Americans have had almost a year to get used to the administration of our 44th president. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard and political analyst for Fox News, says voters have not been pleased. Barnes discussed President Obama’s first year during a conversation with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Kokai: What lessons have you learned about the Obama Administration?
Barnes: Well, I think there are a couple things. One is that Obama completely misread what the election of 2008 meant. It did not say we must have a liberal revolution in America. It said America’s elected a Democratic president, but we’re a center-right country, as we’ve always been. And misreading that, perhaps willfully, has led to an agenda that’s extremely liberal and at odds with a majority of Americans.
Secondly, you know, we had learned to believe that Barack Obama was such a dazzling speaker that he could bring the American people wherever he wanted to go. Turns out it’s not true. He’s tried to … sell them on a health care measure they don’t like, and on other things. It turns out he’s a nice man, he’s a smooth talker, but he’s not persuasive.
Kokai: You say he’s not persuasive. It seems we’ve seen quite a bit of evidence that people are not buying particular pieces of his program.
Barnes: Well, they certainly aren’t on health care. They certainly aren’t on Guantanamo. They certainly are not on buying General Motors and Chrysler. They certainly aren’t on his spending and taxes and the increase in the deficit. And you can go on and on and on. It’s a very unpopular agenda.
Kokai: What does this mean for where the Obama administration goes next?
Barnes: Well, where the Obama administration goes, first of all, will be determined by what happens to his health care bill. If it’s defeated, he’ll have to do what Bill Clinton did, and that’s change his direction, become more moderate, perhaps even compromise with Republicans, which he has refused to do, and of course, congressional Democrats have no interest in that. But if he wins on health care, that’ll be his big legislative achievement of 2009. It will set a direction that will make him even more determined to push a very, very liberal agenda that would centralize more and more power in Washington.
Kokai: What about the president’s opponents? What’s ahead for them?
Barnes: Look, if he passes Obamacare, his liberal health care program, it’s really opposed by more than half of Americans — for one reason or another, they don’t like its cost, they don’t like its reach, they don’t like its interference with the health care they have now and the health insurance they have now, which they like — they will not go away. They will not sit back and say, “Oh, well, it passed. I guess we’re stuck with it.” They will adopt the idea that we can repeal this, and I think Republicans will do the same thing, and we’ll have at least all of 2010 leading up to the congressional election, partly about whether or not to repeal Obamacare, if it passes. This health care program of Obama’s is one that’s not going to be quietly accepted.
Kokai: Do you see any signs for optimism in the fact that people haven’t just rolled over and accepted the president’s plans?
Barnes: I do. You know, … the American people have often not been very engaged in politics, and in policy matters, and in worrying about what goes on in Washington, and now they are. I think the engagement is higher than ever, than I’ve seen it in my lifetime, which is a pretty long one, and you see it with the tea parties, you see it with the big march on Washington, you see it with the interest in Obama’s agenda, and health care, and cap and trade, and a foreign policy that is nice to our enemies and tough on our allies. People have gotten engaged in a way they haven’t been for years.
Kokai: Does the opposition to President Obama’s proposals open the door for some type of different agenda?
Barnes: You know, so far … the opponents of Obama, or the critics, or those who are skeptics, merely have a negative agenda. … We don’t want what Obama is delivering, and so far, a positive agenda has not been completely fashioned yet, but you can see the parts of it. It’s not necessarily deep tax cuts, but it’s certainly no tax increases. It’s a limitation on spending. It’s a concern for the deficit and a desire to do something about it. It’s a foreign policy that would be much tougher on our enemies than on our friends. And you can see an agenda and actually a majority coalition gathering around those issues.
Kokai: Some people say we had to have a Jimmy Carter to have a Ronald Reagan. Is it likely we’re going to see a similar scenario with this president?
Barnes: Well, there’s only one Ronald Reagan, and I wish there was only one Jimmy Carter, but Barack Obama’s a lot like him. And it was true. … It helped. Ronald Reagan won by 10 points in 1980, but it certainly helped that Jimmy Carter was a failed president, both in foreign and domestic affairs. We don’t know what’s out there now, but the thing to remember — and this is why that was a good point, Mitch — because back between 1976 and 1980, most Americans didn’t think Ronald Reagan was going to be the one to rise to the occasion. The whole conventional wisdom in politics was that he was too old, he was finished, he lost in ’76, and someone else will rise and be the Republican nominee in 1980. [It] turned out they were wrong, but you know, a year after Carter’s election, or 10 months after Carter’s election, did we foresee anything like a Reagan emerging? Not at all.
Kokai: For those Republicans considering running for president in 2012, what should they be focusing on now?
Barnes: Well, they ought to be focusing on something other than saying “I’m the next Ronald Reagan.” Focus on the issues that people are interested in, and we know what they are, because as I’ve said, people are engaged. They’ve made their desires clear on taxes and spending and the deficit and so on — so many issues — on health care, on cap and trade, and really the entire Obama agenda. So it’s pretty clear where they stand. Who’s going to get out in front? You know, we see [Mitt] Romney. We see [Mike] Huckabee. We see Sarah Palin. We see Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota. And you know, who’s going to be there? I don’t know. Remember at this time, Ronald Reagan was thought to be off the charts, and so there are other people out there. What I say is wait until the outcome of the 2010 election. Let’s see who emerges from that. Who will be governor of California? Who will be governor of Texas? Who will be governor of Florida? It’ll make a lot of difference. I mean, there may be some new stars.
Kokai: What kinds of interesting things are you going to be looking at between now and [the] 2010 [election] to see where things are moving politically?
Barnes: Well, I think the first thing I’m going to do is look at the state that Richard Nixon always said was the bellwether state, the most important state, and that’s Ohio. Ohio is one that has turned rather sharply against Barack Obama, partly because of the economy, partly because of other policies, partly because it, in many ways, is a center-right state, and I want to go out to Ohio and see what’s happening in the governor’s race, where John Kasich is running as a Republican, and Rob Portman will probably be the Republican nominee for senator. There’s a good chance for a breakthrough in Ohio in 2010, and if there’s one there, there will be one all over the country.