Here we go again. Robert Reich is making good points again, but also misfiring. This is a problem with blame assignment. Before I even look at Reich’s argument, let me clear one thing up from the start. How can the federal government create jobs? It can put more money in people’s pockets so that they’ll spend it on stuff and increase demand. It can give out contracts for people to do work. It can create tax incentives for companies to buy equipment or hire more workers this year rather than next. That’s about it. And what do all those things have in common?
They cost money. They lower revenues. They increase our debt and deficit, at least in the short term.
You know what else they have in common? The Republicans are opposed to doing any of them. Okay, they’ll consider cutting taxes, but only for people who don’t need tax cuts and who wouldn’t spend the money. They would not allow an extension of the payroll tax holiday in the debt ceiling bill, for example. And they opposed extending unemployment benefits, which is the single most efficient way we know of to stimulate the economy because all of that money gets spent almost immediately.
So, the problem we have is that even though we know how to use the federal government to stimulate the economy, we are not allowed to use any of those tools. Period.
That’s the problem. It’s not a problem that the president created. It’s a problem created by a Republican majority in the House of Representatives. It’s a problem exacerbated by the 60-vote rule in the Senate. The problem is that the Republicans are crazy, ruthlessly partisan, and too powerful in our system right now for anyone to overcome their effective veto power.
So, Reich’s correct that nothing can be done to improve the economy, but he’s wrong to attack the president over it, because you can replace the president with Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bernie Sanders and it isn’t going to make a lick of difference. The problem is the Republicans. And, no, it isn’t because the public is deluded into thinking the Republicans are right about anything. The problem is that they were deluded about that last November. The public didn’t appreciate the Ryan Plan. And they didn’t appreciate the hostage situation over the debt ceiling. But we’re stuck with these assholes. The solution is to get rid of the assholes. That doesn’t get easier when smart liberals like Robert Reich spend equal time undermining faith in the president and taking it to the real culprits.
The debt ceiling compromise didn’t hamstring the president’s ability to tackle joblessness. The Republicans hamstrung his ability to do that. The president is weak because our constitutional system makes him weak if the opposition party is united and crazy and bent on destroying his career. So, how is it in our interest to play up and even exaggerate his weakness? Why tell people that things would be different if only he banged the table or made a speech or called people names? It wouldn’t be different. He’s dealing with a party that put out the Ryan Plan as if it wouldn’t be instant poison and political suicide. They have no sense of self-preservation. If they did, they would have cut Bush loose or reined him in long before 2006 rolled around.
Meanwhile, the president churns along vastly improving women’s health and establishing new gasoline efficiency standards, to little appreciation or applause.
I’ll tell you what the president doesn’t need. He doesn’t need liberals nipping at his heels over shit he can’t control. Go ahead. Make the case for Keynesian economics. Lord knows, someone needs to talk some sense around here. But stop asking the president to do things he can’t do and blaming him for not spending all his time asking for things that will be simply and flatly denied.
It’s not only tiresome, it’s destructive.
BooMan, as you know I have been a huge admirer of this blog–and your writing in particular–for years. However, I think you might be underestimating the disgust progressives are feeling for this “compromise.” Maybe President really had no other choice. But it’s hard to see how that will be an effective rallying call in 2012–particularly if unemployment is still close to nine percent.
I don’t underestimate it.
The GOP forces bad choices on us and then we blame ourselves for the result.
Someone has to talk sense about this because everyone seems to fall for the trap.
I wish I could give you a million 4’s for this, because that is exactly the state of things. Furthermore, this plays into their political strategy because their side is full of ideologues who believe what they are doing is right no matter the consequences, while our side is full of people who tend to judge reality observationally and have some misplaced perception of fairness in the system that should allow our side an advantage (or at least, the ability to stop the lunatics from running the asylum). When that doesn’t happen, we blame ourselves and get dispirited, when it’s really the fault of the crazy people who won’t compromise or use facts.
And we can’t get rid of them unless we’re just as ideological about getting rid of their shitheads as they are about getting said shitheads elected.
I appreciate your good sense talking!
Your points would be well taken if the President didn’t embrace the confidence fairy and tell us to embrace the Recovery Summer.
W/e, it doesn’t matter anymore. What’s done is done. What matters is where we go from here. First, we will deal with the next hostage: appropriations and the gas tax. And THAT is an even better hostage:
1.) Less costs in gas would be stimulative, if they weren’t linked to infrastructure spending.
2.) Reducing the gas tax probably polls extremely well right now.
3.) “The president wants to keep the gas tax high so he can continue his big spending policies rather than giving you relief.”
Obama will have another choice: cave immediately on the gas tax now, or cave letter and accept more backloaded cuts after taking a brutal beating on an issue that resonates with every single person, left and right.
And then after that, we’re back to the second part of the cuts: the Super Congress.
Anyway, by the time that shit is over, if the economy won’t have completely faltered into another recession due to so much uncertainty (uncertainty about demand, not regulations or some shit)…Obama should be completely in campaign mode: try and pass every single jobs measure he can, and make the Republicans vote it down.
He won’t, of course. And his choice of campaigning for the “center” might in fact be better. But right now, from this viewpoint, we have a 50-50 chance to win. Take a risk.
What else does he have left besides the confidence fairy?
He is denied any other avenue to improve things, and he is supposed to talk down the U.S. economy on top of it?
So, let me make sure I understand this.
The GOP is wrong about what it takes to improve the economy. Reich and Krugman are right.
The GOP held the country hostage so Obama had no choice but to approve a deal that implemented what the GOP wanted.
Obama publicly endorsed the GOP’s view of the economy many times and never asserted the correct view.
This is good because if Obama had asserted the correct view it would have been “talking down the economy”.
Did I get this right?
Yeah. You are pretty much right.
That’s how bad we’re screwed.
Sorry, I cannot believe this is the best we can do given the situation. The way I see it we just enacted the repeat-the-mistake-of-1937 act and the public strongly associates both the Democrats and Republicans with this action.
Alternatively, if the Democrats, including Obama, had started by staking a position on what should have been done we might have ended up with the same compromise, but at least in that situations the public would see the Republicans as entirely owning what will result.
In addition, by staking a strong negotiating position at the outset – one that has everything you want plus a few things you’d be willing to compromise on – we might have done better. It’s hard to know, because Obama hasn’t tried that tactic with the GOP yet. He’s always pre-negotiated: including tons of GOP-friendly tax breaks with his initial stimulus plan; opening off-shore oil drilling before energy negotiations began; taking single payer off the table before health care discussions began.
I’ve been in business and life too long to ever believe that this is the best this political party could have done.
Let me put this another way. What you are doing, Boo, is trying to live within the political realities — that is, the political constraints — that you see as givens.
The reason these constraints are givens is that some actors MADE THEM HAPPEN. The Tea Party web sites were registered in the summer of 2008. People planned this. They got the crazies motivated.
You can just accept this as a reality – the GOP is crazy, they will take down the country, we have to accept a really bad law in order to prevent an even worse situation.
Or you can say, how the hell can we change the political reality to be more favorable to us?
There may be many possible solutions, but it’s worth noting that the GOP took the tactic of energizing their most politically involved and motivated members. By contrast, the Democrats had a HUGE cadre of politically involved and motivated members in 2008, but chose not to keep them active. We (and I was one) were very active in 2009 in rallies and such supporting the health care reform process. We started losing interest, however, by mid-2009, as we saw the things we cared about not only being lost in the political process (that is to be expected) but to have the key leaders actually negate in word and in deed the principles that we cared about – and thought they cared about.
You love to blame the left for 2010. Well, I still voted straight Dem in 2010, and I am sure the people who were with me at all the health care rallies in 2009 did as well. No, the folks who stayed home were those newcomers to the Dem movement who watched the leadership give up on the promises of 2008.
THAT is what happened. And as long as the Democrats carry on with the defeatist, hang-dog, “well what can you expect, the tea party has backed us into a corner, let’s pretend that this horrible bill is actually good” mentality, that is going to continue to happen. You want the crowds of 2008 back your politicians have to return to the rhetoric of 2008 — and somehow, some way, find a way to show that this time they mean it.
Sorry, started losing interest in mid-2010. Not mid-2009 — that was the peak of the HCR rally participation.
I just want people to understand their predicament. I want people to place blame where it belongs and where it can be productive. That’s all.
Yes, and words matter. He didn’t make the case for repeated stimulus. As you know, Marc Ambinder, of all people, busted the President back in December. You can’t call Boner and Mr. Turtle responsible people, when they aren’t, back in December and try and claim they aren’t now.
The president has a day job, and it’s not pushing the Overton Window. It’s governing.
You know what I wish had happened? The President asked the Democratic Congress in 2010, before the election in Nov, to raise the debt ceiling and to end the tax cuts for the over 250K earners. Reid and Feingold and the other Dem Senators locked in tough fights said that they didn’t want to have debt and taxes votes to deal with so they said no.
Where is the outrage at Feingold for this cowardly stance???
I blame the Democratic leadership of the Senate as much as the President. The House under Pelosi deserves far less blame.
Why as much as the President? Why do you blame the President at all? Did you want him to get into a public fight with his majority leader?
Indeed, if you go all the way back to the stimulus, you can see this in action from the White House.
There’s a quote from back then from someone at the White House who says (paraphrased), “Well, we figured that if the first stimulus wasn’t enough, then the economic situation would be compelling enough to Congress that we’d be able to pass a second stimulus.”
That was an absolutely massive political error on the part of the White House, and it’s one that liberals like Krugman and the Daily Kos were desperately trying to warn the Obama administration about. Liberals were trying to explain to the White House that we were only going to get one bite at the stimulus apple, and that meant that we shouldn’t be stingy in the name of “compromise,” because the risks of a too-small stimulus were too great. And liberals like Krugman and the Daily Kos also pointed out that if a too-small stimulus was really the best the White House could get and they really meant to go ahead with the plan to seek a second stimulus if needed, then they had better lay the rhetorical groundwork to seek a second stimulus (meaning, don’t praise the stimulus as great and exactly what was needed, but rather point out that thanks to the Republicans and the Blue Dogs, this was all they could get right now).
The Obama administration rejected both of those points, which haunts them (and us) to this day. Liberals had the politics right on that. And as time will show, we also had the politics right on this debt deal–a deal which will also come back to haunt the White House.
I’m not sure about the debt deal, because I don’t think the WH is happy about the deal either, but you’re right that the original sin of the Obama administration was that the stimulus was too small. However, I personally have come to the conclusion that we couldn’t pull off a stimulus big enough to restore employment to previous levels. I’ve come to the that conclusion for two reasons. First, the stimulus didn’t need to be a little bigger. It needed to be two or three times as big. And, second, there wasn’t any way to do that many projects.
You know, you build a bridge and it employs like 18 people for six months. We lost eight million jobs. Do the math.
But, in any case, let’s say the Obama administration committed a big, costly blunder in its first months in office. Are you gong to flagellate them over it forever? There’s an election coming up and we have 9% unemployment. Seems like we might want to get focused on preventing a President Romney or worse. Can we do that sometime soon?
I heard an interview with Larry Summers on PRIs Marketplace a few weeks ago. He said that he, the President, administration, and all of the financial advisers wanted a much bigger stimulus. The size they ended up with was purely because of the constraints of the Congress. By the time they were negotiating for the last few votes, they were still having to cut additional funds. For instance, it was Susan Collins who only offered her support after they agreed to withdraw funds for pandemic preparedness and school construction.
We don’t know what Congress would have voted for because the administration never tried to push them. Obama started out asking for a stimulus that even his own advisers admitted was half the size of what was needed. And they were completely clueless about the politics. Back at the beginning of the stimulus debate, Obama said he wanted the bill to get 80 votes in the Senate. And of course, they thought they’d be able to get a second stimulus with no problems.
They were completely wrong on the politics, and it cost them (and us) big.
There’s a LOT of really old infrastructure in this country that needs fixing and modernizing. More than enough to make a serious dent in the unemployment rate.
Anyway, I’m not interested in flagellating the administration, but it would behoove them to start paying some attention to the people who have been right on the economy (on both the policy and the politics) from the beginning. If they’re not going to start listening to us, there’s really nothing we can to to prevent a President Romney or worse.
I doubt the economy would be tanked like that. He’s not a Fed Chairman, as much as he likes to make-believe; speaking of which, he refused to recess appoint Diamond to the Fed, and that is something he could have done to help the economy, especially in the long-run.
You know that words matter. Say: “I hope this is enough, but if it isn’t, we need to come back again to it.” He didn’t leave himself open to the possibility for further stimulus, and that was a mistake. Especially since some advisers warned him it was far from enough.
The problem is that predictions of the recovery summer could not have anticipated the impact that the Japan earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster have had on our economy. And here again, because of the 60 vote rule in the Senate and the ruthless way that Republicans have exploited it, they did not pass the climate change legislation, and lots of other measures that would have stimulated the economy and helped to make us less dependent on the spikes in fuel prices that drag our economy back down.
I don’t know about you, but the fuel prices killed us in the northeast. Here in rural Maine most of our money was burned in our furnaces leaving little else for other things. And at the same time that heating our homes became more expensive–everything else did too. Driving our cars, food prices, everything!!!
With or without those disasters, we wouldn’t be feeling the recovery. Especially now that what actually happened is matched with the predictions: they didn’t realize how bad the slump was, and they fucked up. End of story. I mean, maybe it’s that Washington Bubble or something, but what’s clear is that it’s never not safe to under reach on this.
And what you’re saying on gas prices is exactly correct, which is why when the GOP refuses to continue the gas tax as their next hostage, Obama is going to lose. He should figure out a way to cave on that now to get it over with, because if that issue is made public, he will get the shit kicked out of him:
1.) If there’s anything the polls are saying right now, it’s that Americans hate politics and how they actually work; get used to it, folks, welcome to the age of the internet. And the longer an issue drags out, the more every party takes a hit.
2.) This issue, Obama would take a bigger hit.
never safe* Take out the not.
Reich drives me crazy. Of course he makes excellent points about jobs and the economy, but like Krugman he knows little or nothing about political maneuvering, and they both demonstrate it each time they write a column. This war has become far more about politics–since the Repugs have the ability and organizational clout to thwart every rational economic step that could be made, they have to be soundly defeated at the ballot box (enough to overcome the Diebold problem). I think Obama has been well aware of this ever since the lead-up to HCR, when we had ample evidence that idiocy, with a complicit media and Koc, Inc., was afoot.
So the correct political move for Obama to make is to give the GOP what they want, and basically endorse it with some misgivings?
So when the economy tanks as a result of this 1937-style government retrenchment, what does the Obama calculus suggest he do then?
