You
don't need to be a political pollster, much less a worried Democrat, to
know that the president's approval ratings have plummeted. "Down to the
immediate family," we used to say mockingly, when President Bush was at
about the same point. Of course, it's a little bit better than that --
down to the hardcore, the yellow dog Democrats (as in, I'd rather vote
for a yellow dog than a Republican), but there's no denying that the
bloom is off the rose, and any other cliche you can think of. The
paradox is just how "effective" the president has been, at least if you
define "effective" as doing what he said he'd do when he ran for
office. He said he'd get comprehensive health care reform through
Congress (like every Democrat who won and lost in the past 20 years has
said), but he actually did it. He said he'd push for major financial
regulation, and you can also check that one off the list as done. Big
stimulus package to create jobs -- did that. More diversity at the top
-- say yes to that, with triple the number of women on the High Court
(or about to be). He said Afghanistan was the important war, the one
he'd focus on -- and he has. He appealed to Hispanic voters by
promising not to play punitive immigration politics -- and his Justice
Department has now sued Arizona for allegedly intruding on federal
supremacy to shape immigration policy. Like him or hate him, the one
thing you can't say about Barack Obama is that he is the typical
politician who makes promises he doesn't keep. He hasn't. He made
promises and he kept them. Could that be the problem? In
delivering on his promises, in doing what he said he'd do, the national
debt has skyrocketed. It wasn't so many years ago that we used to sit
around on campaign planes trying to figure out how to make people
actually care about the debt. You could see eyes roll over as
candidates started explaining the problems with a big deficit.
"Mortgaging our children's future..." Yawn. "For every man, woman and
child in this country, the debt is..." Snooze. I might be the only
person in America who remembers this, but then-Gov. Bill Clinton's
endless speech at the 1988 Democratic Convention was, in too large
part, an effort to explain the impact of the federal deficit on our
place in the world economy. Even he couldn't make it come alive. Lesser
mortals couldn't come close. No more. In recent polls, the debt now
ties with terrorism on Americans' list of their big fears. The debt?
Tied with terrorism. I kid you not. This may be good news for our
economic literacy, but it is not good news for the president or the
Democrats. The awareness of the deficit is a sign that people are
coming to understand that the country's economic problems are not going
away; that the "stimulus" package stimulated more debt than jobs, or at
least that's how it feels; that there is no easy or quick fix around
the corner, and that every new government program -- even the ones you
like -- just adds to the balance sheet. Even the rich have stopped
spending money. The secret is out. The future is not secure. If
Democrats are to avoid disaster in November, candidates -- as well as
the man at the top -- have to address that insecurity. They have to
reckon with the increasing realization that all of the activity of the
last almost two years, all the programs so many of us were for,
supported and worked for, appear as a double-edged sword, at best, in
current economic terms. You can't talk about how many jobs have been
created without admitting how much it has cost, or answering the
question where we're going to get the money to pay it back. No one's
snoozing in the back of the room anymore. They're looking for some
answers, and the Democrats' future depends on their willingness to
address those questions openly and honestly.
To
find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators
Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website
at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
