Obama the Cheerleader

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Tyler Cowen provides us with a Three Word Explanation:

Median voter theorem.

It’s my first-cut account of a lot of what is going on in the newspaper headlines.  Yet somehow I rarely see it mentioned, even when I read very prominent social scientists commenting on current policy.

By this, I assume Tyler is suggesting that the reason big-ticket programs like national healthcare and climate change legislation have bogged down lately is because the median voter hasn’t changed much over the past few years.  Congress and the presidency may have changed hands, but public opinion has shifted only slightly, and that means there’s not really a very big appetite for dramatic change.

Barack Obama, of course, is the guy who has the job of changing this.  But can he?  Here’s something written about Obama before last November’s election:

Watching him in action for the past year, one thing has become more and more clear: He doesn’t seem inclined to use his oratorical skill to truly shape public opinion. He’s only using it to win votes.

….It’s not clear yet if he gets this. His speeches soar, but they rarely seem designed to move the nation in a specific direction. Is he pushing the public to support cap and trade even though it might cost them a few dollars? Or merely to vote for “change”? It’s sometimes hard to tell.

This is hardly an original concern. Liberal pundits have been stewing for months over the question of whether Obama is too cautious to win big victories, too invested in a narrative of bipartisan unity to get his hands dirty in a real street fight. As a former community organizer he understands the power of direct action, but does he understand how to shift public opinion on a national scale? And is he willing to try?

That was me back in October.  I’m still wondering. It’s not so much that I think Obama has to abandon his bipartisan approach and approach politics as an endless blood sport, but that he needs to engage with the public much more sharply than he has until now.  When he talks, people listen, but I don’t get the sense that they light up congressional switchboards the next day. One of these days, they need to start.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest