Stimulating Opposition

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:45


In the Stimulus Open Thread comments, debcoop wrote:
    If he [Obama] had started out stronger the evolving dynamic would have been different

    The Republican Senators would have come over because they would be under public pressure not to screw the country. Instead he handed them the dynamic and they got to push those 3-4 Republicans to go with their party instead of the people. It's known as whipping the vote. He let the whip fall out of his hands and into their theirs.

    Someone here linked to these Harry Truman quotes. Obama must not have ever read them..because he violated each precept.

    "Carry the battle to them.  Don't let them bring it to you.  Put them on the defensive.  And don't ever apologize for anything."

    "I don't like bipartisan.  Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know that he's going to vote against me."


    He let them carry the battle to him.  He let them put him on the defensive. And he apologized.

    And he didn't know that this was the Republican definition of bipartisan....voting against you.

I believe that her point is inarguable, self-evident.  One can spin whatever sorts of theories one wants about Obama's grand strategy--and I've got a post in the works on that.  But one thing should be blindingly clear: it's just been refuted, "big time" as war criminal Dick Cheney would say.  If one wants to argue that Obama's bipartisan strategic vision is not to blame, then all the blame has to go to how it was executed--and it surely could have been better done.  But if it had been better executed, wouldn't that have only postponed the inevitable??
Paul Rosenberg :: Stimulating Opposition
Let us be clear, there are no credible economists saying that tax cuts are more stimulative than spending increases. There is no rational policy foundation for what the Republicans are doing in the Senate.  Ergo, there is no rational foundation for compromise and bipartisan accommodation with them.

The problem is not with Obama's theory of bipartisan accommodation, per se.  It just doesn't apply to this particular case.  The case being America after 40+ years of movement conservative jihad.

Consider this: the saint of the conservative movement continues to be Ronald Reagan.  But if Reagan were alive and in the political fray today, he would be crucified by the movement conservatives.  Grover Norquist and the Club For Growth would be calling for his head.  After all, Ronald Reagan raised taxes after he cut them.  He made peace with the Soviet Union.  He compromised willingly, even cheerfully.

This is not to praise Reagan.  He was still an incredibly destructive political figure.  But he was nowhere near destructive enough to pass muster with today's conservative movement.

That's something that all of us should never forget--particularly when we hear the word "bipartisan".

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Stimulating Opposition | 146 comments
I get it (4.00 / 12)
I've heard that you are supposed to get more conservative when you get older. The older I get, the more I am convinced that "moderates" like Susan Collins and Ben Nelson--so beloved by the media--are simply rich corporate hacks who seek to destroy the American middle class by subtler means than the likes of Bush.

by: Chris Bowers
Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 22:23

Without judgement on motivation, i.e., what they "seek," it's obvious to me that moderate centrists like Susan Fucking Collins are part of the problem.

I specifically remember a good friend telling me that if he lived in Maine, he'd vote for her. I was incredulous, and I don't remember what I said, but it was something like a vote for her is a vote for Bush. That was the upshot of her voting record, no matter how bipartisan she sounds at election time.

And obviously a vote for Collins would be a vote for Mitch McConnell to run the Senate, just as a vote for Tucson's moderate GOP congresscritter Jim Kolbe was always a vote for Tom DeLay. It drives me hair-tearing crazy when people can't get that.

It was a great disappointment that we couldn't get traction enough to beat her, or McConnell or Saxby Fucking Chambliss. That was a heartbreaker, and it makes 2009 a bit of a different game than 1933, when the GOP was just plain flattened.

Now that Collins is in the minority, Mitch can use her to play good cop/bad cop with Harry Reid. And it's obvious enough that you'll sooner get martinis from a cow than bipartisanship from Mitch. His motivations are transparent enough - his team can't win if this stimulus succeeds.

Side note: my kids are watching a "Rocky and Bullwinkle" episode about an epidemic of stupidity. Boris and Natasha are watching in the Congressional gallery as a Senator intones "We've got to get the government out of the government!" Some things never change.

So one might call this a "win" for Team Obama if one wishes. One can and might speculate in vain on how this might have come out differently if cards had been played in an alternate manner.

I understand - I told my wife - that Obama and Axelrod and Plouffe and Jarret are smarter than I am, that you underestimate them at your peril. They beat the Clinton machine and the Rove machine. They keep their eyes on the prize and don't sweat the short term. I get that.

I understand that Team Obama feels like they need people like Larry Summers and Robert Gates and Judd Fucking Gregg on the inside of their Big Tent pissing out rather than on the outside pissing in. As I told my grumpy lefty friends, they want to co-opt factions of the establishment, and use them to help sell progressive change. And I understand that every Democratic administration is going to include policy battles between corporatist and populist Demos, and that the populists aren't always going to win.

Art of the Possible. Eyes on the Prize.

But here in the short term I can't help feeling two nagging doubts. The first is that, since I'm a rookie schoolteacher, Susan Collins just bargained my job away. (Not to mention, I want my governor back, and the lack of emphasis on partisan considerations is going to be killing us here in Arizona).

And the second is that the longterm success of Team Obama depends not on a win in passing a stimulus package, any stimulus package, but in passing a successful stimulus package. They can fix some of this in conference and pass some of the rest in an unfilibusterable budget resolution. I get that.

But time is ticking. If the economy is still on a downward slope in mid-2010, it's going to be very hard to swing close races. One thing is clear, and that is that large swathes of the electorate are just fencepost dumb - especially about economics! -  and easily swayed by pundits and consultants who aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars themselves.

Count me as disappointed that the constitutional law professor  we elected didn't use this as more of a teachable moment. And moments matter. Look at the batshit crazy arguments from the McCain campaign that millions of people believed with all their heart. It actually may be possible to educate some of them about what caused this crisis and what it takes to get out of it, but time's a-wasting.

Rome wasn't built in a day. I get that. But excuse me while I sweat the short term.  

Rocky And Bullwinkle (4.00 / 4)
best TV I ever saw as a kid. Well, not really a kid, I guess.  I was tween when they first came on.  But that's how I remembered it.  I honestly don't remember any other cartoons I watched growing up.

I understand - I told my wife - that Obama and Axelrod and Plouffe and Jarret are smarter than I am, that you underestimate them at your peril. They beat the Clinton machine and the Rove machine. They keep their eyes on the prize and don't sweat the short term. I get that.

Boris and Natasha would run circles around them.  This would not be the case with Bullwinkle, however "dumb" he may have been.

There's a lesson in here, somewhere.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Smart vs Street Smart (4.00 / 3)
I spent hours in that stimulus thread last night and I am still hoarse (is that possible?) from the experience.  But I absolutely agree that possibly a majority of the electorate are dumb as a fencepost when it comes to economics.  So, the street smart political team would have pushed back in a condescending way, just like the repugs did.

Hell, we only have the truth on our side which would make them look as small minded as they really are.  Boehner picks on the $250M for contraceptives and silence is the reply.  Then capitulation with a mea culpa!  Why didn't Pelosi/Hoyer/Obey/Rahm/Someone? argue back that it would create jobs in clinics and community outreach that are suffering.  I read an estimate of 1500 jobs!  We are spending almost a Trillion dollars and trying to create or save 3 - 4 million jobs!  Our society/economy is very complex and it takes a lot of different kinds of workers to make it go.  Janitors, engineers, teachers, ditch diggers, retail clerks, nurses, electricians, etc. etc.  In that context, why are any jobs or job training off limits?  Then Big Ben rides in, cuts the fat and ADDS back tax breaks, including a suspension of the AMT!!  What does that do to stimulate the economy?  Please tell us Ben!!!!

I related anecdotal evidence from wife last night and I think it is worth repeating.  She teaches in a suburban middle school and some of her kids are showing signs of stress and worry - Middle Schoolers!  They tell her they hear their parents arguing more, drinking more and worrying more about losing their jobs/houses/life.  The kids are scared, naturally, and don't have the wherewithal to deal with it.  They are kids.

The conservative movement has done real damage to the social fabric of America and the past 8 years have pushed us to the breaking point.  The only bipartisanship I want to see is calling the kettle black, if it is, and pushing hard for the agenda which was mandated in the last election.  Obama picked an experienced team that should know their way around Washington.  They may be intelligent, but we need them to be street smart.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

[ Parent ]
Its pretty disheartening--I have to admit (0.00 / 0)
As someone who really believes--based on what I believe to be fairly strong empirical grounds--that excessive partisanship and political polarization is what is at the heart of our national governance problems--this is really disheartening.  I really think Obama's got it right, but if the other side is simply unwilling to operate with anything approaching good faith, where does that leave him?

The Politics of Bruno S.

The art of peace (4.00 / 7)
With a qualification or two -- or three or four -- I might agree with you about the psychology of our recent political confrontations, but I'd caution you not to overlook the fact that in this case, the psychology is more an effect of those confrontations than a cause.

Paul's more poetic -- and more accurate -- formulation of that confrontation, 40+ years of movement conservative jihad, hints at the real cause, which is that the American polity is being fought over by two minorities which have fundamentally different views about almost everything, and who want to both define and control the future.

What is more, this has been the case right from founding of the Republic, even during periods when the conflict was momentarily subsumed in some grander enterprise which momentarily set aside the conflict -- from the opening of the West in the early years of the nineteenth century, to the Depression and WWII in the twentieth.

Why this has been the case with us has been explained in enough detail by our historians for us to know that we can't escape the consequences. It probably would have been much better if we could have avoided characterizing the split as a grand Zoroastrian conflict, and kept on muddling along as best we could, but honestly, I don't know how much longer the New Deal, which 75 years ago became the accepted framework for that muddling, could have kept us from each other's throats.

In any event, the Republicans, and the accidental imperialism which was the legacy of WWII and the Cold War, have left us no way back to that relatively benign period from 1955-1980. We have to fight or leave the field. President Obama, whatever his other virtues, is in no way qualified to be our psychoanalyst, and Harry Reid will find no solace in surrender. The ugly reality, now revealed for all with eyes to see, is that movement conservatism is fundamentally wrong about almost everything, and it's dangerous. It must be fought, and fought openly.

All of which is not to say that one shouldn't have compassion for one's political adversaries, or deny that they're human beings, or try to forge agreements with them where possible. With malice toward none, with charity for all is as good a guide for decent people now as it was 143 years ago, but we should never forget that it was originally spoken only after the entire country was covered in the corpses of people who simply couldn't bring themselves to compromise on fundamental principles.

