When Dick Cheney commented last month that the Obama administration’s policies were making Americans less safe, Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, responded with the following comment: “Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out the next-most-popular member of the Republican cabal.”

This kind of rhetoric, which makes Republicans seem more like a conspiratorial enemy than a political party, clearly hampers any efforts at bipartisanship. But there is nothing new about it—this is the same kind of language Obama used in defeating John McCain in the general election last November. Indeed, the Obama administration continues to deploy many of the campaign tactics it used in the run-up to the election, even now that it has taken power. Behind the facade of hope and change lies a cynical attitude of vote-getting and shallow ideological persuasion that only hurts Obama’s chances at truly reaching the American public.

Politician and journalist Sidney Blumenthal has referred to such perpetual election strategies of this kind as “permanent campaigns,” an apt term for the politicking mentality the administration continues to harbor. Since his election, for instance, Obama has delivered a significant number of speeches in swing states where he will need to retain votes in 2012. That the 2012 campaign is already on his mind suggests more of a desire for power than real, content-based change. Instead of focusing his undivided attention on the challenges currently facing our nation’s citizens, Obama seems to be focused on potential political scandals over his cabinet appointments and difficulties in maintaining Republican support on his bailout plan. With his focus and resources divided in this way, Obama cannot give the problems currently facing the American populace the attention they deserve.

In addition to diverting the president’s resources, Obama’s permanent campaign marks the abandonment of his election promises to establish bipartisanship. Obama’s rhetoric has consistently put his own ideas in direct conflict with those of Republicans. Republicans are portrayed as regressive and unpopular, and the administration’s speeches often associate them with unpopular figures like Rush Limbaugh—as demonstrated in Gibbs’ sremarks—rather than with more articulate figures like Charles Krauthammer. It is this type of one-sided political thought that has contributed to the lack of Republican support in either the House or the Senate for Obama’s proposed budget last month as well as the failure of his $787 billion stimulus package to win a single Republican vote in the House in January. It is clear to Republicans that Obama is not fully committed to bipartisanship quite yet.

Granted, although Obama’s “permanent campaign” may not be an efficient or beneficial one, it is prudent politically. Some have claimed that, in the age of 21st-century politics, when campaigns begin two years prior to elections and opponents are unwilling to compromise, “permanent campaigns” are the only feasible means of maintaining support. If Obama does desire to win the 2012 election, he must start now in order to avoid losing ground to opponents who do not have to face the demands of the presidency. But, although a “permanent campaign” may be politically savvy (as Obama’s strategists undoubtedly advise him), it is not politically advantageous for the American populace. Obama is the nation’s leader now, not the Democratic Party’s candidate, and his primary concern should be the welfare of America’s citizens, not the service of his own political interests.

The idea of a “permanent campaign” can be a beneficial one for political administrations when handled appropriately. At best, it increases accountability by reminding politicians that voters are still evaluating their performance in office and will continue to evaluate them when the next election comes around. It encourages officials to inform citizens actively about their plans in an effort to gain popular support for their policies. And it keeps voters aware and prevents political ignorance or misinformation. In some cases, the Obama administration has used these tactics effectively.

Unfortunately, most of Obama’s strategies have been fostering the opposite sentiments. His permanent campaign encourages suspicion in place of trust, partisanship in place of unity, hopelessness in place of change. Ironically, the continuation of the policies that ensured his campaign’s success has forced Obama to abandon many of the promises he made during that campaign in the first place. The administration that promised to bring change to America has instead brought only more division—a division that may ensure Obama’s election in 2012 but will sacrifice his message in the process.


Peter M. Bozzo ’12, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Greenough Hall.