In this case, the correct political move, considering the profound nature of the threat we face to literally everything we believe in, is to maneuver the political situation (yes, an ongoing hostage situation) to the point where the maximum number of people coalesce around the idea that the Republicans are bad, dangerous and don’t speak for the majority, at the optimal moment–the 2012 election. Obama has taken his lumps on several occasions now when he could, instead, have fought nobly and lost ground. In my opinion he’s been willing to do this because of the difficulty and complexity of moving an enormous swath of public opinion away from the catnip of devious Republican phrase-making. Every step of the way, his own party, and folks like Reich, Krugman, and the left blogosphere have made it much harder than it had to be to do this.
There was a moment when 2010 might possibly have broken from being the traditional down year for the incumbent party, but what happened? After bruising fights over the stimulus and Health Care Reform, fights in which Obama extracted what there was to be extracted, there was of course a well-calculated and predictable reaction from Repugs (failed stimulus, government takeover of Health Care and the auto industry, etc.). What was not to be expected, unless you were a Puma or a holdover Naderite, was the behavior of other Democrats. They have made his life harder every step of the way, and the Democratic political class, with a few notable exceptions like Pelosi, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, etc., have failed to find the words needed to help sell all the good stuff. The obvious example is Health Care, where Obama analyzed and then accepted the playing field as it existed, realizing early on what he could get and what he couldn’t. And for his trouble he has been excoriated ever since for caving. Likewise stimulus, where he has been excoriated by Krugman and others for not doing something that wasn’t possible. Instead of thinking for even one minute that Obama was dealing with reality, instead of helping, a huge percentage of the intellectual firepower of his own party has been whining, bitching and moaning and demeaning him ever since. We limped into 2010 bickering among ourselves about Obama, falling asleep in the summer of 2010 while Dick Army and the Koch Brothers filled the void. States were overrun by Gubernatorial candidates bent on starving the beast and we were squabbling about the public option. I never heard Democrats stand up and tout the stimulus or defend HCR–it was either silence or carping.
Look back at some of the other “crisis” points for Democrats. The BP spill turned into another golden political opportunity for us to attack Republican insanity; instead, Obama was on his own, meticulously working through the complexity of the situation while having to endure the loud, unhelpful insults of party stalwarts like Carville and many others. What a failure! Until it wasn’t, and then it was on to next faux outrage or back to the “caving on the public option” meme.
It also goes to the unfortunate nature of politically defending things that your actions prevented (as opposed to popular fights you nobly lost, like Teddy Kennedy, or honorable truth-telling when the political world will not listen, as with my beloved Bernie Sanders). Putting the wars and prescription drug benefits on the books, which unveiled the true nature of the economic situation, was never defended or explained by Democratic party members at the local or national levels, and because of this, we were, collectively, outmaneuvered in terms of the optics on the issue of deficits.
The point is that as bad as the situation is right now, it has been made worse by the political stupidity of a huge swath of Democrats and progressives. And it hasn’t been helped by the legions of Daily Kos types who thought everything was over and fixed on November 5th, 2008. That was only the beginning, and things were destined to get a lot worse before they ever got better. And this smart, stoic leader has had his unbelievably complicated job made harder by his own fricking party, and trashing him has become an industry. Well, that’s one jobs program that’s working….
I agree with almost all of what you wrote here, except about Bernie Sanders. He has been pushing the primary Obama argument. This is beyond irresponsible and just feeds the dysfunction on the left.
More stimulus could have been passed in 2010 through reconciliation (just in case I hear, “60 VOTESSS!!!”)
I’m sick and tired of people giving excuses. Look, I get the obstacles he’s facing, but he’s never creative in how he does things. People ask what Obama could do by himself, and people have provided lists of things he could be doing. He hasn’t, and he won’t.
That’s another reason progressives savage him. There’s no sense of urgency or attempts to get creative in the process. There’s just defeatism of “We don’t have the votes.” Instead of complaining about it, find a way to make it happen. Reconciliation is but one example.
Now after the 2010 elections? Ok, not much he could do. He could have recess appointed a Fed nominee, but he let one of the best nominees in recent memory die in the Senate instead.
I’m sick and tired of people giving excuses. Look, I get the obstacles he’s facing, but he’s never creative in how he does things. People ask what Obama could do by himself, and people have provided lists of things he could be doing. He hasn’t, and he won’t.
Example # 1 is the utter failure of HAMP.
Well yes, with a cooperative Senate perhaps he could have. Even if the Senate had been willing to cooperate, why do you assume there wouldn’t have been, in his estimation, a political price too high for doing so, leading us to a place worse than we are now? And why do you presume to know what goes on behind the scenes, what the political calculations are–how would you know?
You give him so little credit, both for his core beliefs and for his abilities as a big picture strategist. You have a hair-trigger instinct to think the worst about him rather than think the worst about the situation he, and we, are in. I think he knows what he’s doing, and although he makes miscalculations like anyone else would, he’s still the smartest political tactician around. Or perhaps you prefer to rely on the instincts of “Senator” Feingold, “Congressman” Grayson, or “President” Kucinich?
Reconciliation cannot be used to pass things that increase the deficit.
You either don’t understand how stimulus works, or you don’t understand how reconciliation rules work.
I trust this is just an “excuse,” too.
Yes it can. All you do is use accounting tricks. I guess Ezra Klein doesn’t understand it either:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/stimulus_does_not_need_60_vote.html
So now you’re moving the goalposts to “use reconciliation and lie about it, and get the non-Democratic Senate staff to go along with it.”
Sure, easy as pie.
It’s not lying. If that’s lying, so was the health care fix; that passed through reconciliation, too. All it he’s saying is increase the window. This debt deal is lying in that sense…nothing ties future Congresses, after all.
If you want to call it lying, w/e. I don’t care. I’d take a liar who did something about jobs over someone who lies about confidence in public while praying for it in private.
Health care did not add to the deficit–nor did it add to the debt.
Right, because the window they used — 5 years — was easier to say with more certainty that it won’t. We can’t be sure that everything will happen through those 5 years, or turn out as predicted.
That’s why anyone talking about deficit reduction over a 20 year window should be laughed out of the room, and we typically use 10 year windows; they’re not terribly inaccurate, but they still allow for a lot of maneuvering.
So through accounting maneuvers, you can make it look like something reduces the deficit or debt, even if it might not (it could!).
Now what I would consider lying would be to use a wildly inaccurate baseline. Even then? I don’t care. This is a war. We need to play to win.
“Of course he makes excellent points about jobs and the economy, but like Krugman he knows little or nothing about political maneuvering, and they both demonstrate it each time they write a column.”
I just want to compliment you for making that point, Bill. That has long been my feeling about Reich and Krugman. Like many policy wonks, they think scientific logic about their field is the only valid form of thinking. They are politically tone deaf.
No, they are not. Both Krugman and Reich worked in government before, with Reich being former Labor Secretary. So I think they know something about politics.
I agree with you, but to be entirely fair, working in an appointed position as Sec Labor is not like winning a seat on the local school board. Winning the school board seat is harder than getting appointed Sec Labor.
They were both appointed to positions based on absolutely no political experience or skill, but rather, expertise in their field.
How’d they do in the DC snake pit? Well, Krugman never rose above middle management and Reich was out within a couple of years. Reich then went on to come in fourth in the Democratic primary for Governor of Massachusetts.
These are not politicians. These are policy wonks.
you are 1000% correct! we have to have turnout so huge that there is no room to cheat – without the numbers in those precincts being 10X higher than the actual number of registered voters.
we need upwards of 60% turnout to guarantee victory… to take back this country from the corruption that allows 14000 votes in wisconsin to be “found” days after the election…
we’re in a battle for this nation – and we can’t afford to have sideliners like reich and krugman firing at our side for their own ego-recognition.
it’s time to also start linking in every diary actions that we can take to fight back and take back the house!
over at thepeoplesview.net, ThisIsMyTime linked to the house meetings for barackobama.com (link is http://www.barackobama.com/news/tomorrows-house-meetings – forgive my forgetting how to html – will brush up soon!)
it’s time we all roll up our sleeves and get to work!
oh, and i’m grateful to “thepeoplesview” for linking here – i always liked booman in the early orange days – and now that i’ve fled the controversial situation there the last two years, i’ve been looking for a new home. now i’ve got two! here and thepeoplesview!
YAY!
I’ll admit I know next to nothing about Reich, but I will happily bow to Krugman any day of the week and twice on Sunday in the realm of Economics. The guy knows his stuff and is generally bang on.
In Politics he doesn’t know his stuff and he has no idea of what is possible or how the system works.
Yes he does know his stuff on economics but he isn’t infallible. He finally admitted that his nationalization of the banks scheme would have cost the taxpayers far more money and that Geithner was right. But he did this in a couple of sentences tucked into a longer piece and it was lost to the most critical on the left.
Really? And muddling along now is costing us what? Geithner’s course is costing us big time, also, too.
Dude, take it up with Krugman. He wrote that his nationalization scheme would have cost taxpayers more.
“Geithner’s course is costing us big time, also, too.”
Assuming you’re not now retreating into vagueness and still talking about how to deal with the hole in the banking sector – no, it’s not. Geithner’s course is costing us relative peanuts.
What stuff about economics does he know? His choice of advisers indicates that it is very close to the Chicago school of Milton Friedman and to Wall Street. His rhetoric is not encouraging that he understands the gravity or personal cost of the situation.
What has to happen and has to happen soon is reorganizing banks so that they are no longer too big to fail. Nationalization and receivership would have been one way. There are other ways to do it. But the situation in the financial sector is still unsustainable and we risk seeing a repetition of the 2008 crash.
And refusing to cram-down mortgage terms has cost people their homes, their jobs, and increased bankruptcy. And it still has not been worked through. That is the biggest economic mistake the administration has made. You have to count the costs of that into any cost of not nationalizing the banks.
And admitting Geithner was right is neither here nor there. Taxpayers are going to be taxed by loss of income instead of by increases in tax liabilities. Unwinding the mortgage collapse and prosecuting those who committed fraud in shifting mortgages to non-prime adjustable rates, foreclosing on property they did not own, and operating a title registration system outside registrars of deeds would have turned the economy around sooner. Both Geithner and Holder have failed to perform on this.
I totally agree. Period. If people like Reich and Krugman could pivot into a full-throated support of the things Obama is calling for (free trade agreements, extension of payroll tax, etc), if all that energy these guys spend trying to prove they are so much smarter than Obama were instead bent 100% towards backing up the good things Obama is trying to do, it might actually have an impact. Instead they want to talk about how he weak he is (and by implication how strong and strapping they are). Step out of your tiny ivory towers and do something for a change.
I’m very impressed at your ability to see into the eyes of Krugman and Reich and understand their motivations. Clearly they are bad men, for as you point out, their real motivation is to prove how strong and strapping they are.
Something, something, napoleon complex.
Yes, and look what labor has to say, only the chest-thumping EX-leader of the SEIU will go on record giving Obama a lot of advice and calling him weak:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/labor-steamed-debt-deal-blame-obama/story?id=14217019
Whenever somebody high profile like Krugman, or whoever, does a smack-down on Obama, that’s what it is: “I am rhetorically slapping you down, and I’m a bad ass and you are not.”
The farther away from the actual locus of power you are (which is the case with Krugman and bloggers, but NOT with unions, or OFA activists who in my experience haven’t even heard of Dkos) the more frustrating it is to know things and not be able to change things (at least for most politically oriented people), and so there’s a need to put down the father figure who putatively has all the power, and in the act of that criticism, raise oneself up.
I think there is that dynamic going on all the time. And by the way, this little reply is my own verbal smackdown of those people, so I a have a Napoleonic complex too, though I’m well above five and a half feet tall!
I was just making light of Reich’s height, actually.
I don’t think it takes any particular psychological insight to see that academics generally do not have an issue with expressing the certitude of their own positions.
His point is not that they are bad men, it’s that they don’t have brain one about politics.
I love the dual memes of “stop whining liberals you’re not in charge and you never will be!” and “if only you liberals would start supporting the President then stuff might happen!” And by “love,” I mean “find it extremely disconcerting that someone can be this dishonest and manipulative to supposed allies.
Um…it’s one or the other, not both. If “people like Reich and Krugman…might actually have an impact,” then why haven’t they had an impact yet?
It seems like you want people like Reich and Krugman to debase their credibility (and by extension, their principles) so that they’re just cheerleaders for whatever the Obama Admin wants to do. And in doing so…ponies will appear. Or something.
That’s not how the world works. If the collective credibility of Reich and Krugman is so solid that their opinions “might have an impact,” then you’ve got it backwards and it’s incumbent on the Obama Administration to listen to those voices. They’re not doing that, which blows away your theory that they “might have an impact.”
It seems like you want people like Reich and Krugman to debase their credibility (and by extension, their principles) so that they’re just cheerleaders for whatever the Obama Admin wants to do.
This is exactly the problem with people like you. You read BooMan’s piece in which he explicitly agrees with Krugman and Reich’s prescriptions for the economy and the policies they recommend, and in which he urges them to keep making the case for their economic polices, but takes exception to their personal attacks on the President, and what do you see?
You see a call for them to stop talking about policy.
You don’t even understand the difference, and that’s exactly the problem BooMan is talking about.
My point was in response to the comment that I was, uh, responding to. I even quoted from the comment. The quote was not from BooMan’s piece, and therefore my response with that quote is not in direct response to BooMan’s piece. Am I going too fast for you?
I’m not sure if this was just bad reading comprehension, or willful ignorance.
I’ll be interested to find out what the abortion rates are in this country ten years from now.
How anybody wouldn’t want to reelect the President, I’ll never understand. I genuinely respect this administration. That’s never happened before in my lifetime.
Awesome post. Very powerful.
Barack Obama last December: “Look, here’s my expectation — and I’ll take John Boehner at his word — that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen. And so I think that there will be significant discussions about the debt limit vote. That’s something that nobody ever likes to vote on. But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower.”
The President doesn’t seem to have a clue about how politics in Washington words.
<roll eyes>
And what other politically useful thing could he have said?
Seriously, has it never occurred to you that Presidents sometimes say things they don’t believe because it makes political sense. And just maybe you were not part of the intended audience. Did it occur to you that the polling done on raising taxes on the 250+ crowd is overwhelmingly popular, 70% and more in most of the polls. And the big spending Democrat meme was severely damaged by the President’s pushing for the grand bargain and 4 trillion in cuts (he knew they would never get). I predict that the talk from the Dems will be jobs, jobs, jobs and that Dems bent over backwards to protect Social Security and Medicare benefits when Republicans were hellbent on ending them.
I also encourage folks to take a look at the particulars of the deal. Here is an excellent place to start.
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html
Don’t give me that TPV bullshit. You ask them about HAMP? Bam!! Banned!! They don’t deal in facts. They are “clap louder” folks. Democrats are hellbent on saving Social Security? Have you ever heard Mark Warner talk, among a few others?
