I agree with Greg Sargent and I’ll go one further. I don’t even find the president’s effort to get a little political advantage out of his brushback of the ‘purist left’ to be an annoyance. If you had to read my email you’d be pretty ready to throw some beanballs at some lefties, too. How else do you respond to otherwise smart and principled people who think it’s a good idea to run Alan Grayson or Donna Edwards as serious alternatives to the president in the 2012 election? For every email I read about Republican obstruction, I read thirty about what a sell-out or disappointment or closet-Republican the president turned out to be. Everyone fancies themselves an economist these days, too. It’s kind of a viral thing. So, for example, it used to be that progressives thought a payroll tax holiday was an awesome idea, provided that the holiday only applied to the employee-contribution. But now that the president has won that stimulative concession from the Republicans, it is a secret plot to defund Social Security. Trust me, you can find this allegation anywhere you look in the blogosphere. Who came up with it first? I don’t know, but it wasn’t someone who is used to giving the president the benefit of the doubt.
In any case, we have to have this conversation because it is going to keep coming up. Triangulation isn’t merely positioning yourself between the two parties, although that is part of it. Triangulation is adopting your opponents’ goals as your own, passing versions of their priorities that are maybe a little less egregious than they could be, and then going out and taking credit for passing your opponents’ agenda. So, Bill Clinton was happy to tell everyone that he reformed welfare, ended big government, and balanced the budget. None of those things were why Clinton won the nomination or the presidency. Clinton basically passed Ross Perot’s agenda and then called it his own. That is not what President Obama is doing. He’s dissing the left for the reason that Sargent says he’s dissing the left.
The reason Obama’s attacks on the left smack of triangulation is that he persists on painting the left and the right with the same brush: He presents himself as the last reasonable man trapped between two sides blinded to reason by ideology. Hence his insistence yesterday that he won’t be held to any unreasonable “ideal.” But as irksom as this is, it isn’t really the same as positioning oneself ideologically by arguing that the left is wrong on policy substance, as Bill Clinton did.
Obama’s argument with the left, at bottom, is more a dispute over what’s achievable, and less an argument over what is desirable to achieve. Obama opposes extending the high end tax cuts, just as the left does. His disagreement with the left is over whether there’s another way to achieve the goals Obama and the left agree on: Extending the middle class cuts and extending unemployment benefits. The left says a protracted fight would achieve those things. Obama and his advisers say a fight wouldn’t achieve those things, or at least that a fight wouldn’t achieve them in time to stave off a tax hike for the middle class. Hence his willingness to reach a deal.
Indeed, Obama’s outburst yesterday was rooted in genuine frustration with the left for not agreeing with him about what’s possible given today’s political realities.
Yeah, pretty much.
Why is David Vitter on my teevee talking about Latinos stealing slots in college from his illiterate cracker family?
ok, that’s funny
I think it’s stupid that the rich got 2 years while the plebes got 1. That’s part of why people are pissed I’d think. The other is the estate tax. He’s lowering that from even what it was before the year holiday. And what happens for the plebes a year from now? In the end the WH suffers from what all DC Democrats do. Their inability to strategize. And to strategize knowing the Pukes are dead-ender asshats.
that did stick in the craw…also nothing for the 99ers. should have been 18 months, including 9 for the 99ers
“Triangulation is adopting your opponents’ goals as your own, passing versions of their priorities that are maybe a little less egregious than they could be, and then going out and taking credit for passing your opponents’ agenda.”
I think the fundamental difference is that Obama isn’t very good at taking credit for his accomplishments.
As Atrios says: if this is true, then why doesn’t he ever say “this is what I want to do, but I can’t due to their obstruction.” There is no economic vision, just “they’re blocking my vision.” What is that vision, Mr. President, and what are they blocking, really?
I think Obama was pretty clear that he wanted tax cuts only for the middle class, not the wealthy. There were two votes in the Senate on this issue, that didn’t pass. He has tried to pass more stimulus, but was blocked again in the Senate. What more do you want him to do? It would be very satisfying if he took a can of whup-ass out on Boehner et al., but that would accomplish nothing. The problem is the Senate, not Obama. I like the fact that he is calm under pressure, and is willing to make compromises to get something done for the American people.
That’s not an economic vision. What does he want to do to reduce unemployment? He hasn’t said.
“He tried to pass more stimulus in the Senate.”
Really? When was that? All of his Very Serious Advisors like Larry Summers told me that the stimulus they got through the first time was juuuuust right and we didn’t need anymore. They then oversold it and said unemployment would only go to 9% without it. So now they’re caught with their pants down, saying “No one could have predicted,” while they continue to say that the stimulus was enough.
Obama has never once said, “The stimulus wasn’t enough, and I would have liked it to be much better.” They keep saying that what they got through is what they wanted. Oh sure, you’ll be able to snag one interview of Obama saying he expected the debate to increase the dollar amount, but he’s never defended liberalism. He keeps saying that what they did was just fantastical, and now it’s time to reduce the deficit.
“As Atrios says: if this is true, then why doesn’t he ever say “this is what I want to do, but I can’t due to their obstruction.”
As noted, he did say what he wanted in the tax cut bill. The question itself amounts to “If you could have a pony with sparkles, how many sparkles would it have?” Brilliant!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/1/top-obama-adviser-wants-more-stimulus-spending/
On Social Security, the difference in cutting the payroll tax in 2009 (and eliminating the income cap) and the current cuts is not a change in abstract arguments or ideology. It has to do with these facts:
Painting the opposition to the tax cuts as ideological is using too broad a brush. For some people it is, especially for third party progressives seeking an opening in the two-party system (talk about quixotic). But for a lot of people, myself included, the issue is how far down the road is this method of politics taking us? And at the end of the road will Obama adopt these forced choices as his own just the way Clinton did? If you are receiving Social Security, as I am, that is a serious practical issue. Social Security no longer seems to be the third rail in American politics if Republicans can maneuver Democrats into doing their dirty work.
Democrats have until January 5, 2011, majorities in the House and Senate, and a President. The public sees all of this as Democrats doing it; Republicans are getting off the hook. Rank-and-file Democrats, and not just progressives, are pulling out their hair wondering why it is that there is nothing that can stop this Republican strategy. Why is there no political controversy except between the left and the President?
You are beginning to push my limits of trying not to be cynical in this constant theme of reading the controversy as the President sees it.
Sort of a detail, but significant: isn’t it clear that the whole point of establishing a commission is to get your opposition to publicly make unpopular demands in a forum with no legislative authority?
That was my original thought, but the Democrats chosen were predisposed to agree with the Republicans because of who sits in what committee assignments.
The problem is that in the current media environment, it allows the media to set the unpopular demands as the narrative, which increases the likelihood that Republicans will succeed in driving that narrative next year.
The popular demand would be for Congress to cut its salary and benefits first as a symbol of shared sacrifice. Why does Alan Simpson merit continued government payments in excess of the total of several people’s Social Security, for example?
Your concern is not wrongly-placed, and the reason Alan Simpson pulls a big cheque is because our political/economic system is fundamentally about keeping the comfortable comfortable and keeping those in the club well-fed. Simpson is a member of the club. It’s systemic corruption, and that’s it.
Until there’s actual legislation to cut social security on the table, I’m a little less worried than you. Remember that Bush’s Presidency derailed when he tried to change, or dismantle, Social Security. We don’t know where the narrative will actually be in a year or two. Democrats’ best bet is to set up a situation where the main discussion in the media is “do we or do we not cut/dismantle Social Security” in which Republicans as a brand are in favor of dismantling it and Democrats as a brand are in favor of maintaining it.
Losing the House is by no means a good thing, but the way to get something out of it is to have ONE of the two houses–i.e., not enough to actually pass legislation–spouting rhetoric that, on this subject, is toxic to 95% of the electorate.
As an aside–or maybe it should be the main point–none of this fiscal stuff is going to work out well for anyone except war profiteers until the US drops its imperial ambitions.
See my comment in Steven D’s diary yesterday about ending America’s imperial ambitions for my views on that. Short version: progressives need to have a specific vision on national security and foreign policy that is grounded in the current situation and how to move from there to a more stable and internationally democratic global system of nations.
