New Developments III

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8055
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Okay okay, we get it. All you columnists who were enthusiastically boosting Obama during the campaign are now suffering buyers remorse two years later. What took you so long?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Post by taki15 »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....30.html

A progressive's answer to Obama

By Katrina vanden Heuvel


"This country was founded on compromise," remarked the president toward the end of last week's tax deal press conference. "My job is to make sure that we have a North Star out there." Perhaps Barack Obama is right to define his job that way. But in light of the negotiations that led up to this claim, it's hard to see what he has done to truly illuminate that North Star.

There is no question, in a political system warped and broken by corporate money and lobbyists, that a president intent on achieving "victories for the American people," as he described them, would require a sense of pragmatism, and a willingness to accept the compromises that, at times, will flow from it.

But too often, this president is so singularly focused on seeking common ground that he fails to define his - and our - principles. The tax cut deal is just the most recent example. Obama began those negotiations telegraphing his endgame, with eyes set unwaveringly on resolution. He chose not to passionately articulate his values, or to define the GOP's, and in the aftermath of the battle, he refused to explain where it's all meant to lead us.

This, he might conclude, is a minor complaint from a dismissible left. But the truth is, without a president who is able - and willing to - lay out a clear, strong and principled argument, without a president who will stand up for the ideals he ran on, even as he seeks resolution, the progressive worldview becomes muted, and the conservative worldview validated.


Obama has reinforced the notion, not by compromise but by relative silence, that we should fear changing tax rates in a time of economic crisis, even when economists of all stripes tell us that tax cuts for the wealthy offer extraordinary cost and zero benefit to the nation. He speaks most passionately not while lambasting a Republican Party that would drown the middle class on behalf of the wealthy, but when criticizing the left for not offering support at a time when he doesn't deserve it. Because he rightly expects the worst from the far right, he seems to have lost his sense of outrage toward them. The left, in turn, receives his overcharged and misplaced anger - suggesting an equivalence between the two when, in truth, there is none.

The fact is, there is no monolithic left of the type Obama imagines. That a number of progressive economists are supportive of the tax deal is, in itself, proof of that reality. There are few on the left who expect unwavering ideological purity, few who reject the notion of compromise at any time. Most of us understand the structural limitations of our political system and the need to achieve what is possible.

I met Obama once - when he was a candidate for president. On learning that I was editor of the Nation, he said to me, "The perfect is the enemy of good." Perhaps he expected me to disagree. I don't.

I don't disagree with the need to find balance, the need, at times, to compromise on policy. What I disagree with - and what I will never shy away from criticizing the president for - is his willingness to compromise on principle. Real leadership might require compromise, but it cannot be defined by compromise.

It must instead be defined by a clear vision for the future, and most important, a willingness to defend it. It should be focused not on what is possible but, instead, on the most that is possible; not the path of least resistance but the path of maximum potential benefit. That path doesn't trade away a federal pay freeze or a public option or more stimulus dollars for too little - or worse, for nothing. It doesn't begin with a willingness to relent.

A more aggressive stance from the president might not have substantially changed the contours of the ultimate tax deal, but it would surely have changed the narrative. It would have defined the Republican stance as morally indefensible.

Real leadership, too, should not be about merely accepting that you have popular support. It should be about mobilizing that support. "The fact of the matter is the American people already agree with me," said the president at his press conference. But he did not - and perhaps cannot - explain why he refused to use their support as a point of leverage.

These next two years present a daunting challenge. Once the new Congress is sworn in, any legislative movement forward on the progressive agenda (if any is possible) will require some form of compromise with an increasingly loathsome opposition. This is not a reality lost on any of us. But if reaching those compromises means a continued berating of the left, a continued lack of outrage toward the right and a continued willingness to strike deals without defining principles, then in the end, the president may well find himself with a modest list of achievements, a deeply demoralized base and a party that seemingly stands for nothing.
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Post by taki15 »

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010....-pity-2

The Sorrow And The Self-Pity

There is a case for the tax cut deal, as the best of a very bad situation. But Obama did not help that case yesterday by lashing out at “purists”.

Leave aside the merits for a moment: what possible purpose does this kind of lashing out serve? Will activists be shamed into recovering their previous enthusiasm? Will Republicans stop their vicious attacks because Obama is lashing out to his left? It was pure self-indulgence; even if he feels aggrieved, he has to judge his words by their usefulness, not by his desire to vent. This isn’t about him.

