Why Obama Lost

President Obama signed into office a debt bill that almost no one likes, but everyone concedes as necessary. I condemn the Republicans for playing political games with the country's economy, but I also acknowledge that President Obama lost at the game, and it will likely cost him the 2012 election.

Part of being a good poker player is knowing when to call someone's bluff; This is a skill that Obama clearly lacks, and in capitulating to the Republicans out of a fear that they would make good on their word to screw over the American economy, Obama gave in to a deal he did not want, and came out looking weak. He was unsuccesful at negotiating, and everybody knows it, because the deal he got is so different from what he asked for.

If President Obama had thought of his own political career, instead of the country's economy, he should have called their bluff: Let the economy go to peices, and then spend the next year convincing the American people that the bad economy is all the Republicans' fault for not raising the debt ceiling.

Instead, Obama refused to risk the country's economy. Passing a bill based on cuts, and not revenue increases, validates the Republican narrative that cuts are the only way to cut the deficit and improve the economy (and that revenue increases are actually harmful to that endeavor).

This raises an important question: If cuts are the way to go, and revenue-raising is either detrimental to or not that important to cutting the deficit and improving the economy, what was Obama kvetching about so much? Why didn't he give in earlier? If raising revenue is essential to cutting the deficit and improving the economy, then why did Obama give in? Was it because he was too weak to fight?

None of the answers to these questions reflect well on the president: At the best, he seems like a well-intentioned but weak leader. At the worst, he seems like a pragmatistic ready to give up on what is best for the nation.

President Obama had an opportunity to outline a vision of what America should be, and how we should cut the deficit and improve the economy. Instead, he came up with a vision of compromise - it does not matter what America should be or how we balance the budget and improve the economy, as long as Americans of all political stripes have a say in how we do so. The problem is, that during times of economic crisis (or any other type of crisis, for that matter) people do not want wishy-washy visions of comrpomise: They want strong, clearly outlined visions. That is part of why demagogues, such as Hitler and Stalin, two men with strong visions, often take power during economic crisis. The other thing people seek during crisis is strength: With all the uncertainty around them, they expect certainty from their leaders. This certainty comprises not just a clearly defined vision, but also the strength to implement that vision, and not waver from it. Again, this is why demagogues like Hitler and Stalin (two men who I abhor) rise to power in times of crisis.

That is why, unless the economy improves a lot between now and 2012, or some very unpredictable pro-Obama political development takes place, Obama is likely to lose the 2012 election: Unless the situation is such that people feel less of that almost visceral need for stability from the leader, or Obama proves to the American people that he is the stable leader that they need, with stability being comprised of clear vision and the strength to carry it through, we will likely be looking at a new Republican white house.