Negotiating With Republicans
What President Obama will soon discover (and I suspect is already well aware) is that negotiating with Republicans in Congress is a pointless endeavor unless you absolutely need their votes. This is particularly true of Republicans in the House of Representatives who, as I've written several times before, are a whole different breed of crazy. The last two election cycles have purged the House GOP of virtually all members who represent anything but the safest, reddest districts in the country. Those who remain are either unpersuadable ideologues or shameless partisans who can be counted on to act in bad faith at all times.
They may string you along for a while, but at the end of the day, these folks are not going to support any Democratic initiatives in significant numbers. I suspect that Obama (and Rahm Emmanuel especially) know this and are just trying to go through the motions now so they can later claim that they made a good faith effort at bipartisanship. Many are suggesting that is yet another example of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown at the last second. That may be true, but I suspect that the Obama team is knowingly playing that role. After all, everyone likes Charlie Brown and no one likes Lucy. And in this case, Charlie has his own holder as backup.
I think we're so used to Democratic incompetence that many find it hard to believe that the Obama team actually knows what it's doing. But given their track record of competence so far, I'm tempted to trust that they have a plan and withhold my strategic criticism until the results are in.
They may string you along for a while, but at the end of the day, these folks are not going to support any Democratic initiatives in significant numbers. I suspect that Obama (and Rahm Emmanuel especially) know this and are just trying to go through the motions now so they can later claim that they made a good faith effort at bipartisanship. Many are suggesting that is yet another example of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown at the last second. That may be true, but I suspect that the Obama team is knowingly playing that role. After all, everyone likes Charlie Brown and no one likes Lucy. And in this case, Charlie has his own holder as backup.
I think we're so used to Democratic incompetence that many find it hard to believe that the Obama team actually knows what it's doing. But given their track record of competence so far, I'm tempted to trust that they have a plan and withhold my strategic criticism until the results are in.
posted by A.L. at 9:38 AM
21 Comments:
That's the sense I get from it as well. Obama's team demonstrated themselves to be too politically astute to actually get rolled by John Boehner, and the President doesn't personally lobby Henry Waxman to do something for the fun of it. My guess is that they're trying to establish a narrative in which they did everything within reason and then some to accomodate Republicans, but the GOP voted against the bill anyway, proving they were never acting in good faith. The idea being to give them cover to more or less ignore the GOP later. Or they could just be trying to bait Republicans into saying and doing painfully ridiculous things in public. Either way I doubt that what you see is what you get.
But ... stripping the family planning funding from the stimulus bill is more than "going through the motions".
A simple explanation to what Republicans are looking for in the Stimulus Bill from Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8pHHJTejwY
I like your take, AI. Makes me worry less. And I also see things like the family planning stuff (which can/will be voted on separately later) might have been in there JUST so Obama could "work" to get them taken out. Good optics for conservative voters who will view this as Obama being bipartisan, then when the GOP votes en masse against the bill, at least he tried.
AL- for simplicity’s sake, lets assume that there are two basic ideas of how to construct a “stimulus package.” One is to have a number of public works projects and other government spending that will create jobs and stimulate consumer spending. The other is to cut taxes like the corporate tax, the capital gains tax and the income tax in order to stimulate business spending, job creation and investment.
The House Republicans who believe that the first approach is wrong and the second approach is right may be, as you say, “unpersuadable ideologues.” But it follows logically that President Obama is either himself an unpersuadable ideologue or is genuinely open to considering either approach. You seem to assume that he is both an unpersuadable ideologue and insincere in claiming to be otherwise. Shouldn’t someone who supports Obama make the opposite assumptions?
Why do you resist the Hope and the Change?
MLS,
It is a false dichotomy to assert that a person has to be either an ideologue or insincere in considering a whole range of possible actions for inclusion in a package which must:
a) provide both short-term and long-term stimulus and
b) get through the most dysfunctional branch of the government, inhabited by prima donnas like Boehner, nitwits like Bachmann, and lying bastards like Vitter.
I don't know why some people can't understand that.
But it follows logically that President Obama is either himself an unpersuadable ideologue or is genuinely open to considering either approach.
Only if you think realizing that more of the same policies we have had for decades and helped create the mess aren't going to get us out of it makes him an unpersuadable ideologue. Conservative ideas have been tried and tested thoroughly and have failed, except for those who profit from disaster and misery. Being willing to recognize that and insist on something different doesn't make him an ideologue, it makes him rational. It certainly seems that Obama has been more than willing to listen to differing ideas, but compromising with people who insist on doing only what has already failed is not a smart thing to do, especially since he will end up being held responsible for the failure, not them.
I don't know why some people can't understand that.
For decades our national political 'discourse' has consisted of 99% pure conservative ideology with little or no criticism allowed. Splitting the difference between reality and nonsense is called balance by anyone in the national media who wants to be considered respectable. At this point the concept that a conservative idea or policy could be rejected not due to bias or partisanship but because it is objectively wrong is something completely alien to a lot of Americans.