Um, yeah everything I’ve read about why the below is true is pretty convincing. Why don’t you explain why you don’t believe it?
But now that the president has won that stimulative concession from the Republicans, it is a secret plot to defund Social Security.
Yep. And he’s wrong. It’s that simple.
It’s funny. When you decide that something isn’t possible, it is difficult to convince yourself that it is possible. Obama has decided that nothing is possible, so why not get a jump on that Republican POTUS now. It’s what’s coming, so open wide, boyz and gurlz, and get some catsup for that shit sandwich.
Adam Sewer has some points on triangulation.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/obama_has_always_triangulated.html
Obama wasn’t willing to see middle class taxes go up and no unemployment benefits. Whether or not this was because he felt he would inevitably be blamed for them is a side issue it seems, since he is framing that as his bottom line. I can understand his point of view but the disavowal of a strong vision of where we are and where we need to go, with the huge muddle of statements about deficits and pay freezes and what have you, leaves people feeling they don’t know where Obama stands in the this economic crisis, which is not good. Progressives in general feel they have to eat shit every day: Bankers own the world, multinationals get to poison the planet and lie about it, the right gets to pimp a new freakout every two weeks, war is eternal. They feel like Obama is compromising with injustice and the result is just more injustice. They’re not seeing a path out of this nightmare paved with dubious and incremental compromises with liars and crooks. They see Bush get to declare war on the world and Obama does pay freezes. They want Obama to say we’re building one trillion gigawatts of clean energy in the greatest public works project since FDR or something like that. People need bold statements and at least some bold action. They need to feel like they get a victory at least once in a while.
Obama has the ability to make everything fun about a win into the feel of a loss. It’s like he doesn’t believe the left are better people than the right.
“It’s like he doesn’t believe the left are better people than the right.” Did I miss the joke? I think he believes he is president of the US and is responsible to doing the right thing for all Americans.
No unemployment benefits for millions and middle class/most Americans getting their brains beat in is not something he can ignore.
Putting the political score-keeping aside and acting like the only grown up in the room (if no one else will) ultimately is his job.
And politically it might be quite shrewd. In two years when the deficit and economy is still a mess and the GOP has been running the agenda in Congress for two years it will be pretty hard for them to show more would be a good thing. Or that more partisanship would be a good thing.
Meanwhile he will not have squandered the authority he has as the voice of reason and practicality who actually gets something done. If people don’t like the outcome it won’t be because he was egotistical, stubborn or impractical or overly partisan. People will want that as much or more then than they did in 2008.
A Democratic President and Democratic control of the Senate does not appear to ordinary people like Republicans are running the country. Thus the shellacking in the midterms, after Democrats “controlled everything” for two years.
Wow. What amazing ignorance.
“Putting the political score-keeping aside” – just exactly what does that mean, anyway? If you want to do public policy, which is the job, you have 2 types of policy agendas, those with the R and those with the D. If you take the letter and the agenda seriously, and believe in your side’s objectives, then you wish to get those goals accomplished.
On the R side, they certainly are happy with people like you, who confuse bipartisan outcomes with bipartisan processes. Obama and the other bipartisan idiots believe that the PROCESS should be bipartisan. That mean, inevitably, that we get 75% R and 25% D. If that’s what you want, fine, I don’t really give a shit.
It sure ain’t what I want.
“People will want that as much or more then than they did in 2008.” You think so? How much are YOU going to contribute? I won’t be giving a fucking cent, myself.
“If you want to do public policy, which is the job, you have 2 types of policy agendas, those with the R and those with the D.” As a matter of practice, yes. And then there is what is actually right and best and that is what most Americans (who don’t put and R or D next to their names) care about.
People trying to figure if they can afford a Christmas tree this year don’t give a crap about Boehner or Pilosi scoring points and whether this will help or hurt whom in the 2012.
Does it matter to the respective bases? Surely. Does it affect contributions? Yup. Do party members hate it. They say so. Is it fodder for speculative news articles from all corners about “who’s winning points”? Endlessly.
But the vast center just want them to stop and do the right thing. Whatever that it. They don’t really know because they are too consumed with their own shit to pay attention. And even if they did, when they do learn what’s going on they only see a bunch of self serving politicians trying to make each other look bad.
