By Fraser P. Seitel
If anybody is poised for a one-term presidency, it's Barack Obama.
As nice a guy as the president might be, he's been a disastrous chief executive, seemingly incapable of delivering the nation from its economic plight. And while once the president's good humor and articulateness helped cover up a lack of management experience and leadership depth, Obama has today dissipated his public relations capital to a point where his job is ripe for the picking.
Thank goodness for him that his opposition is eminently capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Indeed, despite a wounded president and a failing presidency, the Republican Party seems poised, once again, to blow next year's election – especially if the Party continues to careen down its current, perilous public relations path.
Not that there's anything wrong, mind you, with what Republicans stand for. Few working people can argue with the sentiment of cutting government expenses, reducing taxes, and incenting the business system so that it can hire people and make money. That's basic capitalism, and it's what this country should be all about.
Nor is the problem with the traveling cast of curious characters currently competing for the Republican nomination. Sure, Rick Perry is brawny and Mitt Romney is squishy and Newt Gingrich is scary – but hey, they're politicians, the lowest form of human life, so cut 'em some slack.
No, the real problem the Republicans have is PR. The image they're building may single handedly keep them from beating a wounded opponent, who is eminently beatable.
Specifically, the Republicans have allowed themselves to be characterized in three disastrous ways which, if allowed to persist uncorrected, may spell impending doom for whomever they push to the head of the candidate conga line.
This is the prevailing moniker for Republican intentions, and the party's Congressional storm troopers continue to give the pejorative characterization new life.
- "No" on raising the debt ceiling.
- "No" on taxing millionaires.
- "No" on extending the payroll tax cut
- "No" on disaster relief.
Republican lawmakers, like Sen. Lamar Alexander, have tried to explain the rationale in opposing such proposals, e.g. "We don't need short term gestures, we need long term strategies that build into our system simpler taxes, lower taxes, fewer mandates, lower costs, lower energy costs, more certainty."
Noble sentiments perhaps, but you know you're in trouble when someone as rhetorically-challenged as Harry Reid can cut your argument to shreds with one line, as he did last week, "Americans shouldn't have to decide between disaster relief funds and landing a job."
Eventually, Republicans relented on disaster relief but, such incessant negativity – with few alternatives offered in exchange – serves to fuel critics, intensify opponents, and cause all of those in the middle to wonder if the naysayers have anything at all "positive" to recommend beyond obstructionism.
Channeling Rush Limbaugh, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell famously told a reporter last October that, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
And that image – of a party dedicated to running out the clock without allowing the incumbent to pursue any legislative agenda – continues to prevail. In theory, there's nothing wrong with blocking potential legislation that one believes would be deleterious to the best interests of the nation.
But it's hard to justify asking people who are suffering to hang in there for 14 months till we get a new administration. The Republicans sniffed this when they reacted conciliatorily to the Obama "Jobs Bill" speech at the start of September.
House Republican leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor both stepped out immediately after the speech to underscore how they planned to "work with" the President on portions of his proposal. But a week later, there was Cantor blogging as to how Obama's proposal would "tax soup kitchens," thus impairing the 47 million Americans who live in poverty.
The specific section in the Obama proposal Cantor referred to dealt with limiting charitable deductions for high-income taxpayers – a significant leap from "a tax on soup kitchens."
Such politics-as-usual shenanigans suggested that despite their initial cooperation declaration, even on as pressing a need as job creation, Republicans might still opt for stalling rather than "rewarding" the incumbent with any success.
Were the Republicans to continue to encourage their perception as stallers and obstructionists, by the time the presidential election rolls around, they will also have succeeded in being perceived as "arrogant."
And as everyone from Robert Bork to Donald Trump to Tiger Woods has learned, if there is one trait with which Americans will not abide, it is arrogance.
Nobody likes anybody who is too big for his britches, as my mother used to say. And as they pursue their path of overall obstinacy, the Republicans risk the perception come next fall that they are too arrogant to lead.
Consider an instant perceptual impression of Republican Congressional leaders.
- Mitch McConnell is textbook lugubrious
- John Boehner is borderline creepy.
- Eric Cantor, not so long ago the party's "Golden Boy," is now comes across as mean-spirited and nasty.
Clearly, their Democrat counterparts – Harry Reid, Chucky Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, et al – are no "Dream Team," but the Republicans stunning lack of "likeability" will be easy to run against next November.
So what kind of public relations strategy should Republicans adopt so that their candidate makes it over the finish line as president?
- First, they have to have ideas.
Saying "nyet" all the time doesn't work. Neither works: a Democrat platform based solely on raising taxes and spending taxpayer money or a Republican platform based on cutting spending and taxes and hoping for the best.
Somebody needs to come up with a positive plan.
- Second, they have to play for the team.
Cleaving loyalty to defeating Obama isn't good enough. Standing in the president's way and stalling, regardless of what he proposes, is a Tea Party recipe for disaster. It can't help but be perceived as obstructionist and arrogant.
Some compromise for the good of the country – even with your ardent enemy – is necessary if you want voters to trust your motives.
- Third, they have to be nicer.
Clearly, our nation's deep-rooted problems can't be solved with "charm." But we're not dealing with geniuses here; we're dealing with politicians, all fundamentally flawed and suspect. So Republicans need to lighten up a bit and start showing some warmth. (I mean have you ever listened to Mitch McConnell?!)
But there is something to be said for behaving with an element of kindness and sensitivity. Even Democrats admit that their president has been an abysmal failure in coming up with ideas, rallying the country, and managing meaningfully to get us out of our hole.
But at least he's a nice guy. And in America in 2012, that quality, alone -- unless the Republicans wise up -- could get him reelected.
|