No, not all Dems and that is part of why it is so tactically stupid to always place the blame with the President. But pointing out Warner is not relevant. He won’t be running for reelection in 2012. Look at the conservative districts we have won. We campaigned on Social Security and Medicare. I am saying that we will be campaigning on Social Security and Medicare and that pointing out the few Dems who are not as solid in their support does not change this.
Tell me, do you usually find that the public statements of politicians are expressions of their truest feelings and impressions?
Because, perhaps being a bit older than you, I usually find that they are, in fact, strategic messaging intended to frame things.
When a politician praises his opponents’ reasonableness and responsibility, and expresses his confidence that they won’t be so appallingly irresponsible as to do X, it’s because he wants to make sure they look especially irresponsible when they don’t do X.
Screw Obama’s Corporate “Progressive” Liberalism. REVOLT LIKE AN EXYPTIAN. TAKE THE STREETS.
Were not Reich’s hands all over the trade policies that decimated the American manufacturing companies in the 90s? Does he just get a pass for that?
I agree mostly with Kurgman’s criticism on economic policy but his wanking on the political side is just too much.
Then again, Newt Gingrich proving how moronic he is called this the Krugman Presidency. He does not actually read his columns.
I mean the American manufacturing jobs that companies shipped over seas.
Globalization is here with us, and we need to get used to it. It’s economics. They didn’t kill American manufacturing, they just moved jobs around the country. Some people get screwed, most of America does better.
All in all, I don’t approve of free trade treaties because they always carve out special interests in them. It’s best to just remove barriers altogether.
Of course, you won’t hear professionals saying this about THEIR jobs, such as bringing in foreign doctors who will agree to make substantially less. The AMA won’t have that.
What you forget to mention is that the deals are all one-sided. In the interest of corporations, not people. And no, the jobs didn’t get moved around the country. They got moved offshore.
Not really. Protectionism isn’t helpful to anyone. I’m sorry, but in a globalized economy where our economy moves more towards services and away from Tier I and II jobs, this is what happens. We need to get used to it and plan for it.
But that doesn’t mean I approve of free trade deals. Like you said, they’re always one-sided. Not necessarily towards corporations — globalization is where that lopsidedness comes from. They’re lopsided towards one corporation over another rather than actual free trade because they carve out special exemptions and shit. That’s why I usually oppose these agreements even though I am a free trader.
You are right that policy wise there is little the President can do and even using the bully pulpit won’t change that.
That said I think the Democratic party’s lack of focus on jobs has been horrible and by party I mean from the President on down. With this congress job producing policies will not come into law. That means the Democrats should show that explicitly by introducing a large jobs package and making the Republicans speak against it. Every time they bring up deficits we bring up jobs.
Tie their intransgience on the debt ceiling to their intransgience on job creating measures. Make them eat the lack of jobs. The health care debate should have been tied to jobs by Democrats. As should this most recent debate.
You are right it wouldn’t change the policies. I think if stuck too doggedly it would let some people who aren’t engaged know that hey the Democrats are at least fighting to get me back to work.
Where many progressives make their mistake is assuming that a laser focus on the message of jobs will produce jobs creating policies. It won’t. Not with this congress. There is no bully pulpit big enough to produce the need jobs legislation in this congress
Likewise where establishment Democrats make their mistake is not running with the message even though they know no policy will come out of it.
This the trouble with a Wrecker mentality, it is one dimentional and Obama et al can reason all day but it’s not reasoning that wins.
Remember Speed, where Keneau shot his partner the hostage in the leg to cut him out of the equation? Well, Obama’s gonna have to figure out a way to shoot the hostage first…
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."A-FUCKING-MEN!! Lets get to work.
Your position has always been that the President needs to filter his vision of America’s future through the sieve of Republican acceptability. You think if he proposes something they shoot down it makes him look weak.
The opposite is true. The American people thirst for leadership and Obama must be the one to provide it.
You are correct that the majority of Americans don’t like the Tea Party and didn’t like the Ryan plan. The problem is that they don’t see an Obama plan.
And that Obama will not call out the Repukeliscum. He will not take a side. He should be out there for union workers in the FAA thing. He should be working in Wisconsin to end the Wisconsin fascist interregnum. But nope. Not for Mr. Bipartisanshit, Mr. “Men of good will working together”.
Nope, Obama will not call them out. So, they know that he’s a patsy, and they will continue to run the truck over his body.
You do know that OFA is all in on the Wisconsin recalls? And the union leaders didn’t want the President on the ground in Wisconsin because then it would have been about the President and not about teachers, and public employees.
The President on the ground in Wisconsin may have been cathartic and pleasing for some/most on the left–but tactically a very stupid thing to do if you actually care about the unions winning.
that Obama could do nothing.
This “helpless Obama” shit is absolutely annoying. HE CAUSES HIS OWN PROBLEM. Obama is helpless and at the mercy of the Repukeliscum BECAUSE HE HAS SET IT UP THAT WAY.
Concessions breed further hostage dramas. And the other thing that breeds hostage drama? When he comes out at the end of being absolutely mugged, destroyed, and totally screwed over, and says “We have a deal that no one is happy with” or more of that happy bipartisanshit shit that he loves so much.
That’s fine, so what should Obama have done to create a different outcome? The 14th? The route that folks wanted, not because it solved the problem, but just because it made him look like the sheriff at High Noon.
Certainly would have been cool from an optics stand point and sent a tingle up the legs of Progressives, but to achieving the goal of keeping the country from defaulting or strengthening the Presidents hand not so much.
Why we would have defaulted anyway. In order to avoid default the bond markets would have had to believe the full faith and credit of the US was Ok just on Obama’s say so. And thus bought T-Bills to get the cash flowing back into Treasury’s coffers. Questionable at best they would have done so. Next, The House would have moved to impeach almost immediately. A stupid move yes, but it would have thrown further doubt into the mix and really created a three ring circus dragging the economy down further.
The other option? Just say to the Republicans – fine go ahead bring the country down, I dare you. And you know what they would have done it. Why? Too many of the Republican House members thought default was actually a good idea.
So Progressives have a choice they can get in their circle and commence firing as they are doing now. Or they can actually stop looking at the big numbers and see what this legislation actually does and does not do. What it does short term is not much. A $7 billion dollar reduction in the 2012 budget of 3.7 trillion is not slash and burn. They can wake up and realize almost all of this can be undone or re-written by the next Congress before any of it takes effect, but that of course would mean they need to get out of their damn armchairs, stop whining and work to win back the House and hold the Senate. Will they? Maybe, but first they need to get over their poutrage at Obama and constantly thinking the world has come to end.
When you negotiate, you get a club. The 14th was Obama’s club. He took it off the table, without being asked, and got rolled. Again. Obama’s roll in life is to get rolled. He has a big line down his back that says “Fold Here”.
He’s the worst negotiator I have ever seen. He needed to say, early, often, every day at 9 AM: I want a clean debt limit raise, and I want it by July 25 to avoid spooking the market. I will veto anything else.
He needed to set the debate. He didn’t.
And when the House said not going to happen. Go ahead veto. We don’t care. We actually think default is a good idea. As you may recall The House did bring up a clean bill, just to prove a point, and defeated soundly.
And no offense deciding what kind of negotiator he is based on an outcome is not a good way to judge. The only way you would know if he is a good or bad negotiator is to actually negotiate against him or be in the room while negotiations are going on.
Personally after looking at the real numbers, when things might happen and how. There is more smoke and mirrors in this legislation that actual debt reduction or actual pain.
I strongly suggest. if for no other reason to get a bit of a different perspective you go read this: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/deficit-reduction
That is all correct except it glosses over what progressives have been saying for two years, which is that we need more stimulus or the joblessness is going to remain unacceptably high. That’s also true, but there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it.
