I like Kevin Drum, but this is ridiculous. Let me get one thing out of the way right at the outset. It may be difficult to precisely define ‘progressivism’, but it is not synonymous with the ‘purist left.’ The ‘purist left’ is important and it’s nice when they happen to be on your side, but they’re worse than worthless when you’re in a real fight. They can’t be bothered to get their hands dirty. So, please, let’s not equate progressivism with purity. They are only tangentially related.
So, did the president really go Medieval on the Left? You know, did he go medieval in the Pulp Fiction sense? No. No, he did not. He pointed out that he can’t snap his fingers and get progressive outcomes and that he is often faced with a choice between getting something done for the American people or failing to do anything worthwhile at all. He scolded sanctimonious people of the left who don’t understand his choices. It’s pretty much the same thing I have been saying for a year and a half, and it doesn’t make me a Blue Dog to say it.
Then there is this observation by Drum.
…even if Obama thinks his progressive critics are off base, he must know by now how they’re going to react to compromises like yesterday’s tax cut deal. So why was he apparently so unprepared for this? Why deliberately make things worse with his base during a press conference?
Drum’s answer is that most of it is calculated to appeal to independents (the punching hippies strategy) but with a hint of genuine loss of temper. But this is too complicated. How about a simple explanation? Obama is telling the left what they need to hear. What makes Drum think he was unprepared for criticism? It seems to me that he was well-prepared for criticism and took that criticism on with confidence and assertiveness. Whether or not the president is feeling exasperated with his critics on the left, he would make the same argument. Here it is:
We’re going to keep on having this battle. But in the meantime I’m not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy. My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation. My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own.
A long political fight that carried over into next year might have been good politics, but it would be a bad deal for the economy and it would be a bad deal for the American people. And my responsibility as President is to do what’s right for the American people. That’s a responsibility I intend to uphold as long as I am in this office.
I have some criticisms and concerns, but I take the president at his word here. He’s looking to lower unemployment as his number one concern, and ideology and politics take a backseat. That’s not all bad.
I have two critiques. A wounded president can’t let too many more opportunities for ‘good politics’ go by without imperiling his reelection. He needs some ‘good politics’ because he’s been much stronger at governance than at maintaining the support of the American people. My second concern is reflected in much of the criticism the president is getting from the left. While I agree that this deal is pretty good stimulus (it should lower the unemployment rate by up to a point over the next two years), it comes at a cost to our budget and to our political choices in the future. This deal creates risks that the president can’t just dismiss as sanctimonious. Drum says “[p]rogrammatic liberalism is essentially dead for a good long time, and small bore stuff is probably the best we can hope for over the next 10-20 years.” If Drum is right, the reason is the cost of extending these Bush tax cuts.
Personally, I think that concern is overblown. First of all, so long as we are working on perfecting our nation’s version of universal health care, I don’t think we need much in the way of ‘programmatic liberalism’ over the next decade or so. And, secondly, getting the economy going really is the most important thing, even for progressive policies, in the long run.
So, please, let’s not continue this sad spectacle of crying like schoolgirls every time the president has some pushback against the left’s criticism. He made a decision. He explained it. Deal with it without taking things personally.
Progressivism can be a conservative ideology, too, in my opinion. It’s why there’s a difference between a progressive and a liberal. A liberal is more narrowly defined.
Anyway, this is why I cannot take Obama at his word:
He has no vision for the economy.
You cannot propose deficit commissions, take some of their recommendations in cutting the budget next year, freeze federal workers’ pay, and simultaneously tell me that you’re doing all you can to stimulate the economy. This is going to cost more than the stimulus itself, BooMan. Albeit over a longer period of time, but it will end up costing 30% more when it’s all said and done. Moreover, it is stimulus in the framework of supplyside bullshit. It also has a chance of unraveling Social Security. As a matter of policy, I think the payroll tax holiday is a great idea as a form of stimulus. As a matter of politics is just about the worst thing you can do. Mark my word, when they try to “end” this holiday, Jon Boehner will yell about Obama “raising taxes on everyday working Americans’ hard earned wages.” If we cannot even raise taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy in a time where Obama is the strongest he’ll ever be in at least 6 years of his term in office, how the fuck does he expect to raise taxes back on the middle class and the poor to end this “holiday”? Going on that point of Obama being the strongest he’ll ever be, again…”We’ll have this fight again.” Ok, and what makes us believe you won’t cave and cower like a frightened child again?