And beyond that, who are these purists? Yes, a few people on the left refused to support health reform over the lack of a public option — but not many. To the extent that Obama has had trouble selling that plan, “purists” weren’t a factor; his own lack of effective messaging was.

On taxes: there might be more forgiveness now if Obama had shown any sign of fighting before now. A new article by Noam Scheiber confirms the impression I and others had that the administration really didn’t push Congress to take up the issue:

"Within the administration, the split over whether to mount a tax-cut offensive broke down largely along wonk-operative lines. The wonks spent the last year mystified that the White House was ducking the fight when the substantive merits were so one-sided. The operatives brooded that the politics could abruptly turn against them, despite polling showing little public appetite for the upper-income cuts. “They view it through the class warfare stuff—Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000,” says one administration official. “They worry that they’ll get painted as lefties, tax-raisers.”

Let me add that Obama has never, as far as I can recall, pointed out that these horrible tax increases on the rich the GOP warns about would bring rates back to what they were under Bill Clinton — a time of enormous prosperity. But then, Obama has always had a weirdly hard time making the case that the Clinton economy refuted Reaganism.

Add in the White House’s repeated validations of the right-wing position on the evils of public spending, from the spending freeze to the pay freeze, the appointment of a conservative Democrat and a paleo-conservative Republican to head the debt commission, etc. — and now Obama expects trust and praise from progressives?

What’s particularly striking is that Obama seems passionate about denouncing his progressive critics, even as he has nice words for the people who have spent two years trying to destroy him.

So look: there’s a policy issue here, and it’s a tough one; you trade off the stimulus Obama extracted now for the increased likelihood that low taxes for the rich will be made permanent, crippling policy for decades to come. But there’s also a character issue: what we really don’t need right now is a president who blames everyone but himself, and seems more concerned with self-justification than with sustaining the alliances he needs.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8055
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Damien wrote:Tee, I hope you watched Rachel tonight. The great Ohio senator Sherrod Brown explained that what was so infuriating about the White House Wuss wasn't so much the end resulat but rather that he capitulated too soon. His point was that if the Democrats pushed the issue every day and if Obama had gone into states where a Republican senator is up for re-election in 2012 and kept pounding the unemployment insurance issue, eventually -- fearing the wrath of their constituents --several Repugs would have crossed over for the unemployed. Plus the fact that something like 3/4 of the country wanted the breaks for the top tier to expire.
That's a fatuous argument by now. We've had Obama for two years, and we're still expecting him to fight in this manner? It's not his way.

The tax cuts won't expire, but he still found a way to extend unemployment benefits and - most impressively - reinstate the estate tax. With this Republicans, that's not a minimal achievement. I know Mister Tee will faint dead away from my saying this, but I think the plan is fine... assuming it passes, and I'm not so sure it will.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Post by taki15 »

Mister Tee wrote:I think this is the left's equivalent of Obama's bipartisanship fetish -- a belief that persisting in a delusion will make it so. I have seen ZERO evidence in the last two years that any Republicans can be pushed into ANYTHING. Their capacity for holding to (seemingly) unpopular positions is unprecedented (and gven that tea-baggers have shown they'll primary ovr the slightest apostasy, all serious motivation runs the other direction). And the press being rigged the way it is -- Fox telling lies, and CNN shrugging and saying "who can know what the truth is?" -- means they pay no price for it. An awful lot of people seem to want to believe in a fantasy politics where virtue triumphs on its merits. Not here, not now.

Did Rachel asked Sherrod Brown (a guy I like a lot) why his fellow Senators didn't bring this up for a vote last summer, when the same pre-election pressure could have been applied? It's the goddamn Senate (or the small number of decisive votes) that's screwed up most things in the past two years, and their trying to push blame off on Obama for having to make the best of their mess is staggering gall.

taki, I'm guessing you didn't watch the press conference but only heard the firebagger reactions to it. Because 80% of it was spent excoriating the Republicans for acting as hostage-takers. Only at the end, a small sliver, was spent talking about liberal reaction, and that was in reaction to a direct question. Yet in Jane Hamsher-Land, the entire affair was spent lambasting "the base" (which Hamsher and her ilk narcissistically assume they represent). There are people on the left who at this point are looking to find microscopic insults. They're as full of shit as the tea-bag folk.

