Part of the answer may be Mr. Obama’s relatively low approval rating. But this mainly reflects political polarization — strong approval from Democrats but universal opposition from Republicans — which is more a sign of the times than a problem with the president. Anyway, you’re supposed to judge presidents by what they do, not by fickle public opinion.
A larger answer, I’d guess, is Simpson-Bowles syndrome — the belief that good things must come in bipartisan packages, and that fiscal probity is the overriding issue of our times. This syndrome persists among many self-proclaimed centrists even though it’s overwhelmingly clear to anyone who has been paying attention that (a) today’s Republicans simply will not compromise with a Democratic president, and (b) the alleged fiscal crisis was vastly overblown.
The result of the syndrome’s continuing grip is that Mr. Obama’s big achievements don’t register with much of the Washington establishment: he was supposed to save the budget, not the planet, and somehow he was supposed to bring Republicans along.A perfect example of this syndrome was on display on the editorial page of the
To read the report is to be struck by the pragmatic attitude of the majority of Americans and by their simultaneous abdication of responsibility to the extremes — and, with it, power. This sensible center is willing to compromise; half said they’d be willing to split the difference 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats.
But the centrist majority isn’t inclined to translate this attitude into action. “On measure after measure — whether primary voting . . . volunteering for or donating to a campaign — the most politically polarized are more actively involved in politics, amplifying the voices that are the least willing to see the parties meet each other halfway,” Pew reported. (our emphasis)"This sensible center..."?!?!? Holy myopia, Batman! There is a sensible center in American politics today, Ms. Marcus, and it's occupied by... the Democratic Party. You know, the party that passed the Heritage Foundation's idea of health care reform; the party that represents the mainstream view on climate change, same-sex marriage, gun violence, minimum wage, equal pay, and so many other issues. The Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party has moved so far to the right that splitting "the difference 50/50" would entail essentially enacting a right-wing agenda after two elections in which that agenda was soundly defeated! (Some of us would say, if only Democrats had been less centrist and more true to progressive values, we might have had public option health care, a more robust stimulus, and some banksters serving time behind bars.) The "sensible center" folks that pollsters are finding may not know it, but they support policies of the Democratic Party far more than those of the Republicans. They might not like splitting the difference 50/50 if someone (gosh, the media?) were to explain to them exactly what that would mean, or if it was even possible.
This is exactly the Washington establishment syndrome that Krugman was pointing to in his op/ed, and why President Obama gets little credit for big achievements and lots of soulless nitpicking from the likes of the Bezos Bugle and Ms. Marcus.
