I am willing to give Michael Gerson and Pete Wehner points for trying, but there actually is no point to trying to talk sensibly to the conservative base. Quoting James Madison and Aristotle (that heathen!) isn’t going to convince the mouth-breathers of anything.
Ryan Cooper explains why:
In a sense, this is the damage done by the combination of President Obama’s moderation and instinct for compromise, and Republicans’ preposterous imaginary version of same. In an effort to reach moderate Republicans and obtain a Grand Bargain, Obama has reached ever-further right on policy. But since Republican beliefs about the president are based in reactionary, deep-seated cultural anxiety, all he has succeeded in doing is accidentally claiming nearly the entire sane policy spectrum for the Democrats.
I’m not sure that Obama’s actions were as accidental as Mr. Cooper suggests. If you go back and look at his campaign and then his initial staffing decisions, it’s pretty clear that he wanted to build a coalition that extended from the far left wing to the starboard edge of the center-right. Among his early supporters were moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and the children of Dwight D. Eisenhower and William F. Buckley. He kept lifelong Republican Robert Gates on as his Defense Secretary and picked Ray LaHood to be his Secretary of Transportation.
You can look at this uncharitably if you happen to be a progressive Democrat who wants an emphasis on progressive policies. You can look at it as largely an accident of President Bush’s epic fuck-ups, which made “reasonable” Republicans gettable for the Obama campaign. But I view it as a sign that Obama understood that he needed a huge coalition to get things done, and that’s what he accomplished in his first two years.
However, with most reasonable Republicans already in his coalition, the president discovered that he had unleashed in his opposition an unrestrainable strain of Goddamned Crazy that could be not put back in the box or the bottle or wherever the hell it came from. Wasilla, probably.
Back in January 2010, after the Senate had passed ObamaCare but before the House had done so, President Obama met with the Republicans at the Renaissance Harborplace Hotel, in Baltimore, Maryland. After some brief remarks, he took questions, including one from Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Here is the last part of the president’s response to Blackburn:
The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.
And so we were in the process of scrubbing this and making sure that it’s tight. But at its core, if you look at the basic proposal that we’ve put forward: it has an exchange so that businesses and the self-employed can buy into a pool and can get bargaining power the same way big companies do; the insurance reforms that I’ve already discussed, making sure that there’s choice and competition for those who don’t have health insurance. The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.
Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker, and, certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much, but that’s not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. No, I mean, that’s how you guys — (applause) — that’s how you guys presented it.
And so I’m thinking to myself, well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist — no, look, I mean, I’m just saying, I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.
So all I’m saying is, we’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality. I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.
And I would just say that we have to think about tone. It’s not just on your side, by the way — it’s on our side, as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.
The most important thing?
“You’ve been telling your constituents…this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”
Way back in January 2010, the Republican Party had already catered so much to the Crazy that the president called them on it to their face.
And then they ignored him, and a handful of them were eaten by the wolves they had helped to create, just as the president had predicted.
So, Gerson and Wehner can try to talk reason all they want, but the reasonable horse left the barn a long time ago. It’s out rampaging through town, knocking down old ladies and terrifying the children.
Excellent stuff, Booman. Adding for the left wing: all of this is exactly what you should expect when electing as president someone who had, as one of his formative political experiences, a couple of years in what we might call “Applied Alinsky”—the relational and intellectual habits and practices of community organizing.
Although the extent to which Republicans have gone off the deep end may be a surprise to the president, he’d probably agree that—to some degree—it’s a to-be-expected outcome of his initial governing strategy.
Best case scenario: the economy grows at a faster rate in 2014, troops come home from Afghanistan (and don’t get sent anywhere else), the kinks in the ACA continue to get worked out and as a result, Republicans don’t take the Senate. Also, Democrats retake some governors’ offices and state legislatures. Then in 2016, Dems have another big win: retaking the House, adding Senate seats, and holding the White House.
Yes. The lessons of short-term vs. long-term political vision are becoming apparent.
Key moment in the ’14 campaign might be in the fall when the government releases its initial figures on the changes in insurance coverage.
Key moment is when people get their doctor bills and see how much they have to pay out of pocket.
Seems to me that bill will be missing a few zeroes from what it could be. And some people will actually be smart enough to notice.
It is an experiment. We will know by the Fourth of July.