And I think this whole "he doesn't fight" thing is bullshit. What people mean when they say that is not that he doesn't try -- because, as I said, he was out all summer making the case, and has done that with numerous other issues. But, in several big fights, he hasn't been able to get members of Congress to shift position -- which is based in the utter intransigence of the GOP (and a few cowardly Democrats). And once the issue is lost, all the speechifying Obama's done is forgotten and people claim he didn't fight for it. What they mean is, he didn't fight AND WIN. Explain to me how all that changes, short of him oncovering a magic vote-changing wand.

I agree with you Mister Tee that no matter how hard Obama campaigned it would probably have made no difference. But as you know in politics perception is everything and the perception for Obama is that he is unwilling to play hardball and stand firm for his convictions, even when they are unpopular, like Bush did. When Republicans admit that the odious estate tax deal was even better than they expected, it's kind of hard for Democrats to believe that Obama did everything he could to defend his principles.

The congress might be a mess but I still fail to see how taking jabs at them will improve the situation for Obama. And it's only natural for liberals to be infuriated with the White House when they shut them out from negotiations, present them with an ugly compromise and demand from them to follow blindly its orders. Especially when they see the likes of Blue Dogs, Lieberman and Ben Nelson undermine every progressive priority without even suffering a slap on the wrist.

I saw the press conference and it was ugly. When a politician as well-known as Obama is asked what are his core convictions, then you know that things aren't going well for him (his answer about having a bunch of lines in the sand was pathetic). And you can't blame the press this time, the questions were all tough but fair and legitimate. It's not surprising that he lost his famous cool and became so agitated, in the end ranting against liberals.
Being called ideological purists who don't care about the people is no tiny insult.

I respect your faith to Obama Mister Tee but I don't think that criticizing him and pointing at his mistakes is a sign of unreasonableness. What I find ironic is that you rightfully point out at GOP intransigence as a major factor for not getting more things done but at the same time Obama himself undercuts your argument by going out and saying that his biggest mistake was not reaching out enough to Republicans.

BTW, Ezra Klein might have been favorable to the deal yesterday but today he points out why Obama and the Democrats might find themselves in big trouble the coming months due to their capitulation.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl....ll.html




Edited By taki15 on 1291841162
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3359
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

Ironically, as disappointed as I have been by Obama, particularly with the spending freeze and the pay freeze, I think he did a good job with this tax cut/unemployment insurance/etc. bill. What is so terrifyingly sad is that the deficit has become a political football with the right using fear of deficits to attack all non-military spending and the left doing the same to attack both military spending and tax cuts. What gets completely ignored is whether or not deficit reduction is the correct course at all, at a time when the federal government running massive budget deficits is the only thing standing between the United States and a second Great Depression and the country would actually be best served with the federal government running deficits that are even much larger than the current ones.

I don't know if I posted this before; but, here is an article written a few months ago by James Galbraith who I consider to be one of the few voices of sanity on this subject.

In Defense of Deficits
James K. Galbraith
March 4, 2010 | This article appeared in the March 22, 2010 edition of The Nation.

The Simpson-Bowles Commission, just established by the president, will no doubt deliver an attack on Social Security and Medicare dressed up in the sanctimonious rhetoric of deficit reduction. (Back in his salad days, former Senator Alan Simpson was a regular schemer to cut Social Security.) The Obama spending freeze is another symbolic sacrifice to the deficit gods. Most observers believe neither will amount to much, and one can hope that they are right. But what would be the economic consequences if they did? The answer is that a big deficit-reduction program would destroy the economy, or what remains of it, two years into the Great Crisis.

For this reason, the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the press, some economists and practically all politicians is one of the deepest dangers that we face. It's not just the old and the sick who are threatened; we all are. To cut current deficits without first rebuilding the economic engine of the private credit system is a sure path to stagnation, to a double-dip recession--even to a second Great Depression. To focus obsessively on cutting future deficits is also a path that will obstruct, not assist, what we need to do to re-establish strong growth and high employment.

To put things crudely, there are two ways to get the increase in total spending that we call "economic growth." One way is for government to spend. The other is for banks to lend. Leaving aside short-term adjustments like increased net exports or financial innovation, that's basically all there is. Governments and banks are the two entities with the power to create something from nothing. If total spending power is to grow, one or the other of these two great financial motors--public deficits or private loans--has to be in action.