When we go about advancing our own principles, we should remember this.

[ Parent ]
Thank you William. (0.00 / 0)
The fight must be fought and propaganda is the tool of the conservatives right now.  Our side has the truth and the common good of all citizens as a goal.  We need to take the stink off the word SOCIALISM, for starters.  And BTW, our history is still taught in Southern Schools under the heading "The War of Northern Aggression".  There was surrender, but no victory.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis
[ Parent ]
The thought has occurred to me (4.00 / 1)
And its not without precedent: the early political parties were extremely militant.  The Federalists and Jeffersonians viewed each other truly as enemies and saw the opposing political party not as a loyal opposition but as a threat to the republic which needed to be destroyed.  And for that matter, actually did so in the case of the Federalists.  

But that in practice and in ideology this is an awefully extreme position to take, and will likely have unclear consequences for our political system in general.  What we're talking about here is not just about policy positioning any longer.  To challenge the existential basis of an opposing party or movement or what have you is something like a constitutional challenge.  It is a challenge to our polity is consitituted.

Don't get me wrong, after the Bush era, I myself could make such an argument, but I think you also have to consider if it does call for taking such a position.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
The existential question (4.00 / 2)

To challenge the existential basis of an opposing party or movement or what have you is something like a constitutional challenge.  It is a challenge to our polity is consitituted.

This reminds me of the Israeli rhetorical baseball bat, Israel's right to exist. Israel's right to exist would be less questionable if Israel itself hadn't decided, early on, that it was entitled to any piece of land inhabited by Palestinian Arabs that it took a fancy to, and that whatever else happened, the Israeli state had to be ruled by Jews, and Jews alone, forever.

For the record, I believe that the Republican party has a right to exist. Whatever other rights it has are subject to negotiation.

[ Parent ]
As an aside... (4.00 / 2)
Not all movement conservatives are movement conservatives because they truly believe in the mantra. Many, if not most, I believe, may have once believed in (or wanted to believe in) it, but at this point it's basically some combination of rich and powerful people (who became rich and powerful through more than just hard work, talent and good luck, e.g. via sweetheart deals with the government, poor labor practices, environmental dumping, outright criminality) who want to protect their class prerogatives (e.g. tax cuts, deregulation, free trade), and less affluent "Ordinary Joe" types, mostly white, Christian and non-urban, who see themselves fighting this vast social and cultural war against others, be they "socialists", "communists", blacks, Latinos, Muslims, liberals, gays, feminists, etc., for the preservation of their white bread "way" of life, and have made common cause with (and in reality been manipulated by), the first, rich and powerful (much smaller) group, in this endeavor, and then wrapped a bunch of nice-sounding hokey "ideology" around it to make it seem legit, like the way they come up with serious-sounding names for their propagandistic "think tanks" and PACs.

In any case, the point is that we're not just fighting an ideology, but a movement, and the two are in many ways not the same. While I agree with Obama that you don't fight an ideology head-on or with one or two quick masterstrokes, and that it takes time and effort, and much persuasion, we're not just fighting an ideology here, but a movement, of people basically trying to preserve what they see as class prerogatives, be they money/power or cultural/social ones, who view these prerogatives as inherent and essential--i.e. they're effectively, in their minds, fighting for self-preservation, since they identify so deeply with these prerogatives--and thus worth, and actually in need of, fighting dirty over. Thus the lies, smears, dirty tricks, lawbreaking, thuggishness, nastiness, even violence at times. These are people literally fighting to save their way of life, and they will, figuratively at least, but sometimes literally, fight to the death over it. Which is why holding out olive branches cannot work, and is ultimately self-defeating, because that olive branch will just be smacked away, and that hand will just be cut off.

We are in a war with desperate and often crazy and even bad people, and WAY past the ability of mere comity and good faith to resolve. They cannot be turned around or even neutralized. They can only be defeated. Not thoroughly, but sufficiently, as to no longer be serious threats for another generation or two, when they'll surely be back again, as they always are. But for now, there is no peace to be had with them. Only temporary truces, and crushing defeats. And since those truces never hold, we need to crush them. NOW. And for the first time in years, we have a solid opportunity to do so. So I sincerely hope that, other than at the most superficial PR level, Obama abandons his silly and dangerous fantasy of making peace with the likes of a McConnell, McCain, Kyl, Vitter, Chamblis, Enzi, etc. Because it can't be done, it needn't be done, and it musn't be attempted. First crush them, then shake their hands, smile, and call THAT bipartisan!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Right--It's Conservative Identity Politics (4.00 / 2)
The ideology is just a narrative to explain the identity, affirm solidarity with other conservatives and demonize liberals as the other.  It's all about tribal survival, and you're quite right that they're willing to fight to the death.  Which is why there simply are no rules that they feel constrained by.  

Kill for Jesus!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It just occured to me (4.00 / 4)
that Lincoln basically ended his presidency (not that he knew that it was about to end, of course) the way that he started it, in a spirit of "with malice towards none, with charity towards all", wanting to avoid conflict and mend wounds both old and recent. It's just the "middle" years that ended up not quite working out that way, as the Civil War started just a month after he took office, and ended just a month before he left it (so to speak). He tried his best to prevent it honorably, and then tried his best to heal its wounds honorably after it ended, but he was not able to actually stop it, or stop it from being horrific.

I'm sensing that it may well be much the same with Obama, that he started out, whether sincerely or tactically, trying to make nice with the other side and prevent a long-simmering political and ideological civil war from turning into open warfare, failing miserably at it after being unceremoniously stomped on by it, and now being forced, perhaps even still against his desire and intention, to engage in it openly. If so, it'll consume a large part of his presidency, and only if and when he--and we--win, will he finally be able to hold out olive branches. But not until then. Such is war and ideological and tribal conflict.

If he's serious about comparing himself to Lincoln, then he's got to take it all the way. There are no successful half-Lincolns in American political history.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I Hope You're Right (4.00 / 3)
This is such a tight little take, it deserves to be right.  Whether or not it is, only time will tell.

One thing that concerns me is this: Lincoln really had no choice.  Obama, I think, could easily play Hamlet indefinitely.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Only if he can stand the stench of a rapidly rotting Denmark... (4.00 / 2)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Yeah, Well, (4.00 / 1)
That was Hamlet's thing, now wasn't it?

He couldn't stand the stench.

He just couldn't stop talking about how bad it was.

Sorta like Obama on Thursday, talking to the Dem caucus.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I know, I know (4.00 / 2)
The speech sure sounded good, but unless he follows it up with action, it's just words. And if he doesn't do something soon to defy one of the main criticisms of him when he ran, that he's all about empty words that sound nice but mean nothing because they're not matched with actions, it will become the defining characteristic of his presidency and his lasting legacy.

I still can't quite decide if he's simply the sort of person who's quite capable of strong and effective action, once roused to it, and is merely slow to being roused to it, like Lincoln, FDR and LBJ, or if he's the sort of person who, push comes to shove, just can't bring himself to actually take such action, and either does almost nothing at all, like Carter, or takes half-hearted half-assed half-measure actions, like Clinton. I'm still inclined to believe that he is, or is capable of being, the former, but I'll believe it when I see it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I Share Your Uncertainty, As Well As Your Hopeful Inclination (4.00 / 1)
There's definitely a sort of steely vibe about him that suggests your inclination is correct, that he's more like Lincoln or FDR than Carter or Clinton.

Here's hoping he doesn't keep us guessing more than another 48 hours, max.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I know some people who agree with you (0.00 / 0)
my mom yesterday told me she was upset that "they're doing nothing but figthing again" and that she expected it to stop with Obama.

The good news is she blames the Republicans not Obama.

[ Parent ]
He'll adjust his strategy accordingly. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Obama is attached to that naive (liberal) idea... (4.00 / 8)
that politics is not a "battle of ideas." Politics is actually a battle of competing antagonistic interests. You only win by vanquishing your enemies.

In practice, this means that for progressives, politics is the art of making a maximalist demand (e.g. starting with a 1.5 trillion dollar stimulus program) and backing it up with a credible threat

Correction: (4.00 / 2)
The naive liberal conception of politics is that it IS a battle of ideas.
[ Parent ]
Right (4.00 / 9)
Liberals think that conservatives are just liberals with a different set of ideas.

Well, sort of.  If by "a different set of ideas" you mean "kill the motherfuckers, and negotiate with their bones."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It's hard for me to believe (4.00 / 6)
that after four years in the Senate, working alongside these GOP freaks, he would still be naive about what they are and how they operate.

I think he does know, but he's like a starry-eyed girlfriend who thinks her loser boyfriend "will change" if she just gives him another chance.

Give it up, Barack. They aren't gonna change. If you want to get anything done, you have to play hardball.

If necessary, we should try to pull the nuclear option and lower the filibuster threshold to 55 votes. In an era with this much GOP unity, 60 just ain't as easy as it used to be.

[ Parent ]
I think that he's the type of person (0.00 / 0)
who tends to live inside his head too much, too in love with the beauty and power of ideas--especially his own. It's a common fault of many intellectually inclined people, to mistake ideas for reality, theory for practice.

I used to work for someone a bit like this, a "visionary" corporate sort who liked to tell his employees not to "have conversations with themselves", meaning to vett their ideas with others, and against reality, before implementing them, even though this was his own MO to do exactly that. It was an astounding example of hypocritical projection.

I don't think that Obama's a hypocrite in this sense, but he does seem to "have conversations with himself" too much, rather than with hard-boiled people who've been around and know how the world really works, and tends to get too entralled with ideas over what actually works. Clinton was like this too, and Carter before him. Reagan too, but he compensated for it by being an extremely smart politician, albeit one pushing crazy ideas and policies. (Maybe it had something to do with each of their difficult childhoods, which perhaps caused them to escape into idealistic fantasy worlds, but I'll leave that for the experts.)

Thankfully, Obama also has his reality-based, practical, hard-hitting side, and appears to be getting in touch with it once again, now that his extremely (and thankfully) brief honeymoon is over. Instead of retreating into soothing thoughts, he's entering the fray swinging, and it's good to see. He needs to keep it up, rather than rest up when this bill gets passed. If he's to get what he needs to get done, he's going to have to fight it out with, and ultimately crush, the other side, and make it abundantly clear who's in charge now.