A new requirement of ACA-compliant plans is that they provide a yearly cap on how much people can be forced to pay out of pocket, prorated by income. The ACA also did away with insurers being able to place a lifetime cap on their payments to providers.
Boy will it be funny if that monster eats Mitch McConnell, the Grand Architect of Obama’s legislative opposition, this year. I for one will never stop laughing my ass off.
AGREED.
If you change ‘horse’ to ‘pony’ in the last paragraph you can probably get this cross-posted at Popehat.
It’s in stark contrast to Karl Rove’s 50%+1 majority coalition. The smaller size of that coalition allowed them to get more of what they wanted, but then it couldn’t have any defections and remain a majority.
I am remembering that very memorable event a bit differently. I remember the GOP caucus laughing at the very idea that Obama was or could be a moderate when he suggested that he was a centrist kind of guy. A significant majority of the GOP in that room felt he absolutely was “this guy is doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.” And the tension in that room when he demonstrated a better understanding of GOP policies than they had was palpable. They DID NOT LIKE BEING LECTURED TO BY A DEMOCRAT AND CERTAINLY NOT A BLACK DEMOCRAT.
Which is why it was a boost then and a boost when the reality catches up with the prediction.
The shutdown last fall was the GOP painting themselves into an ideological corner.
The weak part of the strategy still is how to get majorities in Congress. And Sen. Menendez’s flirtation with Bibi is not helping.
One payoff of the President’s understanding the GOP better than they understand themselves is that he can play them like a matador plays a bull.
Thank you for that, Mr. President. A rhetorical loophole big enough to run an aircraft carrier or two through. Is there anything on the liberal side of our society that remotely compares to both the tone and the broadcast reach of the Tea Baggers?
I can wait . . .
FFS this was a group of Republicans he was speaking to and he didn’t say it was equivalent just that there are some on the left that has rhetoric that’s a little overheated.
Sorry, don’t buy it. As savvy a politician as the president is, he knew his comment wouldn’t be heard any other way by that audience. There was no call for the president to make a comment about people who weren’t in the room. “No conversation about us without us” is the rule I’ve learned over the last 25 years.
As I said, there has just plain not been the kind of demonizing rhetoric on the liberal side that compares to the tone and the broadcast reach of conservatives. By giving his Republican audience “it’s on our side as well” out, the president completely lost the point he was trying to make about the tone of our national discourse. A snippy comment on a liberal blog somewhere just doesn’t compare with a months-long relentless rhetorical assault by multiple on-air personalities on a national network and its cable affiliates.
We’re talking about this sentence right?
Where does he say it’s equivalent? Are there is no denying that there were some on the left who were doing exactly as he says they were. There were obviously more on the right but the left wasn’t without blame either.
If Obama didn’t know his audience was going to hear “it’s on our side as well” as equivalency, then he’s far dumber than I think he is. And I don’t think he’s dumb. He even went on to say, “where we demonize each other,” (more equivalence) and I maintain that that’s utter nonsense.
Both sentences failed to advance the point he was apparently trying to make, and indeed left his Republican audience to conclude (and they did) that Republicans didn’t have to modify their toxic politics until unnamed Democrats saying unspecified things quit doing whatever it is they’re doing. A sure recipe for nothing to change, and Republicans to keep demonizing Democrats, convinced that they’re being demonized equally. And so it has been.
honestly the only one I think that is hearing it as equivalent is you
So, since he only intimated equivalence without actually saying the word, it wasn’t there at all.
Uh huh. Whatever works for you.
Consider the possibility that President Obama was addressing multiple audiences. Most immediately, he was addressing the Republican caucus. By “confessing” the failings of his own side, he inoculated himself (and those on his side) against an attack by Republicans that he was just being partisan, picking a fight, etc.
Additionally, he was addressing the body politic. (After all, it was videotaped and widely broadcast; that’s how we all know it happened.) By bending over backwards to express both the failings of his own side, and his willingness to understand the position of his opponents, President Obama demonstrated to “persuadables” (aka, centrists, moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats, etc.) that any excess of partisanship was not his.
For progressives, the whole event had a “Daniel in the lions’ den” atmosphere about it: not only did the president emerge unscathed, he made his opponents look ridiculous and inhospitable.
and the reason it was videotaped at all was because the President demanded it because he knew it would show how unreasonable the Republicans were, which further helped them down their road to crazy town
A TPM commentary by Josh expresses how the TwitterWorld was responding to his premise that the ACA signups are, in reality, closer to 9.5 million and how the deniers went through the roof in response.
And so the question for the leadership might be. You have milked your base for hundreds of millions of campaign donations based on your promise to fight and succeed in turning over or defunding the ACA. Those donors and those that follow them have just realized they ain’t gonna get what they paid for. You broke your promise across the board.
So big R’s why should they trust you with their money going forward?
It’s worked for them on abortion for almost 40 years, gay marriage for about 20 years…
From a cultural perspective, so much of the conservative base has failed to emotionally and tactically evolve from the Reconstruction era. They appear to be comfortable with the eternal grievances of the “Lost Cause”.
It’s tribalism at its most powerful. Even “intellectual” conservatives get this in their bones. Buckley’s quote “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop…” was beloved so much by his fellows in the movement that they happily allowed it to be repurposed in The National Review’s mission statement.
Heh, the applause when he mentions Obamacare and a Bolshevik plot in the same sentence. Was in the Republican party that had catered, or the Republican media machine? We’ve seen some assertion by the political arm since then, but the media machine has a lot of power to run the show.
But actually, what is the alternative for the Gersons, Frums and Wehners? They can’t just go over to the Dems since there are fundamental disagreements–I read Sullivan daily but some of his beliefs and policies are obscene–but you can’t start a third party either because the system mitigates against it without truckloads of cash that are already committed to the crazy. What’s your option other than give up or keep trying? At least this way when the collapse comes they might be able to salvage something.
The alternative for Gerson, Frums, Luntz, and Wehners is to meddle as consultants in the candidacies of right-wing candidates with big cash in other countries. Some of them have already been involved in Israeli campaigns. And no doubt had some role in the campaigns of Stephen Harper and David Cameron.
Frum is clearly in a different category than the others you list. He has gone nearly as far as Bruce Bartlett in his disdain for the driving forces behind the GOP now, but has not left the party itself.
He’s an operative. He can’t change brands now, Would be like Carville doing Matalin’s shtick.
As an aside I smile with grim irony at the governments of those two men. I have been a member of online forums with international membership for years. I remember the derision which Republican power in America generated.
Well it’s where the live now and they don’t seem to be any better than we are at fighting it. Haha, how do you like it now?
I’m not an American exceptionalist as a rule, but I was dismayed to see that American-style wingnuttery is not exceptional.
It makes me feel better. We’re not a defective nation, it’s just an attack on human nature.
Good point.
“…Aristotle (that heathen!)…”
Do you mean to say that you’re not aware of the whole “Plato good/Aristotle bad” thing on the Right? Go check it out, it’s a whole fever swamp of its own.
Augustine v. Aquinas in the fevered swamp, eh?
I am aware.
I still hope this is all one big head fake: he’s looking to the right, he’s moving to the right, he’s bringing the field of players to the right and then, at the last minute, he plows into the wide-open left and dunks it.
Don’t think it’s time yet to do so.
If Progressives get their shit together, it could be a huge dunk in 2017 or so.
It’s one big If.
Not to mention the extent to which he’s already done what you hope he will do:
*read Michael Grunwald’s “The New, New Deal” on the Recovery Act;
*The Affordable Care Act;
*Ending the Iraq War on schedule;
*On the verge of ending the Afghanistan War;
*Getting his ducks in the row for some major climate change accomplishments over the next three years (and that’s even if Keystone goes ahead).
Part of why today’s Republican party has gone off the deep end to the extent it has is that they recognize the extent to which they’re losing.
I laughed and laughed and laughed as soon as I reviewed the linked essay. Haven’t Gerson and Wehner noticed that the conservative base DOESN’T LIKE READING LONG THINGS? My Lord, their Presidential candidates and Congressional representatives and candidates go on and on about the number of pages in Federal laws. GOP candidates have been elected after promising that they will not write legislation or vote for things that are longer than xx pages. Plus, in its scholarly tone and length, this piece comes off as, dare I say, a manifesto. Aren’t those things Communist? Or is it terrorist?
OTOH, Gerson and Wehner knew what they were doing when they chose National Affairs to publish this piece: no online comments which allow the wingnut base to flame, flame away.