Obama won because his message for so many was about succeeding by doing the right thing. And enough people bought into that to make people believe that the right thing might actually get done.
Well, confronted with reality, the right things begins to look a lot different than what’s possible. This deal, in all irony, I’d venture to guess looks pretty dismal in that the only thing it surely accomplishes in the one thing almost everyone agrees needs to be avoided which is running up the debt even more.
But I think Obama can fairly say that’s on the GOP for being stubborn and compliant to the rich and the Democrats in Congress who couldn’t toe the line and the people of the US who voted so stupidly in Nov.
He appears to have no interest in policies that would be called Democratic policies. It’s not what I wanted when I contributed. So, I’m not contributing to Obama anymore.
He can get all the money he needs from the moderates.
Mistakes, mistakes, the first one being that Obama never hit the road to sell his positives: the extention of unemployment, the nasty Republicans who don’t care about families, and the biggest selling point, that Republican “holy grail” is taxcuts for the wealthy and saving the wealthiest from having to pay estate taxes.
Not even the slightest attempt to fight for the unemployed or the middle class, not to mention the poor (okay forget the poor). He could have demanded TV time and got it. He never even tried to play chicken with the Republicans, when he was positioned to win the game. So does anyone wonder why the left is pissed?
Getting something for the unemployed is a major good thing in this package.
However, it seems to me there are two major problems with what the President did:
1.the gains for the unemployed last for one year. the tax cuts for the richest peeps last for two years but are up for renewal in an election year. despite what he says, he is not going to run for re-election on a tax-raising platform.
2. he made the deal with republicans and shut the dems out. imagine Dubya making a deal with dems and not consulting his own party. imagine Clinton doing that. and then when he does meet with the dems he doesn’t really… he sends Biden instead, and the message is: take it or leave it
And add into that the number of “movers and shakers” in the Democratic party hierarchy whose only interest at this point seems to be making sure that Obama doesn’t take any heat at all for doing a very poor job of getting what he’s said he wanted.
Remember when he first took office there were frequent references to the idea that we the progressives would need to keep the pressure on him to not cave to the GOP? That was followed, immediately and persistently, by a steady drumbeat from the BlueDogs and wannabe bluedogs to make sure that there was NEVER EVER EVER a pushback or pressure or commentary that might indicate that there were points of view to the left of Genghis Khan that might be worth considering.
Look around – this is a spectacular crash, a walkaway from the signature issue, halfway through the man’s turn. There’s still another half to go.
So, since sports metaphors seem to get across: it’s halftime, the home team (heavily favored) is down 65-0, and the glee club is telling the coaches to quit trying to fire up the players in the locker room. After all, they’re doing the best they can, and it’s not really fair to complain that they’re being terrorized by the midgets on the other side.
Okay. If that’s it, that’s it, but the “moderates” and the “reasonable Dems” need to think very very long and very hard… and we won’t require answers but if you can sleep at night you don’t deserve it.
WHOSE FUCKING SIDE ARE YOU BASTARDS ON, ANYWAY????!!!!!!!!!
Like many, I was looking forward to a good fight. I hope we get it next year. It’s time: The Senate is dysfunctional, and with the advent of the tea party, the GOP has become even more of a giant, cynical obstacle seemingly bent on impoverishing all but the top 2%.
But I don’t understand this state of perpetual rage that some are now in. Supposedly it’s “purist” but I’m not so sure about that. It’s more like Fox News rage. It’s not mediated at all through ideals anymore, but is rather a straight shot from news about whatever the latest thing is that Obama has done or said to full-on outrage.
If nothing else, this outrage about a payroll tax holiday demonstrates that in all its shining glory.
It is bipartisanshit. This is, IMHO, the core of the Obama problem.
I’m sitting out the next round, and we’ll see where Mr. Bipartisanshit gets after pissing off his base.
I understand and even sympathize with Obama’s argument if you’re really talking about “the purist left.” But people like Nancy Pelosi, Marcy Kaptur, Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank are not the “purist left” — they are seasoned DEmocratic legislators with a lot more experience and street smarts than Obama. I think they see something that he doesn’t, or doesn’t want to see.