Stop making excuses. This is getting ridiculous. His deal might not even pass, and if it doesn’t, what then? He just made himself look like even more of a chicken weakling.
It’ll pass because the Dems will not have the House in January and then the deal will be 100% on the Republicans’ terms. Maybe the Dems can tweak it a bit. Maybe play with the rates on the Estate Tax. But this is a deal, and it is not all that flexible.
Why are we so concerned about making a deal in the first place? Do you think they won’t cave on unemployment? I mean, now that Obama has once again given into them I don’t think they will in the future, so in one sense we have no choice now that Obama has once again given away the store. But what happens when we try to raise the debt limit? No one has answered that question, and Obama avoided it by scoffing at the idea of the Nihilist Party refusing to do so. They probably will, but not after they squeeze some goodies out of it first. Probably some Social Security deal, and then guess who will be blamed for taking away SS? The President. Although he’ll probably do it with glee at this point.
At least if he called their bluff they might take him more seriously. But he didn’t. He caved. Again.
To his credit, though, the reason we’re in this predicament in the first place is because of his cowardly party refusing to vote on the tax cuts back in September when Boehner showed weakness. It was Obama, after all, who came up with the “hostage” line.
This is not a question you would ask if your major concern was for people who have lost their jobs and fallen behind on the mortgage payments. It’s not a question you would ask if your major concern was figuring out how to create some jobs without the benefit of a Congress that is willing to help you in that regard.
You have to put it in context.
Why the hell would Republicans cave on unemployment benefits when the overwhelming majority of their constituency say do it?! What do they have to lose by allowing them to expire? Not one damn vote! The better question for you liberals who say you care about the weak and the poor is why is denying tax cuts for the rich more important than providing uemployment insurance for the poor and tax cuts for the middle class?! Are you fighting for principle or people?!
Do you read the Wall Street Journal? I suppose you don’t, seeing as you’re speaking for the Tea Partiers. If you read the Wall Street Journal the last time they held the unemployment benefits hostage, you’d know that their base does NOT side with Republicans on this issue. In fact, most of the comments were along the lines of not voting for a Republican if they continued their temper tantrums.
The fact is Obama didn’t fight here — although neither did some Democrats like Mary Landrieu — and it deserved a fight. I’m willing to be technocratic on some things, and fight for votes on others. This is a fight he could have won, but he didn’t even try.
Why would Republicans cave on unemployment benefits? Their constituents are more likely to be among the unemployed. And would likely remember. That’s why Republicans are trying to procedurally avoid an up-or-down rollcall vote on extending unemployment benefits.
If they ever have to vote on the merits of an issue, they lose. It’s all maneuvering to make Obama and the Democrats take the hit for denial of unemployment benefits or busting the budget with the extension of the Bush tax cuts. And the division in the progressive base, a minority of the Democratic base, shows that the strategy is working because their bluff is not being called.
The fighting for principle of people argument is a distraction. It’s a question of present and future. Does a present compromise save people from future additional pain. Those who paint themselves as pragmatists say yes. Those who paint themselves as progressives say no.
It is a complicated Gordian knot for Democrats. And as some have said, it has a degree of self-infliction. But that isn’t the total story.
What happens when the debt ceiling needs to be renewed in the new Congress? What do we compromise then? Does the payroll tax cut set up a compromise of Social Security that diminishes its benefits now or for future beneficiaries? What will have to be cut to offset the loss of revenue in the extension of the tax cuts? And what power will Democrats have to have those cuts have a Republican stamp on them? Where does the drift stop? Because at each stage more and more people will get hurt. And we don’t necessarily wind up with more public support at the end of it.
It is a highly plausible scenario for the Obama administration to end up like the Hoover administration with no possibility of a major change in direction. And another lost decade of continuing race into poverty. At this point as plausible as a half-dozen other scenarios.
It is a debate of the present over against the future, not over philosophical ideas and pragmatism.
Stop making excuses for congressional Democrats! They could have fought this fight before the mid terms, but they were too damned scared! And what the fuck happened on Saturday?! Why couldn’t they get the 60 votes needed to vote on the middle class tax cuts?! Why did your white progressive savior, Russ Feingold, side with Republicans?! But in your liberal rabid ass mind you think they’ll have more negotiating power in January when Republicans take control of the House or have all of you delusional liberals forgot about the ass whuppin’ Democrats took last month?! It’s easy to say let all the tax cuts and unemployment benefits expire when you have a damn allowance from mommy and daddy.
