Obama Doubles Down

Well, one thing we can say for sure about President Obama after Wednesday’s State of the Union: Bill Clinton, he ain’t.

And the congressional GOP is no doubt pinching itself and asking: What did we do to deserve such luck?

Seriously, Mitch McConnell’s worst nightmare had to be that a contrite and humbled president would mount the rostrum, admit he had misread his mandate and offer some big, public concession to the opposition, e.g., offering to work seriously on tort reform as the price of healthcare reform. Instead, the Republicans got a peeved, arrogant, self-righteous president determined to go double or nothing on what is plainly a failing strategy. Now, instead of being forced to decide whether or not to throw the president a life preserver, they can throw him an anchor – and the public will applaud them for it!

This is the polar opposite of the approach Bill Clinton followed once he fired the Carville/Begala left-wing populist team and brought in Dick Morris. Once he got the hang of triangulation, Clinton drove the GOP nuts. (And this was pre-Monica.) He snatched up their best issues (welfare reform, balanced budget, crime control) and adapted them for himself. With the bull market roaring ahead, no one was inclined to listen to Republican complaints.

So why doesn’t Obama copy him? My theory: he doesn’t think such a political life is worth living.

I think that’s what he was getting at in the Diane Sawyer interview about preferring to be a successful one-term president rather than ”a mediocre two-term president.” While Obama did not use any names, I’m guessing the mediocre two-term president he had in mind was Bill Clinton. After all, much as he enraged the political Right, Clinton was no favorite of the liberal Left. His moderately conservative policies on many issues and corporate friendly attitude enraged many liberals, who viewed him as a sellout. Many of them were so angry they actually backed Ralph Nader for president in 2000, a decision that cost Al Gore the presidency.

I suspect one of those angry liberals was Barack Obama. His definition of a “successful” presidency is likely not merely presiding over a period of peace and prosperity, followed by an endless round of Davos-style conferences and well-paid speaking engagements in shady Middle Eastern locales. No, he’s a believer, and he sees his administration as a once in a half-century opportunity to remake the United States in the image of Olaf Palme’s Sweden. He was motivated to bag community organizing and get into politics, after all, by his desire to rid America of “Ronald Reagan and his minions.” This is his chance, as he sees it, and he is not walking away from it.

It’s an admirable stance, in a funny sort of way. Better to fail while daring greatly and all that. It remains to be seen, however, if his party is willing to take the dare with him.