Well there is something we can do about it, but will we is the question. We can stop complaining and work harder than we did in ’08 and certainly harder than we did ’10 to take back the House and hold on to the Senate.
I would argue that in most areas of the country “we” didn’t work anywhere near hard enough in 2010. And the Teabaggers ran completely afoul screaming about “Death Panels” and such. They got people to the polls and we didn’t.
This is not true in my district. We won nearly everything (in a formerly Republican-dominated county/congressional district.) We did good. We didn’t defeat the incumbent Republican rep, but he’s now out and the office is open. We’re doing an off-season special election to fill the seat and Kate Marshall is our lady to do it. She could use contributions, by the way.
But most of the country sat on their asses and did not work hard enough. They get defensive when you point this out, but that just shows how true it is.
Get involved. Find out where your county Dem Party office is and ask to volunteer. Get on the email lists to know what’s going on. Show up for the central committee meetings – every time. Give as much money as is practical for you to give.
Just get involved.
You will make some really excellent friends as well.
Thank you for the good work and for the excellent comment!
Consider this an over the internet shaking of the hand.
We (local Dems & OFA working together) started working a couple of months ago:
Planning next year’s strategy
Calling to line up former supporters
Recruiting candidates
Voter registration drives
Recruiting young people for the local party to be tomorrow’s leaders
Unless a local party is a pretty entrenched good ole boy group, they would likely welcome the help. The good ole boy system has got to be dying out, doesn’t it? Its already gone here.
Have you never seen two managers try to decide who takes the hit for a job that is late and has gone over budget.
Metaphors are dramatic, but that is not the way negotiation works in practice. And really, despite all appearances, not the way it worked in other administrations. Previous Presidents would never let a Gang of Six become public, but given the power of the finance and budget committees, they have always been there.
There is a degree to which the public is getting a civics lesson in the way that Washington actually operates to deliver the things that the public hates about Washington. Because it’s going to take public outrage and action to fix the system, and that hasn’t happened yet.
The system is broken. To say that is to say that just tinkering with what one player in the system does is not going to fix it.
I don’t understand think you. What if the President didn’t get rolled? You think all those Goldman-ites and other Wall Streeters gave him campaign cash out of the goodness of their heart?
Even Goldman Sachs wants more stimulus. Do you think they want this shit? If we let them shape policy towards growing the employment rolls it’d be better than what we’ve got, I’ll tell you that.
Really? Look at the stock market(except this past week). We have anywhere from 9% to 15% unemployment yet the market was shooting for the moon. I don’t think you understand what Goldman Sachs does. They mint money no matter what. Besides, a recession squeezes wages if you haven’t noticed. It helps keep a lid on labor costs. And the stock market loves that, if you ever notice(Ever notice why a company’s stock jumps when they announce layoffs?).
Read their reports. They argue for more stimulus. Goldman is the best at what they do. Their predictions on employment are the closest of most others, and they argue for more economic stimulus in the face of receding demand.
You seem really upset as of late. I wish I could help with that. I’ve read your wise commentary for so long that I feel like I know you and I can really relate to you, almost like we’re friends.
If you’re really angry, maybe it’s time to get involved in local politics, or at a minimum, take a few weeks off from blogs and go get yourself laid or something. Maybe a tropical vacation on a beach with no Internet access is in order.
When I say this I am not criticizing or picking on you. I am legitimately concerned about the level of stress you’re putting yourself through lately.
Politics can be very disappointing, especially if you became a “true believer” and are disappointed by your heroes. They’re all politicians. You just have to pick the lesser of the available evils. Then try to influence them to do the best they can under the political influences they face.
(Big Hug from Randy)
I hope you find a way to relieve the stress. It’s just not healthy to let it fester.
I’m at a tropical beach.
Yes, I’m upset with Obama. I won’t reiterate.
Compared with the number of comments I could have made, I have made very few, trust me.
I thank you for your comment.
.
Staying the course is not an option unless you’re winning …
See my new diaries:
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I read his book about his time in Clinton’s cabinet. He really hasn’t changed a bit from that period of time. He was stabbing Clinton in the back left and right. It was actually pretty funny. That book is surprisingly still relevant although not too helpful for present circumstances.
The problem with Reich’s analysis and over half of the other progressive analysis is the notion of presidential power. It is an assumption engrained by the way the media covers politics as a clash of titans. And it is rooted in persistent seeking to conflate the symbolic role of the President as head of state with the unitary executive power that is the essence of dictatorship or royalty. Obama has been weaning the people off this one-sided view of government ever since he started governing in January. He has made the Congress transparently the coequal branch at exactly a moment in history in which Congress, both parties, is dysfunctional in terms of representing ordinary people.
The second problem is the assumption that the President can or should stand up to the GOP without public mobilization or backing. Public opinion still is pretty much divided at the 50-50 line in spite of all the objective evidence that should drive it in the President’s favor. And the Republicans with their enabling media have driven up the deficit as a concern of the people.
The third problem is the difference between Republican analysts, Demcoratic analysts, and progressive analysts. Republican analysts are slaves to the talking points. Democratic analysts step on the talking points. Progressive analysts don’t believe in talking points. So when the media does deign to put on “contrary views”, those views are contradictory in statement and style. Now, there is a principled issue here that has to do with Demcoratic and progressive opposition to the whole idea of canned talking points. But there is also a Gresham’s law of information in which bad information drives out good information.
Untangling all of this and constructing a winning strategy is going to be a tough task. And it is not helped the usual circular firing squad behavior among those who are not Republicans.
The first objective of many is still to break the Republican grip on political power. We have seen that winning elections is a necessary but not a sufficient action in that struggle.
And there will be another objective beyond that one. And another one. Long before progressive ideas are considered mainstream in America. It’s like this. FDR could not win an election in 2012.
FDR would be hated by the same people as Obama is now only more so.
The problem is people are becoming aware of reality and they don’t like it one bit. They externalize their discontent and place it on Obama.
I’ve notice an uptick in the Clinton nostalgia and myth making lately.
Reich is a Clinton man. So is Krugman.
There has to be a tad of jealousy from Clinton people, both Bill and Hillary, that the ACA was passed and DADT, as well as other bills that were signed by Obama make Clinton look less than the ideal president.
Clinton signed the Wall Street freedom to cheat and profit bills that had a lot to do with the 2000 meltdown. That is not mentioned by his supporters. Or him. Clinton said he didn’t think those two laws had much to do with it. He later said that he wished he’d be known as the guy who stood up against the financial regulation.
Pardon the expression, but Clinton blew it when he fooled around with Monica Lewinsky and then lied about it because of the Paula Jones case. Had Clinton just settled the Paula Jones case in the beginning, he would have avoided all the drama of the impeachment etc. He ended up having to settle anyway.
Clinton also lied to the people that worked with him at the time of the scandal. That’s gotta hurt them as well.
It’s time to stop comparing Obama to FDR, Clinton or Hitler.
Clinton v. Obama, Obama v. Clinton
Not this PUMA – anti-PUMA shit again
Neither Reich nor Krugman are fronting for Clinton; what they have said has been consistent with their criticism of Clinton’s presidency as well.
The idea that Hillary would have done it differently is an illusion. The system is broken. There would be minor differences in how the shrill lady would have been treated than the way the media has treated the angry black man. But the Congress is the same Congress. The media is the same media that hunted Bill Clinton.
Enough of this divisive shit.
