate Cheney just because he keeps running his mouth.”
That’s absolutely correct! The Attorney General, acting under Obama’s direction, has the power and duty to conduct in depth investigations and pursue criminal prosecutions.
People shouldn’t be allowed to make unfair and divisive attacks on our President’s policies which are designed to keep us safe. This kind of attack risks dividing the country and puts us all at risk.
When people make unfair and unreasonable attacks, they should be investigated and, if there’s reason to think they’ve done anything criminal, they should be prosecuted.
This is the best way to protect the United States.
He did not, and has never persuaded me, that is Barack Obama. It was a “candidate” speech. The difference is that now he is try to cover the obvious, his policies do make the country less safe! And he is articulate and I can not understand how intelligent people do not see through the stupidity of his arguments, which, are completely political and have nothing to do with improving security.
Greg,
Surely you jest when you write that Obama “didn’t shy away from arguing that the law, ultimately, is our most important source of strength.”
Obama is advocating a new sort of law that enables him to put suspected problem people in jail indefinitely without the nicety of a trial.
Today, it’s suspected terrorists; tomorrow, it will be people who just oppose him (Obama).
“If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday — when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected — it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we’ll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don’t think we can convict in a real court, we’ll get convictions in the military commissions I’m creating. For those we can’t convict even in my military commissions, we’ll just imprison them anyway with no charges (”preventively detain” them). … A more warped ’system of justice’ is hard to imagine. ”
http://tinyurl.com/ohs27a