For ordinary people, public budget deficits, despite their bad reputation, are much better than private loans. Deficits put money in private pockets. Private households get more cash. They own that cash free and clear, and they can spend it as they like. If they wish, they can also convert it into interest-earning government bonds or they can repay their debts. This is called an increase in "net financial wealth." Ordinary people benefit, but there is nothing in it for banks.

And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists. Bankers don't like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth. When a bank makes a loan, cash balances in private hands also go up. But now the cash is not owned free and clear. There is a contractual obligation to pay interest and to repay principal. If the enterprise defaults, there may be an asset left over--a house or factory or company--that will then become the property of the bank. It's easy to see why bankers love private credit but hate public deficits. . .

http://www.thenation.com/article/defense-deficits




Edited By Greg on 1291837844
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19608
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

The Congressional Democrats are starting to annoy me as well.

Jonathan Alter was on Andrea Mitchell Reports saying it was the liberals, led by Russs Feingold, who convinced Obama not to push for a vote on taxes prior to the election. Now we have Barney Frank saying he thinks the deal will pass, but he won't vote for it. How many will he take with him?

And what's up with Harry Reid calling for votes on the Dream Act and other bills prior to the vote on the tax bill knowing the Republicans won't vote for anything until the tax bill is passed? They won't vote for it afterward either, but they won't have the pending tax bill to hide behind.

Suddenly, the White House is looking like the only reasonable bunch in Washington.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8783
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Damien wrote:His point was that if the Democrats pushed the issue every day and if Obama had gone into states where a Republican senator is up for re-election in 2012 and kept pounding the unemployment insurance issue, eventually -- fearing the wrath of their constituents --several Repugs would have crossed over for the unemployed.
I think this is the left's equivalent of Obama's bipartisanship fetish -- a belief that persisting in a delusion will make it so. I have seen ZERO evidence in the last two years that any Republicans can be pushed into ANYTHING. Their capacity for holding to (seemingly) unpopular positions is unprecedented (and gven that tea-baggers have shown they'll primary ovr the slightest apostasy, all serious motivation runs the other direction). And the press being rigged the way it is -- Fox telling lies, and CNN shrugging and saying "who can know what the truth is?" -- means they pay no price for it. An awful lot of people seem to want to believe in a fantasy politics where virtue triumphs on its merits. Not here, not now.

Did Rachel asked Sherrod Brown (a guy I like a lot) why his fellow Senators didn't bring this up for a vote last summer, when the same pre-election pressure could have been applied? It's the goddamn Senate (or the small number of decisive votes) that's screwed up most things in the past two years, and their trying to push blame off on Obama for having to make the best of their mess is staggering gall.

taki, I'm guessing you didn't watch the press conference but only heard the firebagger reactions to it. Because 80% of it was spent excoriating the Republicans for acting as hostage-takers. Only at the end, a small sliver, was spent talking about liberal reaction, and that was in reaction to a direct question. Yet in Jane Hamsher-Land, the entire affair was spent lambasting "the base" (which Hamsher and her ilk narcissistically assume they represent). There are people on the left who at this point are looking to find microscopic insults. They're as full of shit as the tea-bag folk.

And I think this whole "he doesn't fight" thing is bullshit. What people mean when they say that is not that he doesn't try -- because, as I said, he was out all summer making the case, and has done that with numerous other issues. But, in several big fights, he hasn't been able to get members of Congress to shift position -- which is based in the utter intransigence of the GOP (and a few cowardly Democrats). And once the issue is lost, all the speechifying Obama's done is forgotten and people claim he didn't fight for it. What they mean is, he didn't fight AND WIN. Explain to me how all that changes, short of him oncovering a magic vote-changing wand.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19608
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

In the end, though, there is reality. Reality is that the deal Obama cut is the best deal the Democrats would have gotten if they let this drag on.

Should the progressives be angry? Damn right, for a day or two, but they need to get over it, vote for the package and get on with other things that need doing.
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Post by taki15 »

Mister Tee wrote:
taki15 wrote:Ezra Klein might have the answer to Mister Tee's befuddlement on why liberals are furious with Obama.
I'm not befuddled at all. I've come to see, over the past two years, that many liberals would rather expire on the battlefield than win a negotiated peace on less than perfect terms.