Feingold sided with Republicans because his position is my position: I want them all to expire.
This is the second time you’ve accused me of having an allowance, to which I say again: FUCK OFF!
I guess you didn’t read my comment above where I also chastised the House/Senate for avoiding the vote during the midterms? Oh wait, you did read it because you commented on it.
I’ve never once seen you criticize this president. Even when BooMan criticizes him you still defend him. What’s going to be your excuse when he cuts SS? “I had to cut SS, we got the better deal. What’s worse? Default where everyone’s SS is worthless, or a few cuts?”
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment destroys Barack Obama’s argument for Bush Tax Cuts (Video)
Picked up this post on Daily Kos: Olbermann is pissed at Obama and tells all the reasons why we too should be pissed at Obama:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/8/926769/-Keith-Olbermanns-Special-Comment-destroys-Barack
-Obamas-argument-for-Bush-Tax-Cuts-(Video)
And you think the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES gives a fuck about what some MSNBC tv host on a network that looks like a restricted liberal country club thinks of him?! But I can tell you what this Black woman and the vast majority of African Americans think about Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and the rest of the President’s white liberal critics. We are loving the threats of a primary challenge. Keith Olbermann et al can talk all the shit they want, but what they should be doing is looking at the demographics of the Democratic Party. Try EVER winning a national or statewide election in any so called blue state again if you try to push OUR President out of the White House. You’ve all made the mistake of thinking some paid Negro loud mouths on a few liberal blogs represent African American opinion of our President. You are highly mistaken. We will fight toth and nail for this man because he’s an extension of US and that includes tearing down the entire Democratic Party if necessary.
He ain’t an extension of ME, and I’m just as black as you are. If you want to submit yourself to rank tribalism like Rep. Steve King who called Obama “very urban,” then you’re just as racist as any teabagger.
Well said Mr. Booman.
That’s fine, but then he will be judged by whether he is successful. And lowering unemployment 1% over the next two years (if that actually happens) is not, I think, a success. And if Obama fails, where does that leave us? With no coherent message and a failed policy? So yeah, that’s more than a little risk.
Great post.
I don’t think the president went Medieval but I think that his reaction to The Left is out of frustration because he assumed that we were more informed, savvy and rational than we have acted.
I saw last night’s outburst as a genuine attempt to get critics on the left to engage with political reality, colored by his frustration. Why some people who are otherwise rational can’t count heads and realize the number doesn’t add to 60 is a mystery to me.
However, last night was a wasted opportunity. Purists aren’t going to be happy no matter what, so why generate heat addressing them? The people who matter are the rank-and-file.
And that’s who’s getting hosed by relentless rightward slant of conventional wisdom on cable – at the moment, that the extension of tax cuts for the rich is a bigger deal than the extension of unemployment benefits and middle class provisions. The real problem is changing that conversation, and I don’t see the administration making any headway at all. They need a new messaging strategy.
You say “So, please, let’s not continue this sad spectacle of crying like schoolgirls every time the president has some pushback against the left’s criticism. He made a decision. He explained it. Deal with it without taking things personally.”
Every time the president has some pushback? That would be pretty much every single policy. He has had “some pushback” against the left every time. He’s very consistent. He goes right, and that means that there is pushback.
Additionally, it’s ridiculous to say “taking things personally” In fact, it’s fucking insulting. No one is taking it personally. we are stating, in a clear way, that his policy choices suck, his negociating style is ineffective, and unsuccessful, and nothing that we paid for when we hired him is being promoted. That’s not personal. This is a contract deal. We hired someone, apparently under false pretenses, and now we are annoyed at our good money going down the drain.
And I was NEVER convinced that he was a “progressive”. What I wanted was someone who was less centrist than Hillary. What we got was a total Blue Dog, and that’s not in the contract.
Enough with the crap about petulant leftists, eh? I am not even that much of a leftist on many things. I’m not for open borders, I’m an “Americans get hired before H-1bs” and so forth.
What a joke.
You need a get a grip.
I have a grip. It is on my wallet. I won’t open it for Obama again. Nor will I open my telephone for him.