Because they're just not that into him.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
He started with a package at $775B and a 60/40 (0.00 / 0)
split in terms of spending/tax cuts.

The package he has now is around $800 billion with a...wait for it...60/40 split in terms of spending/tax cuts.

He got what he wanted.  Now let's hope it works and let's get moving on some other very important matters such as health care and education and energy reform.

I'd love to see the Republicans seriously try to take down those popular proposals.

The Obama administration is learning quickly, and they'll adjust their tactics accordingly to put forth the best possible strategy to get shit done in the future.

[ Parent ]
At some point (4.00 / 6)
Harry is going to have to make them pay the price for filibustering everything. The GOP didn't need 60 votes to pass their legislation over the last 14 years, after all. Make their geezers get up and give speeches. Keep a nap cam on grassley. There's no time for this now, but with less urgent legislation, we're going to have to establish that you don't filibuster for free
The GOP never spent on the deficit (0.00 / 0)
and if they did, they would've needed 60 votes.

They also usually got 60 votes because more than a few Democrats supported them.  

[ Parent ]
You know how the deficit is at record levels now? (0.00 / 0)
There's a reason they try to claim Bush wasn't really a conservative, and it's not just immigration.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Why I think this is wrong (4.00 / 2)
As usual, I find myself in the minority here.

It is important to understand what I think is going on in the Republican Party.  Republicans and conservatives are moving right.  To their base, opposition to the stimulus package is a question of loyalty.  

At the outer fringes of the Senate GOP sits about 3 - 5 Republicans, all from the Northeast or Midwest.  Nothing significant can pass the Senate without getting at least two of their votes.  So essentially the argument about the post partisan strategy can be boiled down to this:

What is the best way to get their votes?  If you don't get their votes you get nothing. Nothing.

The argument against the post partisan strategy is that if the Dems are tougher, the popular will will force them to vote for Progressive Legislation.  The problem with this strategy is I don't think that will work with most swing Republicans in the Senate.

In Maine Snowe and Collins are almost impossible to beat. We tried to beat Collins and got our hat handed to us last time. Voinivich is leaving the Senate. You might be able to put pressure on Specter, though I think he might be worried about a primary. You can go down this list, but I am skeptical that there really is an alternative.  

Ultimately the Stimulus fight is a road map to the bigger - and tougher fight coming on health care.  Your quote of Truman is useful.  It is also ironic.  Truman did not win his health care fight.  


I'm beginning to think the GOP has already tipped their hand (4.00 / 1)
It might be necessary to bite the bullet early and pass that reform on non-filibusterable legislation like budget bills.  Doing so early will be unpopular, but it will at least skip a whole lot unproductive rancor.  

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
If we really wanted to get tough (4.00 / 2)
we would have ditched the filibuster, which I believe could have done in the rules adopted at the beginning of the Senate.  In fact, THAT was the fight that should have been made.

With the filibuster we need 60, and that means the Senators from Maine hold incredible power.  

[ Parent ]
I agree (4.00 / 1)
And I actually think that these supposed tools of bipartisanship like the filibuster actually increase political polarization by diluting legisation--as we've just seen--and making the process of legislation more rancorous than necessary.  Personally, I think we should start to move to something more like the West Minster system where the party in power gets to pass most if not all its legislation and if the country doesn't like it they just vote for the other side next election.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Force the so-called moderates to vote for it (4.00 / 4)
Funny how Republicans always managed to get stuff that was unpopular or only had soft support (anti-worker provisions in the Dept. of Homeland Security bill? Alito nomination?) through the Senate without 60 votes.

How'd they do it? They LEAD. Always moving first, wrong-footing the Democrats with all-out media blitzes, creatively using (or creating) crises, draping their issue in mom, apple pie and the flag, and demonizing any potential opposition as unpatriotic obstructionists. This stimulus bill is just one more example of this dynamic at work.

Why can't the Democrats just take a page from successful Republican efforts? Move first with an all-out media/congress blitz with the argument that the stimulus bill is Americans investing in America at a time when the bankers and corporate execs that Republicans represent won't,and so any right-thinking American who cares about his and his neighbor's job should support it. And that those who oppose it are simply playing politics by putting special interests against the national interest?

This would get people like Nelson or Collins to believe that their political careers depend on them voting for this bill in its current (or even expanded) form without these destructive "compromises."

Of course, this kind of strategy would require dropping this facade of bipartisanship.

But the Democrats never seem to learn their lesson.

[ Parent ]
Quite True (4.00 / 2)
That's why it was so remarkable that the Dems stopped Bush's Social Security piratization plan.  It's the one time in eight years that they held their ground.

Aside from that?  Heck, the GOP could have pushed through a veteran's benefit for Adolph Hitler, and the Dems would have let it pass.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Thank Pelosi.... (4.00 / 1)
....who refused to kowtow to the "bipartisan" conventional wisdom that the Democrats needed to offer a SS "plan".....
[ Parent ]
It just amazes me . . . (4.00 / 2)
. . . how similar the dynamic is to the beginning of the Clinton administration in '93-'94.

Democrats see a problem, draft a bill to deal with it, Republicans take the lead in demonizing it, the bill is gutted or fails.

See: Clinton's stimulus, health care

Harvard Scholar Traces Failure of Clinton Health Reform Plan

Democrats and supporters of the proposal were in disarray and were disinclined to explain the proposal's provisions. This contrasted poorly with the unity, resources, and grassroots effectiveness of the plan's conservative Republican opponents.

A deliberate campaign by the Clinton Administration to mobilize political support came too late . . . These issues played out against a background of weak congressional leadership . . .

Sound familiar?

The only thing the Democrats have going for them is that things are so bad now that most people see that something must be done, so the stimulus (probably) won't just outright fail to pass.

The Democrats certainly haven't learned anything from their failures and Republican successes.

Or maybe it's more accurate to say that some Democrats have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from their repeated failures.  

[ Parent ]
I Disagree (4.00 / 1)
The Democrats certainly haven't learned anything from their failures and Republican successes.

They've done the same stupid thing so many times now, they can do it in their sleep.

That's what they've learned.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
the democrats are a bit lame on this score, but you have to (4.00 / 1)
chalk at least some of this up to the media, which this week was revealed as the corporate/reactionary institution it really is.  you can't very well do an "all out PR blitz" if you are getting blacked out on the airwaves and lindsay graham is being treated like a prophet.

this is not to disagree with the overall point, but i'm a bit confused as to why we aren't raising a bigger stink about the TV media on this....  

[ Parent ]
I do not (0.00 / 0)
see how that influences Collins at all.  She just throughly thrashed a Democrat in 2008.  You may be right about Nelson, but the point I was trying to make is that the key swing votes are going to be very difficult to influence in the way you suggest.  
[ Parent ]
Missing the point . . . (4.00 / 2)
I'm talking bigger picture than that. If Obama gets out front and the Congressional Dems get on TV and don't let the Republicans dominate the debate with the "spending is not stimulus" crap in the first place, then we never get to the point where Collins feels she can reinforce her "centrist" street cred by helping to gut the bill.

All the Dems who facilitated Alito getting on the Supreme Court weren't facing Republican challengers, so I don't see how the fact that Collins won last fall has anything to do with correcting the multi-decade failure of Democrats to win these debates.

If the Republicans can do it, we can do it. It's a failure of political creativity and leadership.

[ Parent ]
Don't Forget Guts! (4.00 / 2)
It's a failure of political creativity and leadership.

It's also a failure of guts.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
How? (0.00 / 0)
If Obama gets out front and the Congressional Dems get on TV and don't let the Republicans dominate the debate with the "spending is not stimulus" crap in the first place, then we never get to the point where Collins feels she can reinforce her "centrist" street cred by helping to gut the bill.

How do you suppose we do that if the media won't let then on to make their point?

[ Parent ]
How about . . . . (4.00 / 1)
. . . in the short run, tell the major media and newspaper outlets that if they continue their biased coverage, they will lose access to the White House and all executive branch agencies if necessary.  

If that's not enough, pass a new Fairness Doctrine and suspend the licenses of media outlets who continue to serve as cogs in the right-wing noise machine.

And, begin a constant, day-after-day Democratic hissy fit about the pro-Republican, anti-Democratic bias of our corporate media.

In the long, run, media reform, including restrictions on corporate ownership of radio and televison stations, rebuilding public broadcasting, and subsidizing new forms of nonprofit and community broadcasters.

[ Parent ]
The Thing Is (4.00 / 4)
She won easily because it takes a lot of laying groundwork to unseat someone who has made themselves into an institution.  She's done so on very deceptive grounds, and nothing shows this better than the fact that she's sacrificing school children for the sake of her false image.  So, you adopt the strategy of exposing her every single time she pulls this shit.

And, of course, you don't usually bash her over the head.  You use genteel, Maine-friendly ways of doing it.

But you do it.

In this case, organizing teachers, principals, PTAs and state legislators to publicly call on her not to cut education funding would seem like a no-brainer approach to take.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well, duh (4.00 / 1)
Too bad that "duh" is a word not allowed in the Dem caucus, at least among those who count. God forbid we should be seen as being mean and nasty. Better that people like us than that they respect us.

I get sick every time I see some Repub firebreater spout lie after lie in a fit of self-righteous apoplexy on the floor of the senate, only to have them followed by some mealy-mouthed Dem drone on with a condensed version of a policy paper that would put a rabid dog to sleep. They either do not want to fight, or don't know how to, and thus continually reinforce the stereotype of the effete egghead liberal who will not fight. No passion, no fight, no desperate fire in the belly need to win, and crush the other side.

It's changing, slowly, but way too slowly. If it's going to happen, it's going to have to come from the very top--Obama--and from the bottom--us. Because these middling putzes just don't have what it takes, for the most part, especially in the faux comity at all costs (at least for Dems) senate. Obama appears to be stirring, finally, but he can't do it alone. We have to light a fire under them, somehow, or they'll keep persuing paths of least resistance, willing to accept whatever they can get without a real fight. Because for whatever reasons, fighting is just not in their DNA. (Which is why, among other things, both Gore and Kerry lost, I believe, Bill Clinton was half the president that he could have been, and Carter not even that.)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I think you miss the mark (4.00 / 13)
You write "What is the best way to get their votes?" in regards to the centrist.

