It never fails to amaze me just how quickly the media can fool itself into believe that what it wants to be true is actually what is really true. Just think about all that has happened since last November's election results were tallied. In that election, president Obama became the first president to be re-elected with both a smaller number of votes and a smaller percentage of the vote since 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt won his third term. Roosevelt had won a smashing victory in 1936 carrying all but two states, so when he broke precedent and became the first president to seek a third term, his vote percentage went down. The actual truth is that while Obama won, he did not get a major endorsement from the American people for his leadership. The actual truth is that Obama squeaked through in the most negative campaign for re-election of modern times. The media, however, annointed Obama with having received a mandate for change, for transformation of America, because this is what they want the truth to be.
After the election, Obama's job approval numbers rose sharply in the polls. The actual truth is that this rise was to be expected. After all, Obama had just won, and there are many folks across the country who want nothing more than for the president to succeed. With the election over, these folks moved to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and to let him move forward with his programs. The key about this shift in the polls is that it is a temporary one. In essence, this is the second term honeymoon, a period that is markedly shorter than the honeymoon of the first term. Obama was given a chance to produce policies that proved effective or else popular; absent such result, the approval numbers were bound to decline quickly. What the media saw, however, was a shift in the basic paradigm of American opinion. Obama had won both a mandate and a major burst of new supporters who accepted the liberal agenda. Well now all of those opinion polls have moved back towards where they were prior to the election, and the media seems stumped by it.
Obama has spent nearly the entire time since the election focused on things about which few Americans care. Now don't get me wrong: Americans think that gun control issues, gay marriage, immigration reform and the like merit some attention, but these are not the key issues that concern the overwhelming majority of folks across the country. Despite that, Obama has focused the first weeks of his second term on these issues as if there were nothing else to consider. The innaugural address made almost no mention of the economy but focused on the liberal social agenda and immigration. People noticed. Obama's appointees performed poorly in certain high profile hearings in testimony so flawed that once again, people noticed. The sequester cuts moved front and center with no realistic proposal from the White House as to how to handle them. Absent the usual cover provided in the past to Obama from the "secret" negotiations with the House GOP, people noticed that Obama was actually doing nothing.
This week, Obama is supposedly going to pivot back to the economy in the State of the Union address. It will be interesting to see just how this is done. Will Obama have actual proposals for improving the economy, or will he just trot out the failed policies of the past? Will Obama have something new to say about the economy or will he just repeat the generalizations regarding the economy that have come to be the hallmark of an Obama economic speech. Will Obama spend his time focused on measures that might help or will he spend the speech assigning blame for the current malaise in the economy? If Obama runs true to form, the speech will be one that blames the GOP for all the ills of the economy but which offers no new solutions. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
After the speech, the media is likely to applaud Obama for his bold and thoughtful approach to our national problems. That is what they want to hear. America, however, will hear what Obama actually says. Not all of the American people will hear the truth, but enough will do so to make a difference. Reality will triumph over distortion. It always does in the long run.
After the election, Obama's job approval numbers rose sharply in the polls. The actual truth is that this rise was to be expected. After all, Obama had just won, and there are many folks across the country who want nothing more than for the president to succeed. With the election over, these folks moved to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and to let him move forward with his programs. The key about this shift in the polls is that it is a temporary one. In essence, this is the second term honeymoon, a period that is markedly shorter than the honeymoon of the first term. Obama was given a chance to produce policies that proved effective or else popular; absent such result, the approval numbers were bound to decline quickly. What the media saw, however, was a shift in the basic paradigm of American opinion. Obama had won both a mandate and a major burst of new supporters who accepted the liberal agenda. Well now all of those opinion polls have moved back towards where they were prior to the election, and the media seems stumped by it.
Obama has spent nearly the entire time since the election focused on things about which few Americans care. Now don't get me wrong: Americans think that gun control issues, gay marriage, immigration reform and the like merit some attention, but these are not the key issues that concern the overwhelming majority of folks across the country. Despite that, Obama has focused the first weeks of his second term on these issues as if there were nothing else to consider. The innaugural address made almost no mention of the economy but focused on the liberal social agenda and immigration. People noticed. Obama's appointees performed poorly in certain high profile hearings in testimony so flawed that once again, people noticed. The sequester cuts moved front and center with no realistic proposal from the White House as to how to handle them. Absent the usual cover provided in the past to Obama from the "secret" negotiations with the House GOP, people noticed that Obama was actually doing nothing.
This week, Obama is supposedly going to pivot back to the economy in the State of the Union address. It will be interesting to see just how this is done. Will Obama have actual proposals for improving the economy, or will he just trot out the failed policies of the past? Will Obama have something new to say about the economy or will he just repeat the generalizations regarding the economy that have come to be the hallmark of an Obama economic speech. Will Obama spend his time focused on measures that might help or will he spend the speech assigning blame for the current malaise in the economy? If Obama runs true to form, the speech will be one that blames the GOP for all the ills of the economy but which offers no new solutions. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
After the speech, the media is likely to applaud Obama for his bold and thoughtful approach to our national problems. That is what they want to hear. America, however, will hear what Obama actually says. Not all of the American people will hear the truth, but enough will do so to make a difference. Reality will triumph over distortion. It always does in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment