Events like this
2010 visit to a Missouri battery manufacturer would be more effective
if they were part of a campaign to promote more investment (Photo: White House)
Great point by Greg Sargent on
the impact President Obama's fiscal policy speech had on his economic approval rating:
The Marrist poll is getting lots of attention today for the toplines showing approval of Obama on the economy at an all time low. But this from the internals, I think, is more interesting:
The poll found that before Obama’s speech, 40 percent approved of his performance on the economy, versus 58 percent who disapproved of it. After Obama’s speech, those numbers were 41-56 — statistically the same.
The poll also found that before Obama’s speech, 57 percent said the “worst is yet to come” on the economy, versus 38 percent who said the worst is behind us. After Obama’s speech, those numbers wer 57-39 — again, statistically the same.
Like Greg, I think Obama gave a great speech. But these sorts of numbers are a stark reminder that when it comes to the economy, voters couldn't care less about the details of the long-term deficit debate. They don't like the idea of debt, but what they spend their days worried about are things like jobs, income, and gas prices, and to the extent that the national economic debate doesn't address those things, it's irrelevant to them.
To be clear, I'm not saying President Obama's speech was unimportant, nor do I believe that he shouldn't make the case for his vision of for long-term fiscal policy. But talking about that long-term fiscal policy vision in the context of a grand debate about debt really fails to address what people are concerned about. It also sells that vision short, because the vision is about so much more than just reducing debt: it's really about investing in America and its people so that we can build a better future.
I think a big part of the problem here is actually rooted in communications and political strategy. The administration actually has tried to tout its initiatives for investing in America, but it's struggled mightily to break through on them. It hasn't helped that they've adopted silly slogans like "Win the Future," but I think the central reason why they have not broken through is that they haven't set up a debate about making those investments.
Like it or not, political conflict is what drives the narrative. If President Obama goes out and gives a speech at a company that manufactures products for renewable energy and he touts all the great work his administration has done to help foster jobs at the company, the media and most voters will write it off as fluff and self-promotion, and Republicans can safely ignore it.
But if President Obama, working with congressional Democrats, come up with a proposal that Republicans must respond to and vote on, then you have a real story. So you can go to that same factory and say: "What we did here in Indiana we need to do in Ohio." You're still promoting your accomplishments, but you're also creating a debate than be covered.
There's probably nobody better than Barack Obama at winning a debate that somebody else started, but eventually letting your opponents define the debate will catch up with you. It won't be easy, but over the course of the next few months, President Obama and his political team are going to need to come up with a strategy to go on offense and retake control of the debate.