He will have to make do with all those pragmatists lining up in the middle of the road to make contributions and do the telephone and field work. Us radical leftists are obviously unable to understand 11 dimensional chess, and so will watch as Obama wins the game by the old “9 dimensional knight move”.
He’s wily, and will win in the end. Who will be with him at that point?
What dataguy needs is to be real about what this administration has actually done.
http://obamaachievements.org/list
Click ‘expand’ for the detail.
And:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
And by the way, things look a lot better today than they did in Jan 2009 with losing 7-800,000 jobs a month!
Get a grip is right. Thanks, Boo
link.
Thanks again BooMan! Right on! It is pure fantasy to believe the President and Vice President can snap their fingers and make Congress vote pure progressivism. It is baby steps one day at a time.
Barbara Morrill at dKos had a helpful reminder to all of us from the US Constitution:
The “deal” was described by President Obama as a “framework”. And it was negotiated with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner (and presumably Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi). It is not what will pass Congress as is; that much is clear. When you lose Mary Landrieu, you have made a clear misstep unrelated to ideology. The negotiations continue, and it is not clear that the “framework” has contributed to it in any way but to scare a lot of people that Social Security is going to be Obama’s “welfare reform”.
The legislative problem for the Senate Democratic Caucus is getting Republicans to the point that they have to take a real vote on (1) unemployment benefit extension, (2) tax cuts extension for the middle class, (3) tax cut extension for the upper 2% of incomes, (4) the “stimulus” tax cuts, (5) DADT repeal, and (6) the DREAM Act. The Republicans have been dodging this up-or-down vote procedurally and a couple of members of the Democratic caucus have been providing bipartisan cover for their procedural maneuvers. That’s a tough thing to deliver with the clock on the session running out. And it requires that the Democratic caucus be as unified as the Republican caucus has been.
What Obama’s “framework” did strategically is put the onus on Democrats for failure to pass the middle class tax cuts and unemployment insurance benefit extension. It allows Republicans to dodge their responsibility for obstruction once again. So cut the “crying like schoolgirls crap” when talking about this difficult situation. The President’s critics understand clearly the policy and political implications of his stand; they are baffled by his political strategy. And in the absence of a principled explanation of his economic vision, they search for explanations–which break along these lines: (1) he’s getting bad advice from his advisors, (2) his political communications operation sucks, (3) he’s a lousy strategist, (4) he’s not center-left but center-right and hid it from us during the campaign, (5) he’s been bought out by Wall Street, (6) he always was Wall Street’s “Manchurian Candidate”. Now those views are held by moderate Democrats (old-school moderate Democrats, not Blue Dogs), progressive Democrats, independent progressives, Green Party progressives, and the more traditional “left” in about the same spectrum as the criticism. Some critics never did support him or any Democratic candidate.
Although the comments about “his critics on the left” were in response to a specific question, he did not have to answer in a way that he knew would antagonize a lot of his critics who are exactly “on the left” and his explanation is not good economics, it is another attempt to show his “bipartisanship”. He hasn’t really made the economic argument either because he doesn’t understand the economics of the current situation or he is afraid to go up against the Chicago School conventional wisdom. And yet, Austan Goolsbee is capable of making that argument.
The spectacle of a Congress arguing one week for reducing the deficit and the next week for doing something that blows as big a hole in the deficit as the original stimulus program baffles even the public, or at least my neighbors. That both parties are engaging in it increases the cynicism about Washington and government in general–and tilts them more toward Republican “smaller government” arguments. Even my African-American neighbors, who will definitely vote to re-elect Barack Obama, not because of his race but because he has (1) shown leadership in the midst of the worst racist political culture since the 1960s, and (2) he was handed the worst situation since 1860 and has been turning it around. Life, people, and opinions are complex. (And white progressives need to note this before they go on a quixotic primary hunt that could absolutely give political control to Republicans, in other words Jim DeMint’s wet dream).