Basically, centrists such as Susan Collins and Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman like to feel important. Just this week they decided to show their strength by trimming $100 billion from the stimulus bill. Not because they were trimming "fat" -- after all, who in their right minds thinks that aid to states, education, and science research won't create jobs?

And who thinks that the AMT fix will create a single job? No one I know.

But given this need by the centrists to show their influence and look like a "moderating influence" on the Big Spendin' liberals in power, Obama should NOT have compromised from the get go. He should have introduced a $1 trillion plus stimulus with minimal tax cuts, knowing that these weasely centrists would take their pound of flesh.

Instead, we've had to compromise twice -- once when Obama introduced a smaller, tax cut filled bill. And then this week, when Collins/Nelson took a chainsaw to the best provisions that were left.

If was textbook bad negotiating by Obama. Hopefully he's learned a lesson.

[ Parent ]
I don't see (4.00 / 3)
evidence that Obama wanted a bigger stimulus package.  I have no doubt that the package is too small, but its size was not, I think, the result of some desire to seem moderate.

Anyone who has done budgeting in a corporation knows you always ask for more than you need on the premise you inevitably get cut.  On that point you are dead right.  Obama should have asked for more than he wanted on the grounds that the moderates in the Senate would have demanded cuts - though I think there was some sense that they wanted to stay under a trillion.  

 

[ Parent ]
Has Obama (4.00 / 1)
ever done budgeting in a corporation? Perhaps he really doesn't understand the principle of asking for more than you need.
[ Parent ]
Any dept chair in academia.... (4.00 / 1)
....or any academic who has applied for a research grant, is fully familiar with the concept.

Heck, any kid asking for pocket money understands the concept.

[ Parent ]
But Obama doesn't have that experience (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
In Fact (4.00 / 5)
Obama said the exact opposite.  He expected the legislative process would drive the price tag up, so he would not have to ask for as much as he really expected to get.

Another example of how this brilliant politician set himself up for an obvious fall.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Miscalculation (4.00 / 4)
Right.  Obama totally miscalculated how congress would run with the bill and how Republicans would obstruct.  Obama just told congress to spend bunches of money and don't worry about where the money comes from or too much about what you are spending on.

According to Village thinking, this packages should have doubled in size, lickity-split.  And we did see some of this dynamic in play, but only slightly, and then the Republican obstructionists quickly took control of the debate.

Only five Republican Senators didn't vote to scrap the whole plan and replace it with business and general tax cuts.  Those are the only five we should ever deal with on economic issues, the rest are completely insane.  Get a few of them on board early would be consistent with Obama's strategy, but done correctly.

On the other hand, simply having Kennedy and Franken around would have changed the dynamic in the Senate completely.  All of this is really over just one or two votes.

[ Parent ]
What's Truly Baffling Is How Flat-Footed He Was (4.00 / 2)
Had he reacted in a campaign-mode time frame, this all could have been contained.

This leads me to believe that he really isn't concerned with the things that he needs to be concerned with, including both the perception of being in command (a very CW kind of thing) and the actually efficacy of the package, on which the success of his entire presidency could hang.

Instead, I think he's still deeply, ideologically attached to his bipartisan fantasy, and will willingly sacrifice just about everything for it.  Thus, his flat-footedness was simply indicative of the fact that he'd rather lose the battle--and quite possibly the war as well--rather than give up his cherished ideological vision.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
really? did you see his speech on thursday? (0.00 / 0)
he may have been deeply and ideologically attached to bipartisanship on tuesday, but to say he still is smacks of, well ideology.  
[ Parent ]
To play armchair psychoanalyst and co-opt the West Wing for a second... (0.00 / 0)
I sometimes wonder if this isn't, at least in part, some subconscious attempt to bring back his missing father (and sometimes mother, given that he was brought up by his grandparents while she basically abandoned him to persue her own ideological fantasies in Indonesia), by being as likeable, accomodating and nice as he can (which itself is a lie because he continually undermines it by being so obviously passive-aggressive)?

And, as a total aside, as I type this I'm watching a recording of today's senate session, and James Brolin/Robert Ritchie dead ringer John Ensign is trying to invoke Calvin Coolidge, of all people, as an example of sound economic policy, which is like touting Bush circa 2001-2006 as an economic genius. I give up. If we can't beat lunatics like this, I just give up.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I agree with (0.00 / 0)
everything you say abuut the absence of Kennedy and Franken.  In the end, though, the two Senators from Maine are going to be the ones to deal with.  

I began my political life working for a northern liberal republican (Robert Stafford of Vermont).  Like Stafford, Collin and Snowe are fundementally opposed to obstructionism.  In this sense they themselves are trapped: they need a deal as badly as Obama does.  The key is figure out where you want to be at the end, and what their reaction will be.  Hopefully the Obama people at this point realize this, and respond accordingly when the health care debate starts.

I will repeat, though, that you need their votes.  I do not see how beeing more partisan makes getting their votes any easier.  

[ Parent ]
Easy (4.00 / 3)
By attacking the GOP's dominant far-right wingnut wing using smart messaging and undermining it with clever political maneuvering, Obama can put these "centrists" into a position where they have to choose between either siding with the wingnuts, and thus becoming hugely unpopular with the public (and on Dems and Obama's shit list), or else breaking with this wing and doing what's right for the country.

This is exactly what Bush did with Dem "centrists" like Nelson and Lieberman, so I don't see why Obama can't do it with Collins and Snowe (and Nelson and Lieberman). Sure he's got to cut some deals with them. But he has to first set up such deals by creating a political situation in which they really HAVE to cut a deal, to not marginalize themselves politically. It's a game of smart chicken, followed up with some standard issue deal-making.

Plus, to the extent that any meaningful good faith bipartisanship is possible with today's GOP, it's only with the handful of Repubs for whom this battle isn't seen as one for ideological and movement survival, but rather for political relevance, if not survival, e.g. Snowe, Collins, Specter, etc. They may be opportunists (although I tend to view Snowe as basically in a category of her own, not unlike Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee), but they're not ideologues, or far-right nutjobs.

Divide, conquer, then cut some deals.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)
If you don't get their votes you get nothing. Nothing.

no, you pass the bill under reconciliation rules.

but preserving "comity" outweighs the good of the country.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

[ Parent ]
You have to get cloture (4.00 / 1)
or you don't get to conference.
[ Parent ]
While you have a point, (4.00 / 2)
I think you miss a crucial factor.

What I don't think is supportable is for the Republicans to vote down a stimulus package, in any form proposed by the Democrats, and be done with it. As the economy deteriorated, that would truly be damaging to them in the extreme. They would be characterized as obstructionists who have chosen to bring the house down.

The point is, there is very real pressure on the Republicans to do something, to vote for some response to the crisis.

A Democratic Party and a Democratic President that had the courage to hang fire would surely have won this battle. In the end, given the election results, and the clear support and mandate they had for change, they could have wreaked great damage to the Republicans if the Republicans didn't cave. The Democrats could have made that pressure relentless.

As usual, though, the Republicans chose to play chicken, and the Democrats were the first to go off the road.  

[ Parent ]
As an example of what I'm talking about, (4.00 / 1)
remember what happened with the first version of the bailout bill. Republicans shot it down. But the pressure simply built up to a point that they knew they had to vote for something. And, in that case, they turned around.
[ Parent ]
Hmm… (4.00 / 1)
...I just dunno. If Obama was naive about anything at all, it was in believing that the hardline GOP-ers wouldn't use their power to block anything he put on the table. But how would anyone in his position have overcome that? Is it really about clever negotiating tactics, or simple math: In the House, we don't need the GOP, in the Senate, we do--and they know it. I think if the Dems had majorities, there'd be no spin and the Republicans would have to get onboard or risk seeming really irrelevant when Obama's policies brought the economy back.

The way it stands the GOP is just basically rolling the dice to get to the midterms or beyond (do we really think a one trillion proposal wouldn't have been fought as hard?), which means that the only thing we can really do is find ways to fully discredit their "ideas" over the next year and a half. There's a lot of folks out there from the GOP side of the electorate who helped elect Obama: Remember "Barney Smith/Smith Barney" from the convention? The growth of that kinda populism has to be fostered and harnessed, so that the obstructionists begin to feel their constituencies turning against them.  

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
I think that the one (0.00 / 0)
politically unacceptable outcome from the stimulus fight would be that nothing got passed.

What is certain is that the numbers in the economy are rapidly deteriorating, the public is fully aware of that, and the public absolutely demands that something be done.

If Republicans were to refuse to vote for any stimulus package that Democrats would support, then the blame game would begin, and very quickly.

The question is, who would win that blame game? Even despite the relative incompetence of the Obama WH and the Democrats more generally when it comes to this issue, their advantages in the situation are inherent and unbeatable. Clearly, they have the mandate; they have the majority both in the House and in the Senate. The idea that a minority in the Senate might be able to stand in the way of doing anything would be unsupportable over any kind of protracted period of time.

As I said, it's basically this dynamic of avoiding blame for complete inaction in the face of true crisis that forced even House Republicans to come around on the bailout. I can't imagine that in the Senate that the likes of Collins, Specter, and Snowe would not feel the heat and cave - and perhaps others as well.

It is an issue of being able to hang fire. Obama and the Democrats, for reasons best known to themselves, set up a false "deadline" of the middle of February for the legislation to be passed. The idea that the desire to satisfy that deadline might trump the need to get a good package comes from some bizarre system of twisted priorities, favoring short term political aesthetics over long term political and governance consequences, that I find hard to understand. (I should note though, that that approach seems to underlie much of what Obama has done to date, including his initial lowball bid on the size of the stimulus).

[ Parent ]
There Was ONE Supremely Good Reason For That Deadline: State Budgets (4.00 / 4)
I was told back in December by a staffer at the National Conference of State Legislatures that Presidents' Day was the deadline.  Any later than that, and state legislatures were going to have to budget for the next fiscal year without expecting any Federal assistance.

Of course, that doesn't explain why they didn't just pass a separate state assistance plan right away.  Probably because they figured that urgency would work in their favor.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
All I can say is that (4.00 / 3)
this point was certainly not made very visible publicly -- witness my own ignorance of it.

Which brings me back to the point that the Democrats have done a very poor job of applying pressure to the Republicans on their obstructionism. We should all have been aware from very early on that if the states didn't get this commitment by February, then all kinds of state services would turn to garbage, and that the Republicans were to blame.