Obama is being compared to FDR because the economic environment is similar. Obama is being compared to Clinton because that was the last Democratic President. Obama is being compared to Carter because that one is the next one back, and so on. That is normal.
Obama is being compared to Hitler by folks who are fundamentally racist and have no understanding what the Third Reich was about. It happens.
The folks who are pumping Clinton right now are grasping at straws for a candidate, any candidate, any candidate at all who will punish Obama for calling them the “professional left” and treating them as if they only a small part of his base. There is no evidence that either Bill or Hillary agree. And my sense is that Hillary Clinton would rather accomplish some foreign policy successes before she considered running for anything.
But this sentence is right on the mark:
I didn’t mean that the Clintons had anything to do with Reich et al doing this. Sorry I wasn’t clear on it.
There has been a rise in the Clinton would do it better meme. Clinton came out twice with advice for Obama on the debt crisis. First was to do short term kick that can down that road. Second was, to do 14th amendment. The second piece of advice did get picked up and repeated. Washington Monthly had an article on it.
You know I don’t think HRC is any good. I’ll just leave that alone.
The idea that Hillary would have done it differently is an illusion.
Bingo!! Because she is a DLC/Third Way Democrat as well(it’s funny how some people conveniently forget that!!)
Excellent summary of the situation. I may not be a political expert but I negotiate for a living and I know something about that.
The problem with a lot (not all) of the criticism directed at the President from the left is that it all talks about what the President should have done, but doesn’t provide any process by which he could have done it. Yes, he could have demanded a clean bill regarding the debt ceiling, but he wouldn’t have gotten it in all likelihood. Sure there was a chance he would have, maybe 5%, and I guess for some that is a good enough chance to be willing to let the world economy really go down the drain.
Sure, he could have stood against the extension of the tax cuts on the wealthy, but unemployment benefits wouldn’t have been extended and his own party had already voted against extending the middle class only cuts.
Sure he could have pushed more for the public option, but that would have jeorpardized the entire passage of HCR, which has proven to be quite successful so far.
The one rule of successful negotiations is not to start at a point that is obviously not going to be accepted that the party your are negotiating with can use it against you. For example, starting with single payer would have definitely destroyed any chance for HCR.
Successful negotiation means knowing when to drop a demand because the cards are stacked against you, and when his own party wasn’t willing to support the public option, it became obvious that continuing to push for it would have been detrimental to getting even what he did get.
To those who say he embraces Republican policy, BS.
Look, he is not perfect and I don’t agree with all his solutions. But I do know that in the first 2 years more positive progressive policy has been enacted than during the previou 40+ years put together.
The stimulus package, although not enough, passed because he pushed hard to get it passed. And yes, it helped.
One of the real problems is that in 2010 his was just about the only voice in the public sphere (not the blogsphere) warnign about what woudl happen if the Republicans regained control of the House. His was about the only voice pushing the accomplishments of the previous 2 years. Most candidates ran away from HCR, the stimulus, etc.
And too many so called “reality-based” progressives were telling the world it didn’t make any difference if Republicans won because we had a Republican President anyway.
There folks is the main reason for the defeat in 2010. Democratic candidates who validated the President’s position as being a radical leftist. And Democratic members of Congress in the way that they responded to his proposals reinforced this impression with the public.
It Democratic candidates do this again, the party is dead.
Another symptom of a dysfunctional system.
I agree with almost all of what you said except about single payer. I was working on that issue and because so many people get their benefits through their employers, the idea of switching to a new system created a lot of anxiety. One of the ways I was able to reassure people who were nervous about reform was to explain to them that if they liked the insurance that they had now then they could keep it.
There is another aspect to the complaint that some people have about single payer and that is that the health insurance industry has expanded tremendously. It is more powerful than it was in the 90s when Clinton tried unsuccessfully to get reform. We are employed by it and invested in it–pensions and retirement funds. When the healthcare industry is 18% of GDP–it would be a very long and complicated process to try and extricate the insurance companies.
Yes, but would you rather pay the piper now, or later? Because our system as it is now is unsustainable in the long term.
Really? The only two options are pain now and pain later? Not to mention the fact that single payer would never,ever, ever have made it through the Congress. Why be disappointed about not getting something completely unrealistic?
I don’t think you understand. Even with HCR, the system is unsustainable. Look at what we pay for health care now. And with the baby boomers retiring it’s only going to get worse. Do you know what our long-term fiscal trouble will be?
I am actually quite well versed in the issue. I understand the problem of long term sustainability and the problem of rising health care costs.
I don’t think that you understand what the costs of switching to single payer would be and how long it would take to do correctly.
The ACA has already added years to Medicare’s financial solvency and it hasn’t been fully implemented yet. There is certainly much more to be done–especially when it comes to the reimbursement structure that will help significantly as well. Some of this is in the planning stages now.
You actually made my point. Even switching to a system such as the public option caused anxiety, even though the current system would still be available. Trying to push single payer would have increased that anxiety and the RW and ConservaDems would have been out in force with the “socialized medicine” meme. Even more, they would have been talking about how any reform was geared to end up as single payer and therefore shoudl be avoided. Trying to push single payer would have ended any move toward reform.
That’s why you’d call it Medicare for all. Even the Teahadist assholes love their Medicare, as I am sure you remember.
That still wouldn’t work. They love their Medicare does not me they would love for everybody to have Medicare. Hell, if paying doctors for consulting with their patients on end-of-life decisions turned into “death panels” think about what Medicare for all would have turned into.
I cannot adequately express how disgusted and angry I get when somebody tries to imply that there’s nothing President Obama and we should therefore leave him alooooooooooone. Perfect example:
Can you spot the dishonest contradiction in that passage? Here, let me emphasize:
If you want to argue that President Obama making the case for Keynesian economics won’t actually make a difference, that’s fine. But that’s NOT what you argued. You argued, essentially, that there’s nothing the President can do. But he absolutely can make the case for Keynesian economics. He doesn’t need the Fed or Congress or public opinion to give him permission to talk about fiscal policy.
He can make the case for Keynesian economics, if he wants to. He just chooses not to. And unless and until he (and the rest of the Democrats) take that one step that is under their control, they deserve every bit of criticism coming their way.
You can’t claim you’re hamstrung, while also refusing to do the one thing that you could do. That is the inconvenient truth that no loyalist wants to admit or even discuss.
Shame on you, BooMan, for being so dishonest about this.
There is no contradiction in that passage.
You, like a lot of people, simply don’t understand the difference between discussing policy and discussing politics.
A better example of BooMan’s point, I could not have invented if I tried. You actually think that “Make the case for Keynesian economics” and “Attack the President as weak because he couldn’t get a policy through” are the same thing.
And that’s the problem in a nutshell.
You are creating a logical connecter that doesn’t exist. I’m not saying to make the case for Obama to pursue Keynesian economics. I’m saying the opposite. Quit asking him to do something he can’t do.
If you want to write about how the Republicans are taking away all the tool’s at the president’s disposal, go right ahead, because that’s the truth of the matter.
So if I understand you correctly, it’s important that someone make the case for Keynesian economics (i.e. “go ahead make the case…”), but it is absolutely impossible for the President of the United States and the de facto leader of the Democratic Party to be that someone. Do I have that right?
If so, wow. If it’s impossible for the President to make the case, then I’m not sure what benefit we could expect from someone else (of inevitably lesser stature) making the case.
We fundamentally disagree on what the President can and cannot do, I guess. I think he can make speeches on alternative economic policies. And, uh, you don’t. Wow.
Jesus, you are obtuse.