The most important issue facing progressive/liberal Democrats is not the relationship between them and the President. The most important issue facing them is the fact that they are geographically challenged in the political culture. And because of that, easily demonized. You cannot have a progressive/liberal change in government merely by having absolute control over Congress and the Presidency. You have to convince folks that (1) you have principles and (2) those principles produce policies that are good for the country. That doesn’t happen top-down. That is why the focus on Obama is mistaken. And conservatives did not come to power by electing Ronald Reagan; they came to power in order to elect Ronald Reagan and they stuck with him slavishly. And with George H. W. Bush even when he deserted his “no new taxes” pledge. And with George W. Bush’s walk into catastrophe. And that popular base is what Rush Limbaugh exploited during George H. W. Bush’s term and has move in a more extreme direction ever since. You don’t deal with that without folks who know progressives/liberals as neighbors, co-workers, friends. As long as we are abstract “loonies”, we are easy to dismiss and to be used by any President as a foil. Congressional and legislative victories come out of a political culture.
The problem with the self-identification “progressive” is that not everyone means the same thing by it. For some it harkens back to the political reformers that sought to break up the big city machines and their corruption a century ago, a movement that drew in the women’s suffrage movement and some elements of the labor movement. For some it is an echo of the “progressives” (especially Southern progressives) who worked for public education, good roads and infrastructure, and formed the core of Roosevelt’s rural support in the 1930s. For some it is an echo of the 1950 Progressives, a Marxist movement in a time of a red scare, out of which came the New Left of the 1960s that was one element of the core of the anti-Vietnam War movement. One way or another, the progressive movement sought reformed institutions, economic (such as an end to child labor) and political, informed voters, scientific and technocratic solutions to problems, and protection of political minorities against abuse.
Liberals sought freedom from government oppression and equality for people under a government of laws, not men. They thought that an educated populous must be skilled in the “liberal” arts – rhetoric, mathematics, science, history, government, philosophy, and the arts. And established their colleges and schools to do that. (Progressives believed in practical skills and experiential education–learning by doing).
Progressives and liberals today have not revisited their principles and formulated policies aimed at the future. We are still living on the gasoline that FDR put into the tank, and it is running low. As a consequence, the public is not captivated by our ideas if only because they have heard it all before. But conservative ideas are wearing thin too, especially after the Bush administration and despite the Republican rhetoric of a “return to conservative principles”.
Folks, we need to have a conversation about the long term before we can move forward. And monitoring the Obama administration has distracted us from that task. And out of the product of that conversation, we just might get more public interest, more enthusiastic candidates, and a shift in the political culture.
We have a very long march ahead of us.
If you’ve been reading BT, as I know you have, the spectacle of watching the Republicans pivot from budget balancing to budget busting shouldn’t surprise you. The Tea Party was a sham all along. The GOP is entirely about $$$$$. That’s it. Nothing more.
It wasn’t the Republican pivot I was particularly commenting on, it was the bipartisan pivot. I’m clear what’s going on. The public is getting confused from the policy whiplash.
Thank you for this is very thoughtful post. And I agree with your conclusion. It’s time for some major rethinking.
One important issue you have touched on: The TR-Wilson-FDR-60s concept of “progressive” is wearing thin on the left, and “a return to conservative principles” is also being emptied of meaning. I would suggest also that the concept of “going medieval” is equally unhelpful. Of course it was just a figure of speech here, but that’s the problem, “medieval” is never anything else than a (negative) figure of speech.
In the 19th and early 20th century, a widespread positive value was accorded to the Middle Ages. (By the left as well. The classic example in the English-speaking world is William Morris (1834-1896), but this was a whole trend. Remember the “KNIGHTS” of Labor? etc.) There was a widespread feeling that with the Middle Ages you get back to core values, because it was (correctly) understood that the economic and social values of the middle ages were in many ways preferable to modern forms of soulless industrial capitalism. This had to be a little different in America, because there WAS no Middle Ages here, but it at least applied to our laws and institutions.
This is not to deny the negative aspects of the MA, but only to assert that there were positive aspects as well, and not so long ago they were widely recognized. (This gets to another problem of our public discourse, which is that we tend to focus on dichotomy rather than concurrence, but I digress.)
The term “progressive”, whatever exactly it means, means nothing without a belief in “Progress.” Up to about 50 years ago, everybody seemed to agree that there was some kind of foreordained path of progress that we were on, or should be on, even if they disagreed on exactly what it consisted of. Progress toward what? Toward some kind of utopia, whether defined or undefined.
One of the big changes since FDR’s day is that a lot of folks have stopped believing in “Progress,” because they have seen too much dystopia growing out of it. They found it too ideological, or a substitute for genuine observation and thought. A lot of people see things as getting steadily worse and worse, which leads them to expect some idea of catastrophe rather than utopia.
