The Good Kind of Failure

[babylonsister]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/the-good-kind-of-failure.php

The Good Kind of Failure
Matthew Yglesias




Mark Halperin’s report card on Obama’s first year makes Barack Obama look like a really great president and elite political reporters look really dumb and petty. The list of five things Obama has done well, of course, reflects well on him. But look at the things Obama has done poorly! If a failure to woo “official Washington” is one of the major failings of an administration, then I’d say the administration is doing pretty well. Especially because if you read the item, it’s clear that by “official Washington” Halperin means something like “my friends” rather than anything actually “official”:

In 2008 the country clearly craved new leadership that would sweep into the capital and change the ways of Washington. But politically and personally, the First Couple and their top aides have shown no hankering for the Establishment seal of approval, nor have they accepted the glut of invitations to embassy parties and other tribal rituals of the political class. In the sphere of Washington glitter, the Clintons were clumsy and the Bush team indifferent, but the Obama Administration has turned a cold shoulder, disappointing Beltway salons and newsrooms whose denizens hoped the über-cool newbies would play.

Shocking that the über-cool don’t want to go to embassy parties. The people I know who work in the administration, though by no means “top aides,” generally seem quite busy. They’re trying to govern the country under difficult circumstances! And I think the public will generally sleep easily knowing that more time is being put into policies aimed at improving people’s lives than on hankering for the “establishment seal of approval.” Similarly for “creating stars.”

And how, exactly, does Halperin think Obama should have changed the tone unilaterally? He’s always maintained his own famously calm, somewhat aloof tone. A large number of his opponents have decided to act insane. Is that really a big failing?

Halperin's full list here:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1950070,00.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. One glaring error in that article

Obama's opponents aren't "acting" insane.

[babylonsister]

2. Ezra Klein weighs in on Halperin...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/articles_that_make_me_believe.html

snip//

Apparently, the administration -- which is governing during one of the most crises-laden periods in recent history and which is still operating without a number of its key officials -- should be spending more time partying. The charitable interpretation is that Halperin thinks this prioritization is making Obama's life unnecessarily hard: The White House could be getting better press coverage, and more support from established powerbrokers, if it was fanning out to more embassy parties, and that would make governing easier.

You wonder, however, whether Halperin recognizes the rot and corruption he's suggesting in "official Washington." The same goes for his item on Obama's media failures, which argues that Obama's "image makers have not been deft enough in finding a happy medium that allows Obama to be Obama while neutralizing some of the more poisonous, potentially indelible story lines."

Official Washington consists mainly of people who are paid to understand American politics. They shouldn't need to be feted at parties. Indeed, if their conclusions are being changed by glimpsing Larry Summers at the British Embassy, they're doing a terrible job. Either Obama is governing well and is worthy of respect or he isn't, but the assessment can't be that he's governing well but not coming to enough parties. At least, not unless we're in some serious "Fall of Rome" days here in Washington.

Similarly, a journalist who is so uninformed about merits of what's actually going on that a slick call from David Axelrod changes her opinion of Obama's performance should be fired. It's one thing to play the perception game during campaigns. But governance actually has real, tangible things you can evaluate. Is Obama closer or further from passing health-care reform than his predecessors? Will the bill improve or hurt the situation? Could it have been substantially better or worse given the congressional constraints? If Halperin really believes that Obama's image should be in better shape than it is, then that's an indictment of his -- and my -- profession, not of the White House.

[Lilith Velkor]

3. "At least, not unless we're in some serious 'Fall of Rome' days here in Washington."

Uh...we are.