Problems for Obama

OPINION:

Barack Obama instinctively understands and articulates American grievances with politics better than any presidential candidate. This clear-eyed comprehension propels his current success and popularity, explaining why he has bested his opponents in popular votes and delegates so far in the Democratic nomination process. But ironically this same empathetic skill set and insight about voter gripes could also cause his fall if he ever were to win the race to the White House.

Here is the surprising key: Americans care more about process than issues, more about how a candidate addresses problems than the details of the solutions. Hillary Clinton misses this point. She defines her agenda in terms of issues and substance like a robotic school teacher. Mr. Obama promises only a process to solve them. Given those two options — at least at this stage — process trumps policy.

Mrs. Clinton runs circles around him when it comes to the substance of issues. She routinely bested the Illinois senator during most of their debates, demonstrating deep knowledge about the intricacies of health care, energy, the environment and foreign policy.

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, appeared weakest in this format. He excels with the teleprompter or in the pulpit, attacking injustice with high-minded promises of change. He also does well in the soft, personal interview context. He looked great, for example, on “The View” last week with Barbara Walters when asked probing questions like whether Brad Pitt is really his cousin or how he handles the fact that women think he’s “sexy.” Mr. Obama is least comfortable explaining the details of public-policy solutions — and certainly following through on his rhetoric. His meager track record of accomplishments in the Senate underscores this point.

But what the Illinois senator lacks in policy substance, he makes up in process promises. Americans hate “special interests.” So instead of talking about the specifics of, say, energy or health care legislation, he guarantees to rid the process of influence peddlers. Americans don’t like being viewed as global cowboys, so he reassures voters that when it comes to foreign policy, he’ll meet with “anyone, without preconditions.” Focusing on the culture of complaint when it comes to process — from America’s racist past to our polarized present — generates high marks from the “we can do better” crowd. Ironically, we are a nation of infinite optimism when it comes to politics — a country where the preferred season is always spring when it comes to presidential rhetoric. It’s just always the next guy’s responsibility to fix the problem.

That Americans care more about process than policy is not an obvious conclusion. Don’t voters care about candidate positions on the economy, the war in Iraq, health care or energy? Sure they do. But do positions on those issues determine vote choice? That’s less clear.

Political scientists John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse have conducted an insightful study on this subject. In their book “Stealth Democracy,” they argue, “It is our belief that Americans are attuned to the way government works more than to what it produces, to the process more than the policies.” They find that most Americans find policy discussions either extremely boring or too complicated.

Mr. Hibbing and Ms. Theiss-Morse also contend Americans believe they understand the process of government — and they don’t like what they see. In their eyes, the system is partisan, filled with career politicians, rife with special interests and largely corrupt. So, a candidate who talks about cleaning up the process speaks a language voters comprehend.

Problems develop, however, when the process moves to the next level of detail; when policy-makers move from broad goals — like fixing health care, improving education or creating better jobs — to specific solutions. “Our results suggest that it is exposure to the work of legislation that erodes public confidence,” Mr. Hibbing and Ms. Theiss-Morse write. And part of the reason, they say, is because Americans assume there is more consensus about solutions than really exists. In other words, once the legislative sausage-maker starts to grind, people get disgusted with the outcome — and the participants.

Mr. Obama would have to stop just talking about the process and start trying to make it work if he won the presidency. He would have to move beyond feeling and articulating American grievances and begin trying to do something about it. And when the inevitable conflicts and trade-offs arise, voters will be “fired up and ready,” all right — ready to send him packing.