The right has taken full advantage of this shift (which it helped to create), while the left is still “progressive.” I myself can state flatly that I am not looking for “progress” in an ideological sense. I am simply looking to solve the problems of this nation and make things better.
Finally, as to “conservative principles,” what the left does not seem to realize — because according to the habitual “progressive” way of thinking it hardly make any sense — is that a lot of the so-called “left” ideas, like “distributive justice,” “social justice,” “common good,” “community,” are very old, conservative ideas, and that a lot of the so-called “right” or “conservative” ideas, such as “free trade,” “the invisible hand,” rights of corporations under the 14th amendment, etc., are innovations and radically disruptive, not conservative in a any real meaning of the word.
Basically, “right” and “left” are artifacts created by our (very shallow) public culture to organize political and social discourse. They are two halves of one system, and they do a very poor job of representing today’s reality. The power structure has been able to exploit this because the left emphasizes rational thought, whereas the right emphasizes images and emotions. However, the rational thought on the left does not connect with lots of folks, not because it is too rational, but because it does not sufficiently speak to the frustrations that do draw working-class people to the right, and also because it is poorly communicated. (A rational argument is limited by the validity of its premises. As for poor communication, Dems have been criticized for not understanding framing, but a much greater problem is the domination of “the narrative” by the right.)
I believe we should put the accent on showing that the Democratic Party represents the core American values and showing the BS of the plutocratic “patriotism” that is selling off this country to the highest bidder. Right now the GOP “owns” the concept of patriotism, but there is nothing but media imagery and outworn habits of thought to back that up. They have done terrible damage to this country.
There have been stirrings in this direction for Democratic discourse for years, but we need much more of it. And BTW, I don’t always agree with Obama, but I think he does understand this. Finally, let’s admit it, we are crippled without at least some MSM on our side. The present anti-Dem domination of the narrative is like the elephant in the room — that should be borne in mind when we talk about how this is “really” a “right-center country.” What it really is. is a country dominted (perhaps even more than most) by mass-media narratives. Why there isn’t a single left-leaning newspaper or broadcasting network in this country is something I do not understand.
That has to do with party discipline and pure undiluted ruthlessness from the right, and philosophical disinclination from the left.
Any network which isn’t sufficiently batshit can count on a constant and well-organized flow of pissed off letters, emails, advertising and advertiser boycotts from the far right. If they’re lucky. If they’re not so lucky, or it’s a special occasion, like say a day ending in y, they get pickets, they get licence renewal fights, sometimes they get bombs… (KPFT in Houston has had their antenna blown up two or three times by righties, and I’m told there have been a couple of duds stuffed through the mail slot, but hey….. Texas. Strange things done there.)
From the left they get “information wants to be free” and “if you sell consumerist ads you’re not a real lefty” and no money.
So between the right knocking out the advertisers with boycott threats and hate mail, and the left contributing nothing from philosophical distaste, the well-known circular firing squad, or just not being money-driven enough to have huge amounts of surplus green…
There’s just no way for a politically aware network to operate from the left.
Excellent analysis.
Yglesias caught a case of the 24-hour Stupid.
He is another who can’t stand being scolded, or even watching his allies get scolded. What I want to know is “who gives a shit?” Seriously. Ooh, the president defended himself while making the right decision. My feelings are hurt. I really can’t express my contempt for this point of view sufficiently.
That’s not his point. His point is what’s Obama’s next compromise for the next thing the Nihilists hold ransom?
look, this deal sucks in a lot of ways. I’m not buying Booman’s economics, when every ACTUAL economist says it blows a huge hole in the budget and sets the stage for social security cuts.
At the same time, it’s hard to be pissed, because i knew this was coming the days the Bush tax cuts were passed. It’s total bullshit to say that most democrats want to repeal these tax cuts, because if they DID, they would have gotten to it sooner (and by the way, Mary Landrieu can kiss my ass with her bullshit schtick). a lot of democrats benefit from these cuts, and a lot of their funders do too. they just can’t say as much, because they’re supposed to be fighting for working people and too many of them aren’t.
It’s not, by the way, just lefty purists who are upset. Marc Stier, a major player in HCAn in PA and a strong supporter of the president who’s scolded me more than Booman has for being one of those purists, is fucking livid today. he’s noticing that the president only seems to get emotional when he’s mad at the left, with no such rage at the right. If he’s upset… well there are a lot of others less purist than me who are upset.