[ Parent ]
Exactly So (4.00 / 3)
You think the parents of schoolkids in Maine would be overjoyed if they understood what Snowe and Collins had done?

But there was no political strategizing to bring real pressure to bear.  One is left to conclude that Obama didn't really want to bring such pressure.  It wouldn't have been sportsmanlike/bipartisan of him.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yes in general the (4.00 / 1)
idea that Collins and Snowe and Specter were in the driver's seat in this legislation is as wrong as could be.

In fact, their entire electoral future depends on their being perceived as moderates.

If the Democrats hanged tough on this issue, and insisted that they, as the majority party with the mandate, would not budge on certain basic numbers and items in the stimulus, how could the likes of Collins and Snowe and Specter have resisted, and steadfastly refused to support any such bill?

Does anybody really imagine that these Senators would really allow themselves to be cast as the key votes that brought down the American economy?

[ Parent ]
How? (0.00 / 0)
By getting their friends at NBC, ABC, and FOX to sprew the lies that the "Democrat partisans are holding up recovery for pork" They wouldn't be the key votes that brought down the American economy...the Democrat partisans would be.

Remember no matter whose fault it is, a collapsing economy is OUR fault. Republicans have nothing to lose by allowing us to get nothing passed. The public is going to wonder why we Democrats can't get a stimulus out of Congress, what's our problem? Aren't we the majority?

[ Parent ]
We tried to bring (0.00 / 0)
pressure on Collins in 2008.  A well spoken, well known Congressman ran against her.

And she absolutely creamed him.  She won independents 2 to 1, and carried every age group.

After that experience, about how threatened do you think she would feel by a partisan attack?

[ Parent ]
Paul I've been to Maine (0.00 / 0)
I actually have family there, our family summer home is on Mount Desert Island and because of my familiarity with the state, I was sent there in August by ABC to help produce a story about the Senate race there...whatever Collins and Snowe say is true, simply put, they had a stranglehold on that state that I can't understand.

I remember staying walking with Allen volunteers, gathering b-roll, and every door they knocked on shook their head and slammed the door. One woman, who had an Obama bumper sticker on her car, snapped at these poor kids and demanded Allen stop "lying about a good woman"

One Allen field director told me it was like Collins had some hypnotic hold on the state. I remember him saying Collins could sell dog sh*t and the people of Maine would believe it's Godiva"

Based on my experience with that state, if Collins stood there and said what she did created jobs and if Obama stood there and said "Senator Collins is hurting your children" I would be willing to be my entire checking account that the people of Maine would be outraged at Obama.  

[ Parent ]
That's EXACTLY Why You Need To Do Stuff NOW (4.00 / 1)
You have to chip away at that every time they do something stupid, evil or both.

You don't use Obama vs. Collins.  And you don't even talk about jobs, because that can be debated.  You do like I said.  You get the folks who would directly lose money--the school principals and teachers--those who would be hurt as a result--the schoolchildren--and those who would be powerless to help--the legislators.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
state assistance (0.00 / 0)
as i read it, has been cut out of the compromise plan.
[ Parent ]
I think you misread the (4.00 / 1)
GOP base.  It has moved sharply right.  The truth is that of the 41 GOP Senators, you start out with 35 solid votes opposing anything you do.  

The remaining 6 or so votes are extremely insulated - and that is going to be a significant problem.  I do not see how courage under fire would have gotten Collins or Snowe to move an inch.  In fact, the moderate dem senators may need their cover to vote for progressive legislation.

I have read on numberous occasions that it didn't really matter that we didn't get to 60.

Hopefully everyone know realise that is compete bullsit.  

[ Parent ]
While I completely agree with the analysis... (0.00 / 0)
...I'm still wondering if we may have missed the big picture and long term plan...

After all, Truman barely got re-elected and he left office with one of the lowest approval ratings in history.  He had important legislation passed over his vetos, and had few of his important accomplishments passed...

Not necessarily the guy I'd model a political campaign after...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Turman also got rolled (0.00 / 0)
on the Taft-Hartly bill (which he vetoed)- though that story is complex.  I am not aware of any real major domestic accomplishments, though to be fair his unpopularity was largely a result of the Korean War.  
[ Parent ]
and he tolerated McCarthyism (0.00 / 0)
Everyone has a mixed record.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Good article by Chuck Todd that reflects your sentiments... (0.00 / 0)
http://click.pulse360.com/cgi-...

Maybe the village is starting to get it, too....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

What is it going to take (4.00 / 5)
for the Obama team and some supporters on the blog to face reality.   This team of so called republicans are hardcore neocons who do not give a sh*t about the economy, who view this as a game, and who believe they have to kick Obama's ass, and make him lose this first battle.

While Obama and some of the dems naively believe that the wingnuts actually give a damn about the masses, many of us who have been fighting these battles since the sixties, know better.  Obama angered me a bit in the primaries when he and his team implied that battles in the 1960s were over (they are not) and that both sides were both right and wrong.  I was angry because that is not true.  

We, those dirty old hippies, were against segregation; the W crowd, the Cheneys, the Limbaughs, the Rumsfields were not/
We were against the war in Vietnam; they were not (albeit Cheney, W, Limbaugh and their ilk did not want to fight in it....but still managed to be draft dodgers who called draft card burners,  anti war folks, "traitors."

THESE are the same people........they are the country club eltites, the war mongers, the jerks who are anti anyone not in their little club......and they do not care any more now about the people than they did then.  But they are even worse now.  They saw the end of Vietnam, integration, affirmative action...all these things as signs they lost back then.
NOW they want to win, just like they did with Reagan.  They want their plutocracy back.......and screw the people.

Obama and team need to WIN this first, most important battle big time; set the agenda and get in the faces of these pathetic losers and remind them over and over and over, they are WRONG.

Truman (4.00 / 1)
Truman was a poor president, he has been reinvented just like Reagan for political purposes.

He was led around by the military in the conduct of WWII and especially over dropping the bomb. He was reversed on his takeover of the steel mills. Furthermore he was a political lightweight put into power by the political bosses.

That he ended up as president is just one of those flukes which shows that who the VP is can be important.

As for what sort of tactics Obama should use against the inflexible Republicans that is another issue. I think he is still feeling out the opposition and we can see him getting less accommodating by the day. First he tried a bit of mocking at the Dem retreat, now he is using his weekly speech and soon he'll be on the stump.

In spite of all the hoopla, nothing really will change if it takes a week or two extra to pass legislation, there is nothing that is going to happen on day one in any case.

It also has to be remembered that there is nothing stopping Obama from coming back in a few months and asking for another set of spending proposals. People are getting too excited about a single skirmish, there's a long battle ahead.  

Policies not Politics

We don't have time (4.00 / 2)

there is nothing stopping Obama from coming back in a few months and asking for another set of spending proposals.

The worse the economic crisis becomes, the harder it will be to climb out of the hole we are spiraling into.

I understand that every president has a learning curve.  Unfortunately Obama does not have the luxury.  Every mistake he makes increases the odds that his will be a failed presidency.

And a failed presidency under these circumstances is not something a sane person would wish on their worst enemy.

[ Parent ]
Yes And No (4.00 / 3)
You make good points, as usual, Robert.  But there are a couple of points you're overlooking, I would argue.

First, that Truman was not resurrected by an ideologically committed cottage industry.  He was resurrected by history itself.  He was well and truly vindicated on a number of counts.

Second, that while his hardball attitude did not produce a lot of important legislation that we can bemoan, it was far from being a total failure, and did a great deal to prevent much worse legislation from being passed.

With a weaker, more accommodating figure than him in the White House, the GOP takeover in the early 50s could actually have been substantially bigger and more long-lasting.  As it was, the Democrats quickly retook the House and the Senate, and won back the presidency in 1960.  None of that might have happened if Truman had been a push-over.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
And then, of course... (4.00 / 2)
...there was MacArthur. Can you imagine either Clinton or Obama taking the kind of risk Truman took by sacking a right-wing demigod in the middle of a war which appeared to have been headed for unthinkable disaster but for him?

Never mind that the country was better for it, and could have used a lot more of the same during the Eisenhower years, it was the sheer audacity of it -- the audacity of fearlessness, if you will -- which still resonates today.

[ Parent ]
Check your assumptions (4.00 / 6)
This assumes that Obama actually wanted a stimulus as large as most economists have called for.  Where is the evidence for that?  Is Summers out there, calling for a huge fiscal stimulus?  Geithner?  I haven't seen either of them aggressively promoting a stimulus of the size that most economists seem to think is necessary.  You'd think that if the administration were in agreement with what "credible economists" were saying, that its own economists would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Is it not safer to assume that Obama and Summers do in fact understand how negotiation works?  That they knew very well that the so-called moderates would knock a few hundred billion off whatever they proposed?  And that ultimately, that was a "compromise" they were willing to live with, simply because they did not think the stimulus needed to be as large as "credible economists" have proposed?

Will Summers finally be right about something?  We're about to find out.

Obama knows what the economists think (4.00 / 4)
He's fully aware that the stimulus he proposed wasn't up to the job: Christina Romer's analysis told him so. He proposed the $825 billion with the specific knowledge that it would not bring unemployment below 7%: his Council on Economic Advisors told him so.

I only see a few ways to interpret Obama's actions. 1) He subscribes to the faith-based economic theory that the market will take care of everything and we'll have a recovery in two years no matter what. 2) He doesn't actually believe the economic numbers - the only way I can see this is if he truly believes that the truth always falls in the middle and is splitting the difference between progressive and conservative economists accordingly. 3) He thinks that politically it's easier to ask for a third of the needed stimulus at a time rather that asking for the whole thing at once. 4) He doesn't think his ability to shape the country as President is dependent on fixing the economy.

There is no economic theory that justifies the size of the stimulus that Obama and Summers requested. Economic theory either says that government needs to spend well in excess of $1 trillion to avoid indefinite recession, or that nothing government does can have any effect because this is all just part of the business cycle. As far as I can tell, the theory put forward to justify the latter belief also implies that it is impossible for the economy to ever actually grow: that you can never leverage $1 to get more than $1 worth of benefit.

Basically, Obama's actions are heading us down the same path that Japan headed down throughout the 90s, and it is absolutely certain that he has advisors who have told him that. He has to either not believe is the expertise of his advisors, or genuinely believe in his ability to change the way Congress works. Those are the only possible explanations I see.