And I don't know where Ezra was ALL FUCKING SUMMER, when Barack was out making the argument every day that Dems should extend the middle class cuts only. Was that not fighting? Why aren't people blaming the Congressional Dems who were terrified of bringing it to a vote, and laying it all on the guy whose position was clear?
Even if Obama is 100% right (and IMHO he isn't) I don't see how lashing out at his base improves his political standing or his electoral prospects. His press conference was a disaster and the optics were terrible.
Bush and Rove trashed Evangelicals too but had the common sense to do it in private.

The House has been burned many times by passing legislation only to see it die in the Senate. I don't blame them for wanting some guarantee that the same wouldn't happen with the tax cuts extension.

And the fact is that as Jon Avlon mentioned, the only thing that Democrats and Republicans agree these days in DC is that Obama is one of the worst poker players ever. His spending freeze gambit was the latest proof of that.

To repeat Josh Marshall's words from last year's public option fight: I think people are pissed right now less at the fact that they didn't get what they wanted, and more at the fact that they feel like their people didn't really fight for it. Leaders don't always get what they want. But people recognize when true leaders at least give it a shot. And people judge that leadership by what they say in public and how hard they see them publicly pushing for it. Closed door negotiations don't count.
People don't like wimps, no matter what party.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

I dunno, Damien. The sheer fact that you call them Repugs suggests the opposite.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Tee, I hope you watched Rachel tonight. The great Ohio senator Sherrod Brown explained that what was so infuriating about the White House Wuss wasn't so much the end resulat but rather that he capitulated too soon. His point was that if the Democrats pushed the issue every day and if Obama had gone into states where a Republican senator is up for re-election in 2012 and kept pounding the unemployment insurance issue, eventually -- fearing the wrath of their constituents --several Repugs would have crossed over for the unemployed. Plus the fact that something like 3/4 of the country wanted the breaks for the top tier to expire.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3359
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Post by Greg »

Mister Tee wrote:You might go back and research the periods just after the '82 and '94 midterms; you'll find there were equally gloomy assessments (often by the same pundits) of the road ahead. Yet each of the two presidents involved was re-elected resoundingly two years later.
The big difference is it does not appear that the economy will head up the way it did after '82 and '94. If the economy does not pick up substantially, and specifically if there is not the creation of a massive number of jobs, I don't think Obama, or any incumbent President, will have a chance to be reelected in 2012.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8783
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

taki15 wrote:Ezra Klein might have the answer to Mister Tee's befuddlement on why liberals are furious with Obama.
I'm not befuddled at all. I've come to see, over the past two years, that many liberals would rather expire on the battlefield than win a negotiated peace on less than perfect terms.

And I don't know where Ezra was ALL FUCKING SUMMER, when Barack was out making the argument every day that Dems should extend the middle class cuts only. Was that not fighting? Why aren't people blaming the Congressional Dems who were terrified of bringing it to a vote, and laying it all on the guy whose position was clear?
taki15
Assistant
Posts: 545
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Post by taki15 »

Ezra Klein might have the answer to Mister Tee's befuddlement on why liberals are furious with Obama.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl....de.html

...

Which brings us to the liberals. My conversations with various progressives over the past 24 hours have convinced me that the problem is less the specifics of the deal -- though liberals legitimately dislike the tax cuts for the rich, and rightly point out that Obama swore to let them expire -- than the way in which it was reached. Put simply, Obama and the Democrats didn't fight for them. There were no veto threats or serious effort to take the case to the public.

Instead, the White House disappeared into a closed room with the Republicans and cut a deal that they'd made no effort to sell to progressives. When the deal was cut, the president took an oblique shot at their preferences, saying "the American people didn’t send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories." And this came a mere week or two after the White House announced a federal pay freeze. The pattern, for progressives, seems clear: The White House uses them during elections, but doesn't listen to, or consult them, while governing. In fact, it insults them, and then tells them to quiet down, they got the best bargain possible, even if it wasn't the one they'd asked for, or been promised.

If you're worried about stimulus, joblessness and the working poor, this is probably a better deal than you thought you were going to get. "It’s a bigger deal than anyone expected," says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Both sides gave more expected and both sides got more than expected." The White House walked out of the negotiations with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases, utterly betrayed.

That the Obama administration has turned out to be fairly good at the inside Washington game of negotiations and legislative compromise and quite bad at communicating to the public and keeping their base excited is not what most would have predicted during the 2008 campaign. But it's true.




I guess Obama's rant today against "progressive purists" that reject the deal isn't going to make him more popular among his base.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”