You know, if it hadn’t been everything else –the lying about the public option, the escalation in afganistan, the losses in 2010, the campaigning for shitty democrats, DADT delays, the threats made to incoming reps to vote for the supplemental for the war– there might be a deeper well of support. But jeez, how much do supporters have to take?
You want us to blame the GOP, and I certainly do, but it’s hard to get fired up when the President’s been largely absent (he ran away to afganistan last week) from these fights, and then yells at the left because we’re not satisfied with a shitty deal. It’s not our fault the guy can’t negotiate, we WANT him to succeed.
Instead we get called assholes for not supporting a deal that was cut in a backroom.
Juan Cole (Informed Comment) has an interesting observation about low information voters and the public in general:
This appears in a diary about why there is so little note taken in the media of the casualties in Afghanistan, as compared to the coverage of casualties in Iraq.
Why did the president refer to us as “hostage takers”?
And does he still want my vote/support??
Honestly this guy is tone deaf.
I believe he was referring to the Republicans as “hostage takers”. And amusingly, the FoxNews crowd apparently has taken up that language as an indication that Obama will cave on negotiations with foreign governments. And wait until the controversy over the South Korean Free Trade Agreement appears for that observation to be adopted on the left as well.
NOT cave on. He has now determined that the basic tenets of the Democratic Party (the progressive taxation system, the responsibility of the upper brackets to pay more) are not worth defending. Once you have decided that the basic ideas of your foundation have no merit, the sky’s the limit.
He has decided that since he will lose in 2012, he might as well accelerate the conservative drift. And I say “fuck him”.
I support Booman’s observations here. And I have a few other thoughts:
First, I think that the republicans would have caved on unemployment insurance, for about a month or two. I think they would have pushed it into the next Congress without really having to make a hard choice now. Instead, there is a 13 month extension.
Second, the “vocal left” wants the President to listen to them, but I wonder whether they are listening to him. If I remember correctly, he campaigned on a “new tone” in Washington. He’s been working to find common ground and compromise on a host of issues. With the clock ticking, there finally is one where he got some movement. This is about governing, not running for office. As Cuomo said: You campaign in poetry and govern in prose. This is about as prosaic as can be. My sense is that the “vocal left” wants revenge, not governing.
Third, those of you who are “fed up” and “disgusted,” and ready to quit — well, that’s just what the Republicans want. It sure as hell worked during the 2010 elections. The sausage-making was so disgusting that it kept our folks from the polls. The Dems got routed and now we have to live with that reality. Take some responsibility for that. Obama said quite clearly that if people want things to change they have to work for it. This includes seeing that Democrats win elections. It includes calling congresspeople to encourage votes … fighting for DADT repeal, whatever your issue.
Fourth, who are “progressives”? They are people who, I suppose, want progress and understand what progress means. This is a slow-moving country. The structure of government was set up to make change SLOW. Obama understands that and it’s why he talks about the long picture.
Fifth, I do wonder, however, what the “core principles” are these days. If protecting the holdings of the wealthy is the core principle of the Republicans, what are the core principles of the Democrats? Was Joe the Plumber onto something? Is it about a redistribution of wealth? Or is it equal opportunity for all? A safety net? Tell me what you think it is. I wouldn’t mind hearing that from the President as well.
First, the appropriate compromise is to extend the authorization for unemployment until the unemployment rate drops below 6%. That puts an incentive on both sides to actually do something.
Second, who exactly is the President trying to find common ground with? The Republicans have clearly stated that their objective is to make him a one-term President. Is the common ground to negotiate about being a one and one-half term President? There is no common ground when the goalposts keep changing; there is only suction into the Republican agenda.
Third, the folks who are fed up, disgusted, and ready to quit are of the belief that it is Obama who wants them to do that too. That he is quite willing for them to stay home as long as he can pull some Republican voters to his side. The results in the midterm put a big question mark on that strategy.
Fourth, who are progressives? See my comment above; they are not a monolithic block. And Obama talks about the “long picture” but he does not do the “vision thing” about what that is about. What exactly is his vision for America? Perpetual muddling through? That is hardly inspiring.