If Obama has been acting on the belief that he can change the way Congress works, then the situation is salvageable. If he genuinely believes that the stimulus he's going to get is all that is necessary, he really is a Republican and we're screwed.

[ Parent ]
& he got what he wanted -- he handed it off to them specifically, (4.00 / 1)
after the House did what he inentionally wasn't willing to do from the start -- make it bigger, and make it more about projects/programs/state spending.

after the House vote, he handed it over not to liberals or even to Dem leaders of the Senate -- he wooed and personally handed it to Collins and Snowe and Nelson -- not Reid or even Kerry or Dodd or Rockefeller or all the other longtime bigshots.

now it's back to what he wanted from the start -- 800 billion and not the trillion or 2 it should be, 40% taxcuts, and whatever it takes for GOP buy-in.  

[ Parent ]
Actually, he didn't get what he wanted (4.00 / 1)
My memory is that Obama put forward his initial stimulus plan in hopes that it would be bipartisan - that it might even get 80 Senate votes.

My memory is that Obama thought he could strike a preemptive compromise that would get significant Republican support.

My memory is that the 800 billion was presented not as what Obama wanted, but as a preemptive compromise with what he assumed Republicans wanted.

If my memory is right, Obama's not getting anything he wanted. He's not getting more than a handful of Republican votes, and he's not getting stimulus at the level he presumably wanted before he preemptively compromised.

Unless he feels like this whole charade has been a failure on his part, we're screwed. If he thinks this is even remotely a success, we're screwed. If he thinks he only needs to slightly change strategy to do better in the future, we're screwed.

A good sign is if he decided to take over the banks. That would finally tell the country that he's willing to take charge. As it is, we're screwed.

[ Parent ]
According to Jane Hamsher... (4.00 / 1)
...$800B is what Obama wanted, pushed through by the House without earmarks, until Republicans started winning the rhetorical war.  Then press reports (leaked by Rahm, obviously) that Obama was unhappy with the "pork" in the House bill, aligning Obama with the Senate "centrists."

It is not an encouraging picture.

[ Parent ]
that depends -- now it's what he wanted content-mix-wise -- the House version wasn't -- (4.00 / 1)
if you're looking at the content mix it was when he gave it to the House -- and he purposely crafted it to get GOP votes (whether it would have or not).

the total amount, the percentage of taxcuts vs. pure spending, etc -- all are now far far closer to what they were before the House made it better.

Jan 5 -- Obama Plan Includes $300 Billion in Tax Cuts -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01...
--

... The legislation Mr. Obama's team is developing with Congressional Democrats will devote about 40 percent of the cost to tax cuts,  ...
--

Jan 5 -- Big tax cuts in the works --

... Aiming to foster bipartisan support for his record-setting economic stimulus, President-elect Barack Obama plans to propose huge tax cuts for businesses and middle-class workers that will total about 40 percent of the package, or up to $310 billion, congressional officials said. ...
--  http://www.politico.com/news/s...

Jan 28 --

... Obama and House Democrats etched out plans for a stimulus package in the weeks leading up to the president's inauguration. Two House committees amended and added some provisions, resulting in $607 billion in direct spending and appropriations and $212 billion in tax cuts. ...
-- http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/2...

(which is less taxcuts and more spending -- not 40%)

Now -- Stimulus deal 42 percent tax cut and the rest spending -- http://uk.reuters.com/article/...

plus -- he told them he had "no pride in ownership" -- which is either just bs, or means he really didn't care about specific programs/spending/issues -- as long as the total price and percentages of spending and tax cuts were brought back to his original amounts, no?

specific spending he always touted in speeches and while campaigning is gone, but he hasn't been talking about those things at all anymore -- especially in these "urgent! catastrophe! now! speeches.

[ Parent ]
I interpret that as meaning (4.00 / 1)
he still hopes he can get the bipartisan stamp that he initially wanted. I think in his value system, listening to and accommodated all sides trumps everything else. I think Obama truly believes that a stimulus bill that followed exactly what the economists say is needed but failed to get a single Republican vote would, by some magical process, ultimately be worse for the country than a stimulus of whatever form that passes with both Republican and Democratic votes.

I think Obama understands the economic reasoning, but he sees that as secondary to "why can't we all just get along?"

I also think that one of Obama's basic, fundamental values is that compromise is always possible. That value is so fundamental that he is unable to even contemplate that two sides might be mutually exclusive.

[ Parent ]
well (0.00 / 0)
It is impossible to have 60 votes in the Senate without getting a single Republican vote so I don't think your point makes any sense.  

As comments here have shown, 60 votes is needed due to deficit rules even without a filibuster.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
and specifically including only targeted things needed to get 4 GOP votes would (4.00 / 1)
have made for a much better bill too -- it's Politics 101 -- especially if you really care about GOP votes.

If you know who's moderate or amenable, you put only those things in that get their votes from the beginning -- not hundreds of billions of taxcuts overall.

You include just things that help Maine, and/or PA specifically, etc -- and you make sure those specific things become giant news in-state, and that those Senators have no choice but to support the bill -- because of them and because they can't be seen to be hurting their states.

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
you wouldn't put any of those things in the bill to begin with. But when you propose the bill, you would immediately send negotiators to the potential 4 Republicans to find out what they want, then you let them make a big show of getting their amendments passed so they can take credit for making the bill "better".
[ Parent ]
but bec you can't trust Republicans to actually follow thru, you'd have to (0.00 / 0)
ensure their votes in multiple and multiply binding and coercing ways -- using the media, and their states/districts especially. You can't simply rely on their word for anything.

It's what LBJ (and other good politicians) did to get pols onboard for Civil Rights and other things --

... In 1957, Johnson steered the first ever civil rights legislation through Congress. It is a typical example of the way he liked to work - ruthlessly brokering compromise with supporters and opponents until he had something both sides would support. Once again, contemporaries were sceptical about Johnson's motivation in driving this milestone legislation through against bitter opposition by representatives of the southern states: "One doesn't know whether he was a liberal or a reactionary. Probably he was neither. He probably was just an extraordinarily skilful parliamentarian who was an opportunist and who sensed the wind and then went in that direction."

Announcing the successful passing of the legislation, Johnson emphasised the careful political balancing act it represented: "A compromise has been negotiated. I am pleased that the Bill was passed. It is a great step forward and a very important and delicate feat." But even if the 1957 law was more symbol than substance, it ensured that effective civil rights legislation was no longer out of reach, and paved the way for Kennedy's reforms in the early Sixties.  ...

In spring 1964, however, taking advantage of the fact that the new Civil Rights Act was specifically seen as a key plank in Kennedy's legislative legacy, Johnson made it his mission to force it through, putting Hubert Humphrey, the man who was to be his running-mate for the 1964 presidential election, in charge of doing so without significant compromise. Success was achieved by a combination of aggressive lobbying, ruthless out-manoeuvring of the considerable remaining opposition, and astute political manipulation of Congressional rules. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Johnson on 2 July 1964. In 1965, he passed a second civil rights bill - the Voting Rights Act - which allowed millions of black citizens to vote for the first time. ...

-- http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
[ Parent ]
it's not compromise if it's only Dems that always have to cave -- (4.00 / 2)
... " the group backed away from a confrontation that threatened to kill the legislation altogether after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel weighed in to urge Democrats make a final round of concessions."  In other words, his idea of "bipartisanship" has always been to beat up Democrats and make them give in to conservative policy objectives that already have strong Republican support.  It's how he operated in the House, how he "gets stuff done."  He doesn't know how to craft policy and win consensus. ...

-- http://firedoglake.com/2009/02...

I agree with you about him valuing bipartisanship and "compromise" over issues -- but it renders all Democratic (and democratic) values and goals moot -- which is exactly the whole problem.

[ Parent ]
I'm trying to give a reason for that (4.00 / 2)
If the philosophies of the two parties weren't mutually exclusive, and if the Republican philosophy included valuing others' perspectives, then compromise wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

The reason Democrats always get the short end of the stick is not that negotiation and compromise are bad things, it is instead that there is no middle ground between progressives and the right wing.

I think Obama views it as anathema to admit that fact.

[ Parent ]
except there is middle ground -- and also ways to negotiate (4.00 / 1)
and compromise -- even with the insane.

that's what politics is. that's what our system is set up to intentionally force.

treating the insane as rational, and worthy of equal -- or even more -- consideration and respect than your own party (as Obama did) is not negotiation or compromise -- or good politics -- or good governance. it's killing us.  

[ Parent ]
he's not taking over any banks, or even requiring them to lend -- (0.00 / 0)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02... -- New Plan to Help Banks Sell Bad Assets

...The new financial industry rescue plan, to be outlined in broad terms on Monday in a speech by the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, will not require banks to increase their lending. That is despite criticism that institutions that already received money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, either hoarded it or used the funds to acquire other banks. ...

Obama administration officials say they have rejected nationalizing institutions by taking large ownership stakes. They also will not immediately seek additional money from Congress beyond the $350 billion left in the TARP fund. ...


[ Parent ]
Another possibility (0.00 / 0)
He wanted to low ball the stimulus package because Geithner is about to introduce another bank bailout plan.  If more money were spent on stimulus, the public response to even more freebies for teh banks would be even harder to sell than it will already be.
[ Parent ]
Andrew Sullivan (gasp): "...Age of Nelson, Collins and Obama" (4.00 / 1)
We need to be careful when writing the history.  

Simply, Obama himself opened with his own version of a wholly inadequate stimulus.  His plan never matched the urgency of his rhetoric nor did it reflect the dire circumstances before the nation he now governs.  

Today, Obama is heralded in the WaPo for his responsible bipartisan pragmatism in allowing the likes of Collins, Nelson and Spector to write the final Senate version of this thing--with Fishhead Emanuel inviting them to White House to encourage them along.  

Seems to me cstark's questions are the right ones.  

By the way, Senator Reid was quoted in my morning Sacramento Bee as very clear in calling this "the Obama Plan."

[ Parent ]
Presidents Nelson, Collins, Snowe and Obama -- (0.00 / 0)
with Wall St/Corporations as the Cabinet.
[ Parent ]
The Dem Professional / Managerial Party VS. Working (4.00 / 3)
stiffs

and the working stiffs ain't really been part of the party CUZ they're busy working ... guess how much money you can save from your housing and transportation and family

to then go into politics when you're a workign stiff?

