Link to Column: "Obama's Very Good Week."
My response:
First, this is typical commentariat (which Brooks is a clear part of). You look at the event sof thsi week and then proclaim the world is as it is NOW is ho wit must have always been and will always be. Obama CAMPAIGNED in 2008 on not extending tax breaks for the wealthiest. He and congressional Dems dithered for two years and then put this off until the lame duck session. So poor political strategy and not delivering on one of his signature campiagn issues led to a situation where he had a poor hand and weak leverage. And I am supposed to congratulate obama for that?
As far as I know, on most core issue for progressives, a label I will wear less reluctantly than others, Obama and his team not only did the leas t they could do, but often went out of their way to piss on us for asking for more. Health reform, foreclsoure moritorium, Afghanistan, Iraq, DADT, taxes, a bigger stimulus and so on. So, I'll tell you poli sci 102: you do not win elections without a BASE and a COALITION. While some part of 2010's schellacking may have been due to normal historical shifts, part of it was lack of enthusiasm in his base. The shut up and get in line attitude towards one's base does not work well unless you deliver more.
Brooks says:
"You don’t have to abandon your principles to cut a deal. You just have to acknowledge that there are other people in the world and even a president doesn’t get to stamp his foot and have his way. "
Well, that seems like exactly the strategy of the Republicans. Stamp their foot and demand no START treaty, no unemployment insurance, no DADT until they get the estate tax. Boehner or McConnell said their primary goal is to unseat him. So, stamping their foot until they get their way seems to be what they are doing. Obama coddles them. And, the media and the commentariat coddle them. It is supposed to be Obama who needs to build bridges and be a network liberal instead of a cluster liberal. Fine. Where are the network Republicans he is supposed to do this with? So, I'll stomach no lectures from sanctimonious wankers about how Obama or the Democrats are the source of hyper partisanship. It is the Republicans and the way the media thought framework enables this (which I think the Conservative movement created by making the media jump at the thought of being called liberal). And see, somehow, for me to suggest this as valid fact gets chalked up in Brooks and the commentariat's world view to me being a "far leftie" or "cluster leftie" because they don't have the stomach to take a stand or to have any accountability to history.
No one in the chattering classes suggest the Republicans should moderate, should be network conservatives.
Posts
2 comments:
Here's an interesting analysis, written by an freelancer who's not part of the insider crowd, of what happened in 2010 and of how Obama could turn things around in the next two years:
http://www.sandiegocountynews.com/2010/11/09/how-the-republicans-managed-to-give-the-democrats-an-historical-%E2%80%98shellacking%E2%80%99/
So far, the President hasn't signaled that he's understood any of the points made in this article. He needs to throw an elbow in prime time to stop getting pushed around.
This so-called tax compromise was extremely dangerous for President Obama, and I hope that message got through. At some point he starts to look like just another politician and not the inspiring new figure that brought new people into the process in 2008. If people are leaving the Obama movement, that weakens the President and strengthens the (not always rational) other side. I understand wanting to keep the recovery going, but at some point you have to stand on principle. Extending unemployment benefits is good policy, but extending the tax cuts for the top 2% is not. And it's bad politics when they get called the "Bush tax cuts." When the Rs wouldn't agree to reinstate earlier rates for those making more than $1 million PER YEAR, the Dems should have made them vote on it and filibuster it. Then a majority of Americans would have understood that they weren't at all serious about the deficit, and that they weren't looking out for the middle class. Maybe the Dems should have accused the president of just wanting to cut his own taxes now that he's in the top 2% of earners. At least that would have been covered on TV.
Great comment anonymous. I agree that it was a failure of politics to let them be called the bush Tax Cuts. Why not the Bush deficit maker? Or surplus annihilator?
Post a Comment