You have to work to be so deliberately unable to follow a very basic logical structure.
When I say that you should stop asking Obama to do something he cannot do, I mean stop asking him to ask for something he will not get. He’s perfectly capable of making the same argument as Krugman makes, but it’s a waste of time because the very, very last thing the Class of ’10 is gong to do is revisit Keynesian stimulus. Hell would freeze over first. Once you recognize this, there is very little value to the president whimpering impotently that he can’t solve the unemployment problem because the voters elected a bunch of illiterates. And that’s really all people are asking him to do. They want him to yell at the Republicans as if that will change a thing.
It won’t.
You give up. It’s what you do. You have one mode: “I give up.”
“stop asking him to ask for something he will not get”…
“it’s a waste of time”…
“he can’t” …
“Once you recognize”…
…”as if that will change a thing.”
Really, the RNC should pay you for this shit.
Let’s review where we are: you wrote something that as written was not true. I pointed that out, and you responded by insisting that there was no contradiction, and actually repeated the contradiction. When I again pointed out the contradiction, you called me obtuse and then explained that you meant something different than what you wrote. Uh, how the hell am I supposed to know you meant something different than what you said?
You are responsible for your own communication. If you meant something other than what you wrote, then that’s your problem, not mine.
I actually addressed that point back in my first comment. Did you read it? I guess not, so let me help you out. Here is what I said:
Looking at this passage again, I’m still wondering how this slipped by you. Was I not clear? What did I express poorly?
Too often defenders of the Obama Admin like to blur the lines between what he should do and what he can do. A charitable interpretation of this possible pattern (you’re not the only one who does this) is that people who defend the Obama Admin’s economic policies are simply sloppy communicators. I suppose that’s possible, but then that doesn’t adequately explain why one would simultaneously be a sloppy reader when someone points out the distinction between “should” and “could.” Sloppy writing combined with sloppy reading, that just oh so coincidentally helps in the defense of bad economic policy? Hmmm. This is why I think this whole “there’s nothing he can do” meme is inherently dishonest.
I disagree with this, but I’ll deal with that in a moment.
How very inspirational. Lovely how you completely dismiss the impact of President Obama speaking to the public. A fine campaign strategy this is- “Mr. President, please don’t ask for what you need because you won’t be able to do it gracefully and the American people who elected you will think you’re an impotent whiner!” A defensive, defeatist crouch is no way to win reelection, certainly not when we’re close to 10% unemployment.
First, I get that speeches might not make a difference, but I don’t understand how that’s an argument against doing the right thing or, worse, for doing the wrong thing (by making speeches that embrace destructive economic policy). I agree they probably won’t accomplish anything in the short term, but in the long term I don’t think the President can maintain his credibility in claiming that he’s doing everything he can when in fact, he did NOT do the one easy & simple thing he could do.
Second, IMO it’s important and politically wise for the American people to hear something different than what the Republicans are selling. If both Democrats and Republicans agree on a destructive economic strategy in the middle of the Second Depression, I don’t understand how that’s going to benefit the sitting Democratic President in 2012. Can you explain that to me?
Lastly, there is other stuff he could do beyond giving speeches supporting an alternate economic policy. He has options available to him that do not require Congressional approval. They are unorthodox, but we’re in a real economic crisis here- unorthodox is IMO acceptable, and because it’ll help, it’s defensible and could perhaps end up being popular. David Dayen just wrote about this a day or so ago, and as I mentioned awhile ago in another post where you floated the dishonest “there’s nothing he can do” meme, a whole bunch of econ bloggers (e.g. Jared Bernstein, Mike Konczal, Paul Krugman, and I think Brad DeLong) discussed what was possible given Republican intransigence. You obviously missed that discussion. Huh.
…
I’m not sure I understand the political logic of acknowledging we’re in a real economic crisis on the one hand, but repeatedly feigning helplessness on the other. What part of “crisis” do loyalists not understand? In a crisis, you try everything, and nothing is out of bounds or a “waste of time.” If it might help, it’s worth trying because (wait for it) we’re in a crisis.
Voters are not going to like this implied passing of the buck. They never do. None of us would have given John McCain a pass on this, so I’m not sure why IOKIYO (It’s Okay If You’re Obama).
you’re hung up on a sentence that you insist on interpreting in a way I did not intend it to be interpreted. Don’t ask Obama to do something he cannot do, means don’t expect him to beg for a policy he cannot get. But the point is that he cannot get it. It’s not that he cannot beg for it. It is possible for you to understand this?
I agree there are other things he can do, although nothing I see as adequate to the problem. What he’s offered is patent reform, some free trade agreements, and an investment bank for infrastructure. He’s also trying to maintain funding for research and clean energy, and keep the ball rolling for creating a budding green economy.
So, he has some small-ball plans that can help marginally, but the one thing the 2010 elections meant, unambiguously, was that the public completely rejected the idea that we could spend our way out of this recession. So, we can’t. And it’s important that smart people continue to explain the rationale for spending our way out of this recession, but the president has to try other ways of fixing this problem, because that solution is closed to him.
I have criticized him for actually making an anti-Keynesian statement. I called it gratuitous and unfortunate. I called it triangulation, and I meant that as an insult. But that doesn’t mean that I think it is a useful way to spend his time to continue to insist on policies that will be laughed out of town.
Every Obama economic advisor has conceded that they miscalculated and thought, wrongly, that they’d get a second bite at the apple if the stimulus was too small. But they can’t get a second bite at the apple, so we need to adjust and stop beating a dead horse.
Your post, while true as far as it goes, is far too mild a criticism.
Thanks to Obama, the American people will have no better understanding of their real plight than they had before Obama came to office. He won’t teach, explain or even simply tell the truth.
Clearly, Obama is either a total dupe or he’s owned outright by the same interests which own and operate the Republicans. When the corporate election brokers decided on backing and running Obama, they knew exacyly what they were doing.
And, suicidally stupid Dem-followers–even at this late and truly desperate hour–haven’t figured it out.
BooMan, Congrats on the love you’re getting on dkos right now. Well deserved.
Booman, you are exactly RIGHT ON TARGET with this diary. Congratulations on making real sense. I am new to your blog, but shall now read you daily.
welcome to the Frog Pond “)
This diary is emblematic of the truly lost state of Democrats who, against all odds, can see what’s right under their noses.
You have incredible nerve to post a diary entitled “Know Your Enemies” and then peddle the delusional bullshit that you offer here about Obama.
Obama is not our “friend” because your friends don’t lie to you morning, noon and night as Obama does; nor do they lie to cover their own asses as Obama does; nor do they lie in order to dupe people even as they sell out those same dupes.
Obama, from the very first, was a conventional political hack and a totally inept negotiator. He’s doing the Right Wing’s work for it and very literally screwing the American people as he presides over the RW destruction of the economy and social fabric.
The ultimate goals of the RW globalisation neo-conservative bum’s rush is the complete destruction of every last semblance of democratic society–to give way to a dictatorial corporate fascism.
“Know Your Enemies”? Obama is our enemy and he’s doing to us what no openly-avowed RWer could get away with. And that is why the RW corporate elite LOVE Obama–when the microphones and the cameras are off.
You have no idea, Booman. None. Zero.
If we were in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1942, you (and Obama) would be encouraging everyone to cooperate and quietly get into the transport trains–that way, maybe our “hosts” will treat us better.
Obama is a fucking loser and a fool and he neither wants to nor knows how to put up a fight for a worthy cause, that is, if he could even recognize a worthy cause. People who still follow Obama deserve the shit-kickings they get from it.