NOT MUCH.

What is worse, is that the professional / managerial crowd of the Dem party owe their success to bubble sheet tests, coached essays, and tomes at high school college and grad school.  They did NOT fight for their status in a bare knuckle sense, and they got no fucking sense about the bare knuckles needed for politics.

Finally - birds of feather flock together. The professional/ managerial crowd lives in their upper middle class ghettos surrounded by similar people who solve the problems of disruptive assholes by having the community of teletubby believers surround the asshole in a seasame street love fest - the rest of us ain't so lucky when it comes to dealing with assholes.

hey, it is great that these relatively affluent people support the goals of the Dem party, HOWEVER, due to their relative affluence, they've been able to put up with the excuses of these fucking sell outs and fucking political incompetents for the last 40 years of losing.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

they share many of the same beliefs -- (4.00 / 1)
and both parties are totally beholden to corp $$ and to maintaining their status/power in the DC Village (which means that the only Dems allowed and the only ones considered "serious" have to be "centrist", "bipartisan", and not populist or liberal at all in any real way).  
[ Parent ]
today -- "aides said they hoped to attract more to create the image of a stronger bipartisan bill." (4.00 / 3)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

... As Mr. Obama and his family were preparing to make their first weekend trip to the presidential retreat at Camp David on Saturday afternoon, his advisers were working to build more support for the economic recovery plan. A handful of Republicans have already signed on, but aides said they hoped to attract more to create the image of a stronger bipartisan bill. ...

does this mean they're gonna push for even more GOP things (like more tax cuts and less programs) in the reconciliation process? even now?

why would you think that? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
it can't be a "stronger bipartisan bill" -- or appear as one (4.00 / 1)
w/o more GOP votes, can it?
[ Parent ]
no, but it can get more GOP votes w/o being changed. nt. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
but it's been changed for them tons already -- (4.00 / 1)
why would they not demand more? It's in their interests to weaken it more, and to make it more taxcut-heavy and GOP-ish, and it's also not in their interests to vote for it anyway.
[ Parent ]
because the bill is going to pass whether they get on board or not. (0.00 / 0)
they can "demand" what they want, but they are no longer in a position of power.  here is what, in essence, i imagine obama's staffers are saying now to the "moderate" GOP senators who haven't yet come along: "Do you want us to brand you as obstructionists or call you patriots for the next month?  The bill is already going to pass, so there is no potential upside for you in voting 'no' at this point.  The choice is yours..."  
[ Parent ]
he gave them all the power -- (0.00 / 0)
he's the one who wants them voting for it -- they don't care what he says about them -- at all.

they. don't. care.

[ Parent ]
Obama's values (4.00 / 4)
I think Obama is truly a conservative. Not conservative in the pejorative, Republican, class-warfare sense. Conservative in the sense of thinking that making changes slowly and methodically is a virtue. Conservative in the sense of thinking that respectfully acknowledging and listening to all sides in a debate, and trying to strike a balance, is a good thing. Conservative in the sense of avoiding rancor and heated argument.

Those are all important values, and in many scenarios I tend to agree that following those values is the right thing to do.

But in the present case, that style of conservatism doesn't apply.

On one side, the economic crisis we face is so frightening that, as Krugman has argued,

Quite literally, the usual rules no longer apply.
We don't need to be wasting time right now getting everybody on board. Instead, we need government to be spending as fast as it possibly can. We don't need to be wasting time coming up with intricate charades designed to preserve the current structure of the financial industry. Instead, we need government to take over the banks first and figure out how to re-privatize them later.

On the other side, the philosophical divide between right and left allows no middle ground. If somebody insists that the reason for increased leukemia rates is the schools rather than the persistent leaks from the nearby chemical plant, compromising by reducing the output from the chemical plant and closing half the schools will only add extra problems. When the fundamental world-views of two parties to a negotiation are mutually exclusive, the urge to negotiate and reach some sort of consensus is counter-productive. If the problem isn't so urgent, the unbridgeable divide may be reason to delay action and do nothing. If the problem is urgent, then you simply have to do everything in your power to get your way and sideline the opposition.

Republicans don't actually believe that there is value to listening to other viewpoints in the first place, so steamrolling the opposition comes naturally. Obama needs to realize, even though normally it is a virtue to listen to and accommodate other viewpoints, that rule isn't universal. Under current circumstances, accommodating the Republican viewpoint is a path to failure.

The upshot of this (4.00 / 2)
is that the only strategy we can pursue is to encourage progressive congress-critters to take a hard line against the administration. Without the immediate funding for schools, I think the political ill from the stimulus bill outweighs the economic good. Acquiescing in the idea that the argument between hard right economists and all other economists is subject to negotiation violates what I consider to be fundamental progressive principles.

Progressives must be willing to try to see things from all perspectives, but they also must be willing to forthrightly acknowledge when two of those perspectives are mutually exclusive, and fight like hell for the perspective they believe in.

[ Parent ]
I Mostly Agree, But... (4.00 / 4)
I've made similar arguments in the past about conservatism as gradual change.

Movement conservatives will have none of this, as they're reactionaries in the style of de Maistre, rather than conservatives in the style of Burke. But it is much more in line with traditional Anglo-American conservatism than what flies under the "conservative" banner today.

However, this:

Conservative in the sense of thinking that respectfully acknowledging and listening to all sides in a debate, and trying to strike a balance, is a good thing.

Was never really part of the Burkean conservative package.  All sides do not get a hearing.  Only the respectable sides (i.e. those with real institutional muscle) do.  And this reflects Obama's modus operandi rather well, I think.

Conservative in the sense of avoiding rancor and heated argument.

Precisely.  As I argued back in 2006, less Martin Luther King, more Rodney King.

If somebody insists that the reason for increased leukemia rates is the schools rather than the persistent leaks from the nearby chemical plant, compromising by reducing the output from the chemical plant and closing half the schools will only add extra problems.

Except that the "bipartisan" approach is more aptly described as closing half the schools and relocating them inside the chemical plant.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 1)
I didn't intend to compare Obama to Burke - as far as I can tell, Obama has a pretty shallow philosophical grounding. Burke, in contrast, had a highly developed philosophical grounding: argue with the values if you want, but you couldn't argue that it wasn't well thought out.

Unfortunately, Obama's philosophical grounding may be nearly as shallow as Bush's born-again-ism. Who needs a deep philosophical understanding when you've got the "audacity of hope"?

[ Parent ]
I seriously doubt that anyone with a well thought out and (0.00 / 0)
coherent political philosophy would get to be president.  As a constitutional law professsor, though, I find it hard to believe he hasn't thought at least somewhat into these matters.  But he appearently isn't afraid conpromise whatever principles those may be, however.  Either way, I he seems to be a fairly standard utilitarian liberal, which is indeed fairly shallow, but probably for the best.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Well thought out philosophy (4.00 / 1)
Obama clearly has a well thought out philosophy of governing.  The problem is he expects others to operate in good faith.
[ Parent ]
True (4.00 / 3)
It's just a well-thought-out philosophy that's entirely unsuited to the actually existing United States of America.

It could work beautifully for a bridge tournament, however.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
A philosophy that doesn't incorporate bad faith? (4.00 / 4)
That may be exactly what I mean by "shallow".
[ Parent ]
He's Too "Pragmatic" For That, I'm Afraid! (4.00 / 1)
"Bad faith" is such an ideological concept, don'tcha know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I may even be too hard on Obama (4.00 / 1)
During the elections he always followed the same pattern.  He would start out with good faith assumptions, let it get thrown back into his face, and then get tough about it.  This allowed him to go negative without paying the penalty for it, as he already owned the high road.

I've never been sure if this was a well thought out philosophy or just a result of two parts of his personality.  He wants to work with people in good faith but he is also extremely competitive.  Like most things, it is probably a feedback loop where his natural tendencies have been successful and eventually solidify into an conscious operating strategy.

If Obama, the Democrats and the few Republicans who voted for the bill look like the heroes at the end of all this, while the Limbaugh-Republican obstructionists look like the villains, Obama will see this as conformation of his strategy.

We'll see, I guess.

[ Parent ]
Short-sighted (4.00 / 2)
This shouldn't be about competitiveness. Who cares if the media portray Obama as a hero? If the stimulus isn't actually up to the job, history will judge him as a dud.

This isn't a policy argument about which direction to nudge the country in over the next couple years. This is an argument about whether the country will have any functional parts left in a couple years.

[ Parent ]
Precisely The Problem: Failure Is Misread As Success (4.00 / 2)
I'm virtually positive you've got this 100% right, Mark.  The only problem is, what he counts as a success is so obviously not a success.  The simplest way to see this is that it's only a success in terms that others have defined.

But, as MadScientist pointed out in the comment that began this thread, Obama can reasonably be understood as a certain kind of conservative, and letting the concert of existing powers determine the terms of judgment is perfectly consistent with that sort of conservatism.

Unfortunately, as MadScientist also pointed out, that approach just doesn't cut it given the crisis we're in.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Our Nixon (0.00 / 0)
As I've pointed out before, going with your realignment theories, Obama isn't our Reagan, he is our Nixon.  And just as Nixon still operated under New Deal assumptions, Obama operates under the assumptions of his generation.

But I still have hope Obama will eventually become both our Nixon and our Reagan.  The most likely scenario to make that happen is a combination of Obama getting frustrated with Limbaugh Republicans trying to obstruct everything he does and Democrats gaining over 60 members in the Senate.  This episode seems to fall into that predictive/hopeful pattern.

If Obama changes over time it seems very likely he will take the American people down the same path.  (Partially, it will be the other way around, of course, in a typical feedback loop.)

[ Parent ]
The Joker In This Deck (0.00 / 0)
is that we're not on the Good Ship Lollipop, we're on the Titanic.  Just hanging on and waiting for the 2010 midterms is not really a plan.

But I agree with everything else you say 100%.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
ANd if the ship (0.00 / 0)
keeps taking on water, there will be fewer Dem senators in 2011 rather than more.
[ Parent ]
it's not what he expects of them -- it's that he acts in their favor whether (0.00 / 0)
they operate in good faith or not (which empowers them to act whoever they wish w/out consequence or punishment) -- and that he automatically and pre-emptively allows their beliefs to take precedence over the people's needs and beliefs, and over the majority party in Congress's role and voice in the process.
[ Parent ]
Another thought (4.00 / 2)
Maybe the other reason to think his philosophy is shallow is that he doesn't seem to negotiate in good faith.