Fifth, the core principles of Democrats? Read Will Rogers. The Democratic Party has always been a conflicted coalition. The FDR consensus was that it was about “looking out for the little guy”, having ordinary people actually see their interests represented in government, creating a safety net of economic stabilizers so that the US would never face a Great Depression again, providing a means of living to those who were temporarily or permanently unable to work, providing jobs of last resort for those who were able to work, creating a economic floor beneath which no person would drop–one that provided “Freedom from want”, providing resources that accelerated the ability of people to find new jobs when they were laid off, putting the unemployed to work on building the common assets than enable economic productivity and a high quality of life (rural electrification, expansion of national parks, public art and performance, subsidy for the arts, documenting the life of ordinary Americans, increased access to education, a minimum wage to put an economic floor under wages; overtime premium pay to provide incentives to hire more workers instead of working the same workforce longer. The LBJ consensus was to end discrimination on the basis of race, end the scandal of poverty in the richest nation on earth, provide healthcare to those who could not afford it because of age or disability, provide job training, have local management of government programs that included instead of excluding the voices and opinions of the poor, increasing the investments in science and math education, higher education, and public infrastructure, reduce crime and “urban blight” in the nation’s cities.
And “redistribution of wealth” is a Republican trope. The FDR consensus advocated progressive taxation for two reasons; it forced those who had gotten the legacy benefits or the infrastructure benefits to get wealthy in the US to pay in proportion to the benefits they received. It made those who lived on paper investments (called in the 1930s “unearned income”) pay more that those who worked, increasing the dignity of labor. And it allowed those at the bottom of the income scale to have fewer dollars taken out of their income, providing the purchasing power to drive an economy that made those with investments even wealthier. Which then caused money to cycle back through the economy, growing prosperity.
Tarheel – also here in NC (I guess you are too)…
I agree about unemployment insurance — would be great if it could have been extended until rate was 6%. Do you think that would have been do-able in this time frame? We had Bunning and others just saying “no” for quite some time. In order to negotiate that kind of extension you have to have someone to negotiate with. Which leads to…
the second point — the common ground is not the ends, but the means. Who is serious about governing? Who are the other adults in the room. I followed with some interest the deficit commission and found that mostly these were people of good will with different concepts of what would work. That’s what Obama is looking for. People who want to tackle serious problems (I know that sounds like a movie meme.) The just say “no” of the first two years was not serious governance. And he knows that. The 2010 election provides and opportunity — or perhaps an obligation — to the other side to actually try to govern rather than just obstructing.
I don’t believe that Obama wants the vocal left to stay home to gain middle-ground Republicans. I think he wants thoughtful people to make thoughtful arguments in a timely manner. And to mobilize for what they believe in. In other words, just the opposite of what you suggest. He has said countless times that he (and by extension other legislators) have to be forced to act in the people’s behalf. I think you’d have to admit that many who voted for Obama just sat back and watched him be glorious, but stopped working. Meanwhile, the other side, with all its media advantage, and money advantage, showed up.
I don’t have much to say about point 4. But #5 is right on for me. I still see the Democratic parties goals very much that way — and under assault from the Right which wants to undo much of that legislative progress that took place during a great depression and after the assignation of a president and civil rights turmoil. I’m on board. A great deal of what I see in this tax package coincides with those goals though, obviously, not all.
Most of all, I want to thank you for your thoughtful reply and for such a good tone. The comments in this blog have lately been so venomous that it impedes me from commenting. I wonder if that’s true for others.
We now have a pretty flat tax structure, when payroll, income and sales taxes are all considered. This deal solidifies that.
Let’s be very very clear: once the Repukeliscum are past this hurdle, the tax structure is set until the entire thing is rejiggered. There is no way in hell that a Republican house will go along AND INITIATE any increase in the tax bills of the parasite class.
Well after they cut all of the domestic programs and refuse to raise the debt ceiling, they’ve got a problem, don’t they. At some point the public figures out why they are paying higher and higher state and local taxes for poorer and poorer services. It might take a year, a half decade, a full decade, several decades, depending on how smart the business class is in boiling frogs, but the end of the line is reached at sometime.
oh, wait, I mean Booman.
This deal basically is the start of the “let’s kill Social Security.” By cutting the support for Social Security from 13% to 11%, the funding formulas are even more out of whack, and the tea party treason folks will be coming for it.
Of course, if they come hard enough, we might recover some due to overreach, but right now I am not feeling very confident about much.