Obama's Gambit

It didn't take long after networks began calling the election last night for the bitter responses to start flooding airwaves and Twitter feeds nationwide. Donald Trump was an especially dark lowlight, claiming  "We should march on Washington and stop this tragedy." (Prior to election ranting, he was inexplicably hating on Richard Belzer which may be enough of a reason to ignore Trump if, you know, we didn't have so many already.) My own Facebook newsfeed, like many, was full of spite and anger. 

But the truly confounding thing was not the fact of a backlash, but the claims being made in it: Our nation is divided and in peril, and Obama should be blamed for winning an election that so many didn't want him to win. Or the more convulted version: Obama and Obama alone--without the slightest nod to the extremist bent of the Tea Party--is the source of all the division that made the election so tense. His attack ads were the instigation, apparently, of the two-party system's binary choice matrix.

Obama and Romney both gave credence to the claims, calling for bipartisanship in their respective speeches. Headlines starting popping up immediately pointing to the difficult work Obama faces in bridging the divide. However, Romney's comments were obvious platitudes forced upon him in the gracious loser role and Obama's were required given that there was such a backlash. But given the content--that Obama is the Great Divider driving the country to extremist ruin--and the timing--shortly after a myriad of horrifyingly misogynist comments from congressional candidates and a celebration of non-negotiation--is it any wonder that all talk of "reaching across the aisle" is complete and utter bullshit?

But here's the importan point: for Obama, it should be bullshit.

During his speech, Obama put the moment plainly: "Tonight you voted for action, not politics as usual." The statement is ironic given that so many pundits summarized the election by saying that nothing has changed, that we continue on as we did last week. Perhaps, if we're unlucky, they're right. But just maybe Obama meant those words. And just maybe the stage is set for action--not farcical and empty "bipartisanship" that amounts to placating the worst trends in American politics, but legitimate governance.

But Obama can only act if he's willing to take a stance on progressive policies and force them through. If that's politicking, fine. But it can't be the meek response that he took during his first term, nor the meek response the right is hoping to force him into now. If he's serious about confronting immigration, the fiscal cliff, and the environment, he can't worry about appealing to the voters who condemn him as an ideologue after offering a remarkably spending-cut-happy deficit plan only to see the right leave the table.

In an ironic twist, the only way to solve the deadlock and unite the country is to double down on the plans the right hates most--not because their opinions don't matter, but because those are the plans most needed, and only with their success will America begin to move forward. Lincoln saved the Union by refusing to give in to the worst in the nation. Obama must do the same. Whatever courting of the right must be done to get actual programs in place should be done, but there should never be a question about the goal.

The need to appeal to swing voters is a petty excuse for not taking on the important issues, but even that meager excuse is gone now. Today, Obama has the chance to provide leadership, to provide action to an ailing nation. But first he must sacrifice all hopes of being well-liked. He must recognize that there is a cost. We need an unrelenting president. We need a strong dose of conviction. 

An Obama freed from a reelection campaign has the chance to do something extraordinary. But first he must make the gambit.