"There are two tragedies in life. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it."
There is an ongoing debate among scholars concerning who first said or wrote this.
I have often heard it attributed to George Bernard Shaw, and, indeed, it did appear (in a slightly different form) in his play "Man and Superman," which was written in 1903.
But the line, as I have entered it above, appeared in an Oscar Wilde play that was written more than a decade before. Based on that, I would have to give Wilde a pat on the back for it.
It's such a good line, I can understand why the devotees of both Wilde and Shaw would want to take credit for it. Yes, it's only a couple of brief sentences, but it says so much, though, doesn't it? What is implied is very thinly veiled.
And the essence of the truth it speaks should be kept in mind as one watches Barack Obama in the homestretch of the midterm elections — and his sprint past the finish line into the race for 2012.
Recently, writer Bob Woodward said the possibility of Obama replacing Joe Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the 2012 ticket was "on the table" — something both Biden and Clinton denied.
(This is not new. I wrote about this possibility more than two months ago, when Doug Wilder proposed the same thing as a way to energize Obama's base.)
And tongues started wagging. Has Obama written off the midterms, abandoned his fellow Democrats and shifted gears in anticipation of his own re–election campaign? I think that, perhaps, he has, but — but, unlike many folks who are shocked! shocked! to find there is gambling going on in here — I don't think it is a recent development.
Woodward's "trial balloon" on the Hillary–for–veep question appears to be only the latest manifestation of a self–centered mentality in this White House. More than seven months ago, I wrote about Politico's own observations about Obama's 2012 preparations.
That was long before the primaries really began — but only weeks after Ted Kennedy's Senate seat had been lost to the Republicans. Following that, Obama suggested he got the message and was embarking on a new phase of his presidency in which he would emphasize job creation constantly, every day.
That, of course, didn't last.
Congressional Democrats insisted that they had gotten the message — and that they couldn't possibly be caught flat–footed, the way they were in 1994, because they had plenty of advance warning and could start preparing an effective counter–attack.
That, too, didn't last.
But it all told me a lot about what really motivates this president.
Which brings me back to the Oscar Wilde — or George Bernard Shaw, if you prefer — quotation I cited above.
It seems to me Obama is betwixt and between the two tragedies in life. In 2008, he got what he wanted. And, if his party loses its grip on legislative power, the rest of his presidency may be in jeopardy, and he may very well lose his bid for re–election.
It's nothing new, of course, for a president to see his fondest achievement slip through his fingers. Other presidencies have gone through this Shakespearean tragedy.
But perhaps the real tragedy for Obama would not be for his party to lose control of Congress — and, consequently, give him the kind of political ammunition that was handed to Bill Clinton, who could rail against an obstructionist Republican majority in his campaign for re–election — but, rather, for the Democrats to retain a slim majority in one chamber — or both — and thus be denied an obvious villain if (or when, depending upon your point of view) conditions don't improve.
That would be very similar to the Jimmy Carter years — during which Carter was swept into the presidency on an anti–Republican wave but rapidly lost voter support, then managed to retain reduced congressional majorities for his party in the midterms but was overtaken by events and went on to a resounding rejection in his re–election bid in 1980.
That is radically different from the scenario I hear many Democrats muttering about today. Obama can be an early 21st century Clinton, they say, bouncing back from a disastrous midterm to win a second term in the White House.
And perhaps he can. But there are many differences between now and the mid–1990s. For one thing, unemployment wasn't nearly as severe in 1994 as it is today. It's closer, actually, to what the country experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Regardless of the barriers to legislative action that exist (i.e., the filibuster) that would take on greater significance with a reduced Democratic advantage, the voters in 2012 could look at the recent past and say that Democrats had been in the majority in Congress for the last six years, and a Democrat had been in the White House for the last four. If they don't see much change by that time, the story of Obama's presidency may look an awful lot like Jimmy Carter's.
And what about ... Hillary?
Well, Robert Shrum says observers should relax and take a deep breath. "Hillary won't venture a coup," he writes.
That comes to you from the same man who, less than two weeks ago, assured anxious Democrats that the Republicans will not gain majorities in either chamber of Congress.
See, Democrats? Nothing to worry about.
No comments:
Post a Comment