Negotiating in good faith requires clearly stating your position from the outset, waiting for the other parties to state their positions and criticize yours before suggesting points of compromise.

Obama has yet to articulate anything regarding the stimulus bill that could convincingly be interpreted as reflecting his actual beliefs. Instead, he proposed something expressly designed to gain approval from others, and made it known that he had "no pride of authorship".

Either he genuinely doesn't care about what the stimulus looks like and he's just doing it because he's expected to. Or he's negotiating in bad faith.

Either way, the only constructive response is to ignore him.

[ Parent ]
not bad faith, i don't think -- it's specifically in service to (0.00 / 0)
the goals he values most (which have never been issues) -- & specifically and openly intended to empower and validate most only those needed to achieve his goals.

It automatically denigrates both the people's views and the majority party's too. None of them are necessary to achieve his goals.

[ Parent ]
isn't the problem that only one party is treated as if they do? (0.00 / 0)
Republicans have a coherent and well-thought out philosophy -- weaken and kill social programs and things that help the poor and workers, privatize all public assets and services, enrich the rich, cut taxes for the rich, and boost govt spending on things that benefit favored industries alone while eliminating regulations that harm profits for them.

Democrats have/had one too, but it's never given credence or value by DC -- or even by Democratic politicians.

Maintaining the current status quo, which Obama is all for (which is GOP and wholly corporate/military-industrial and anti-worker) is also following a coherent philosophy -- it's just absolutely terrible for the vast majority of Americans.

[ Parent ]
No, I think they just have a more simplistic one (4.00 / 2)
I consider American liberalism to have a fair amount of coherence to their political philosophy, but it is difficult for a lot of people to quickly boil it down because--unlike the new right which simply position itself in opposition to it--american liberalism derives from the modern liberal democratic tradition which itself has its roots in the enlightenment.  Thus, it is an intellectual tradition with a vast diverisity of inputs and positions.  

I'm personally a communist and environmentalist, but I still greatly respect the liberal tradition as the great jump off point.  

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 2)
Conservatism is inherently much simpler than liberalism wherever you look in the world, in whatever time-frame.

I'm personally a communist and environmentalist, but I still greatly respect the liberal tradition as the great jump off point.

One might even say that liberalism is the conservatism of radicalism--it codifies and makes traditional what radicalism struggles first to grasp, then to make known, and finally, to make real.  By which time, radicalism has already begun the cycle over again, perhaps even two or three times.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but the problem for liberalism is that conservatism (4.00 / 1)
eventually figured out that you could get greater traction by falsely labeling all liberals as radicals, a charge not too difficult to make stick because as you say, liberalism tends to eventually coopt radical ideas.  

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
how's this? (0.00 / 0)
have actions/accomplishments explain it --

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/mo...

(fab Brand Democrat shirts)

[ Parent ]
Yes, It's Precisely That Con Law Prof Thingie (4.00 / 1)
That makes this all so appalling. When I think of all the times that pompous asses like Bork bloviated full steam ahead, and I rolled my atheist's eyes up to heaven and prayed for the day we'd have a progressive con law expert given such prominence, and this cold porridge is what I get?

Obviously, God answers the prayers of atheists...with the cruelest of jokes.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
a "progressive con law expert" ? (0.00 / 0)
wouldn't he have to have practiced, and written on it, and served as influential on those things? as someone others went to for advice on it? and as someone whose advice was taken and implemented and propagated?

like Tribe, for instance?

[ Parent ]
Yes, Exactly (4.00 / 3)
If one looks closely at Obama, one finds very little that he's truly expert at, except for being a politician.  He is very quick, and very smart, so he can easily outclass the vast majority of folks, but that's no real substitute for deep knowledge.  And this applies as much to his grasp of Con Law as it does to his simplistic historical sense of recent American political history.

This is not an unfixable problem, by any means.  And it still leaves him much better qualified than the vast majority of presidents we've had.  But it is unfixable if it's not recognized as a problem.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
i see "better qualified" differently -- (4.00 / 1)
esp for the massive and uber-powerful job of president.

people who have managerial experience, and actual accomplishments, as well as relevant issues-based "drives"/motivations that led them to politics  -- what they want to do, whether they can prove they've done it or similar vast enterprises/orgs/etc, what the tangible results of their work in the past has been, and -- why they want to have the power and vast resources we give them -- what they swear to do with it all and exactly how we will benefit by it -- and why we should trust them with our lives and futures and rights, etc.

[ Parent ]
I Don't Disgree With You (4.00 / 1)
I just don't think that describes more than a handful of presidents, at best.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
I also think progressive constitutional law is a much more (0.00 / 0)
difficult position to defend to the public at large.  Strict constructionists, for instance, have an easy time because their understanding of interpretation and textuality jives easily with modern american notions of common sense.  Of course, once you look a bit closer at these issues, that common sense fades pretty quickly, but its hard to sell the public at large on that.  So progressive end up often without the option of an appeal to constitutional principles.  Maybe that's Obama seems so shallow that way.  I don't know.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Erwin Chemerinsky Is The Counter-Example (0.00 / 0)
Good theory, though, even if he does disprove it in spades.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Judging only on his actions (4.00 / 2)
One can spin whatever sorts of theories one wants about Obama's grand strategy--and I've got a post in the works on that.

Paul,
I look forward to your post on this, as I do all of your writing.  But honestly I began to weary of the Obama end game theories quite some time ago.  

Time for all that is up.   There only are two things at this point that really matter: 1. Who he surrounds himself with; and 2. What he does.

1. Summers, Geithner, Gregg, Emanuel, Gates...

2. More TARPie-goodies for the big banks; Tax break-loaded, too-tepid stimulus proposed right out of the gate; and final Senate package (personally helped along by Emanuel) that only Beltway Villagers could love.  

Seems clear enough.

yup -- and true for all pols always (4.00 / 1)
always  
[ Parent ]
The Point Of Theorizing (4.00 / 1)
for me, anyway, is to get a better understanding so that your actions are more effective.

If we want to change what really matters--and I fully agree with you on that--then it helps to have a better theory to explain why he's doing what he's doing.  We can be smarter in getting him to change.

This isn't just limited to better immediate actions, though those are very important.  It also includes getting ideas into circulation that help to alter the payoffs for making different sorts of decisions.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Certainly... (0.00 / 0)
...But two or three more months of unemployment figures like we just saw, combined with shuttered schools, more foreclosures, city and county insolvency and little if any tangible relief as a result of dumping billions into the coffers of our biggest banks and nothing else will really matter.   Obama's presidency will be doomed, but more importantly so will the lives of a whole lot more Americans.  

Haven't read "Obama the Conservative" yet, but will.   Personally, I always thought the danger of the Obama candidacy was that when he talked policy, he never seemed to reflect an understanding of what was lining up as the new possible as a result of the complete repudiation of Republican rule.  Watching him operate since his victory in Nov., especially given who he has chosen to surround himself with, I've been more struck that he seems insecure, even a bit confused (this was how I took the mix of signals sent by his camp all week long).  Of course, he might also fundamentally believe that he indeed possesses the power and good will to bring folks together to gradually improve our lot through bipartisan unity, taking bipartisanism on faith rather than the Beltway/corporatist gimmick most of us see it as.  

As things daily spiral more and more out of control, Obama does not have the luxury of time in terms of learning and correcting from early mistakes, that is if he even sees them as mistakes -- a leap I'm not prepared to make.  And we don't have the luxury of time anymore in terms of trying to figure him out.  (My goodness wasn't that a game we played throughout the entire long election season? How does that help us now?)

So, what are we to do?  We can start by examining his people and his actions--the tangible stuff-and quite clearly say NO this is not right...even if that means his poll numbers might temporarily suffer as a result.  And we do the same for Congress.  Jam them.  Hard.  


[ Parent ]
Well, It's True (0.00 / 0)
That Obama still doesn't realize he won.

Clinton never got it, either.

Both men traumatized by losing a congressional race back in their past.  Never could win enough elections afterwards to make up for it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Or by missing fathers (0.00 / 0)
Whose absence they likely interpreted subconsiously as rejection and disapproval. Jed Bartlet syndrome.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Yeah, Well (0.00 / 0)
I'm reluctant to go there for a number of reasons:

(A) It's too obvious.  

(B) Some kids in that situation react entirely differently.

(C) Some fathers are quite absent while still being physically present, and that can be even more of a burden to bear.

(D) It seems much more illuminating to look toward adolescent or adult life experiences which tend to be built on what came before, but that are subject to the individual's own agency, and thus reflect a degree of insight into how they have chosen to interpret that earlier experience for themselves.  That's why I pointed to the electoral defeats, which I believe both men over-reacted to.  In Clinton's case we know that he never really recovered.  In Obama's case, it's not yet clear, but there are reasons to worry.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
All good points, but... (0.00 / 0)
Many things are obvious that are still valid, the fact that not all children react this way doesn't mean that some don't, by absent I meant both physically and emotionally (e.g. Reagan), and of course other factors surely played a role in determining what kinds of adults they turned into. But none of this makes the "missing father" theory any less valid, even if it isn't very useful beyond the casual armchair analysis level (which 90% of blogging is--not for you of course Paul--and I'm being generous for most people).

I'm semi-speaking from experience here, so it's not just idle speculation. Who does and doesn't play a role in your life when you're young, and in what ways, is critical to how you turn out--along with, of course, many other factors. But it is there, and I'm guessing that it had quite a bit to do with his tendency towards seeking out older male mentors and favoring conciliation over confrontation. On some level, I really do believe that he's seeking out a father figure and hoping to win his approval. Who wouldn't, to some extent?

You may also be right about his congressional loss. You also forgot to mention that Bush II also lost such a race early on. Perhaps early defeats spur overcompensation later. And such defeat is really not that dissimilar to paternal loss. They're both a sort of loss, really, that some people take harder, and are less able to deal with, than others. Reagan withdrew into a fantasy world and hurt the country. Clinton avoided confrontation and betrayed his potential. Bush caused huge damage to the country and world. We'll see what Obama does.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Stimulating Opposition | 146 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox