gotten around to commenting on President Obama’s truly shocking statement in a Univision interview earlier this week that Hispanic voters should have the attitude: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” I was going to say that no president has ever urged Americans to look on other Americans as their “enemies” who must be “punished.” I wanted to say that every newspaper and public person in the land should be denouncing Obama for this terrible statement, worthy of a leader of a Communist regime or a banana republic, not of the United States of America.
That hasn’t happened yet, but here is a beginning, and what a beginning it is: two prominent Democratic pollsters, Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen, condemning Obama in the Washington Post. Among other things, they equate Obama’s unseemly attacks on individuals to President Nixon’s—then they go on to say that Obama’s attacks on individuals are worse than Nixon’s. Caddell and Schoen’s indictment of Obama for his divisiveness builds up and up until it starts to sound like the bill of particulars against George III in the Declaration of Independence.
A divisive Obama undercuts the presidency
By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen
President Obama’s post-partisan America has disappeared, replaced by the politics of polarization, resentment and division.
In a Univision interview on Monday, the president, who campaigned in 2008 by referring not to a “Red America” or a “Blue America” but a United States of America, urged Hispanic listeners to vote in this spirit: “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill.
What a change two years can bring.
We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.
We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues—and the stature of our nation’s highest office.
Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon’s role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and—directly from the stump—candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are “reacting just to fear” and faulted his own base for “sitting on their hands complaining.”
Obama is walking a knife’s edge. He has said that the 3.5 million “shovel-ready jobs” he had referred to as justification for the passage of the stimulus bill didn’t exist—throwing all the Democratic incumbents who had defended the stimulus in their campaigns under the proverbial bus.
Although he said, as part of his effort to enact health-care reform, that the health-care mandates were not taxes, now his administration acknowledges in court papers that they are, in fact, taxes.
As Election Day approaches, the president and others in the Democratic leadership have focused on campaign finance by moneyed interests—an ancillary issue serving neither party nor country. They have intensified attacks on business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual political operatives such as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie—insisting that organizations are fronting for foreign campaign money and large secret donations and campaign expenditures. Even the New York Times has noted that “a closer examination shows that there is little evidence” that these organizations have engaged in activities that are “improper or even unusual.”
It astounds us to hear such charges from the president given that his presidential campaign in 2008 refused to disclose the names of all of its donors, and in past election cycles many liberal groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress, refused to disclose their contributors.
To be clear, we favor disclosure of every dollar spent and closing the disclosure loophole that exists as a result of the Citizens United ruling. But it is disingenuous for a president—particularly one whose campaign effectively dynamited the lone beachhead of public financing in American politics—to scream about money pouring in against his political interests.
We are also disturbed that the office of the president is mounting attacks on private individuals, such as the founders of the group Americans for Prosperity. Having been forged politically during Watergate—one of us was the youngest member of Nixon’s enemies list—we are chilled by the prospect of any U.S. president willing to marshal the power of his office against a private citizen.
The president is the leader of our society. That office is supposed to be a unifying force. When a president opts for polarization, it is not only bad politics, but it also diminishes the prestige of his office and damages our social consensus.
Moreover, the divisive rhetoric that Obama has pursued can embolden his supporters and critics to take more extreme actions, worsening the spiral.
Whatever the caliber of Obama’s tactics, they might achieve some short-term success. The Republican Party has offered no narrative or broad solution, and it has campaigned exclusively to take advantage of the negative environment. It contributes merely a promise of a more hostile environment after Tuesday.
With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president.
Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster, is the author of “The Political Fix.” Patrick H. Caddell is a political commentator and pollster.
Roland D. writes:
Attacking and punishing “enemies” is the basis of Chicago Democrat machine politics—what else did they expect when they elected him?
Obama embodies the worst of all the modern liberal political pathologies—intellectual bankruptcy, boundless arrogance, embrasure of the “transgressive” as a virtue, the postmodern critique of the concepts of objective reality and absolute moral values, contempt towards and demonization of political opponents, the elevation of self-gratification into the highest human aspiration, active hostility towards America’s British and European roots, and Chicago-style zero-sum-game political sensibilities.
He is the least-qualified man ever elected President of the United States—he can’t give a speech without using a teleprompter, and even screws that up from time to time—and is in fact our first affirmative-action President, elected on the basis of the color of his skin, rather than the content of his character. His presidency is a textbook example of how racial preferences end up placing unqualified minorities in situations in which they are guaranteed to fail; only this time, the failure has consequences from which we as a nation may never recover.