What President Obama will soon discover (and I suspect is already well aware) is that negotiating with Republicans in Congress is a pointless endeavor unless you absolutely need their votes.
He doesn't need their votes. What he needs is the cover of a phony-baloney form of bipartisanship. If the economy is no better or worse in two years, the Democrats (including Obama) can continue to blame the Republicans, and a compliant media will help do this. What Obama doesn't want is for him and his party to own this mess of a bill if the recovery doesn't occur by the next mid-terms. That's why he's negotiating with Republicans. And every single Republican should vote against this bill and let the Democrats own it. I think it's a gamble worth taking since more than 90% of this bill has nothing to do with stimulating the economy.
Only if you think realizing that more of the same policies we have had for decades and helped create the mess aren't going to get us out of it makes him an unpersuadable ideologue. Conservative ideas have been tried and tested thoroughly and have failed, except for those who profit from disaster and misery.
Combined, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, prior to 2008, were more than 50% of the federal budget. These are majority of the government's infrastructure. These liberal boondoggles have been around for the last 7 decades, and are increasing all the time. The only reason why welfare isn't as bad as it was because of Gingrich and the Republicans more than a dozen years ago.
The problem is not enough conservative ideas have gotten implemented. The only ones profiting from disaster and misery are liberal Democrats, and only because they've been able to get away with lying about what they've done. Case in point:
For decades our national political 'discourse' has consisted of 99% pure conservative ideology with little or no criticism allowed.
Gosh, thanks, Steveil. Adding your information to the fact that, since 1982 and continuing past at least 2012, FICA has paid in more than SS benefits have paid out, this means that FICA taxes, a regressive flat tax with a cap, has been apparently paying for most of the federal government.
Who knew?
Alas, I fear that your words are true.
It was a short honeymoon.
I will go along with your hope IFF family planning is put back in by the senate, the tax cuts for big business is taken out and that bill then passes the senate, goes to committee, emerges just like that and is passed by the house just like that.
Those 11 dems better hope they voted against it because they wanted family planning in, tax cuts for the rich corps out and wanted to attach removal of Bush's tax cuts for the rich too. Those are the only excuse they have.
The last two election cycles have purged the House GOP of virtually all members who represent anything but the safest, reddest districts in the country. Those who remain are either unpersuadable ideologues or shameless partisans who can be counted on to act in bad faith at all times.
This makes no sense. If those who remain are only from the safest districts then they can pretty much vote however they want. So what you're saying is that safe GOP districts vote only for unpersuadable ideologues, which is pretty much the same thing as saying that Republican voters are stupid. That's a point worthy of debate, but it would be nice if you weren't disingenuous about it.
I suspect that Obama (and Rahm Emmanuel especially) know this and are just trying to go through the motions now so they can later claim that they made a good faith effort at bipartisanship.
I suspect you're right, but there's an interesting side effect to this that greatly serves the public interest: When this bill passes, the Democrats are going to own it, and further own it with a body of opposition debate that Obama will have tacitly blessed as having been provided in good faith. If the bill works, the Dems are in the catbird's seat for a very long time. If it doesn't, well, that will be instructive as well, won't it?
But given their track record of competence so far, I'm tempted to trust that they have a plan and withhold my strategic criticism until the results are in.
Would this be something like--whadaya call it--blind faith? I seem to remember this quote from somewhere:
"The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
Where did I see that?
The Radical "Moderate":
So what you're saying is that safe GOP districts vote only for unpersuadable ideologues, which is pretty much the same thing as saying that Republican voters are stupid.
I must have missed something in logic class, because that sounds to me like an enormous non-sequitur.
republicans are stupid. there, nothing to parse words over. i will also add that they are greedy, controlling, and childish.
if republicans don't like that kind of talk they can go back to hitting on young boys and blowing strangers in bathrooms.
The Charlie Brown/ Lucy analogy is great. I agree in withholding judgment until something actually happens, but I'm pretty sure you shouldn't be basing your confidence on "their track record of competence so far". It has been less than two weeks.
RM,
It is a well-understood and researched phenomenon that "safe" districts tend to send more and more extreme representatives to Congress. This is true on the left as well as the right, but, due to recent history and the makeup of the current GOP base, it is far more strong a tendency on the right at this time (nationally).
The reasons for this are several:
Once the party doesn't need to worry about the electorate, they naturally tend to become more "purist."
The people who choose candidates aren't the voters, even the voters registered in a particular party. They're the activists or "leadership", who tend to be more extreme than the typical voters.
Even when there are primaries in "safe" districts, they tend to favor the more extreme partisans, because the winner of the primary is assured of a win in the general, and the way to win a primary is to run toward your base.
I thought this was pretty well known, but then, I thought everybody loved Lucy. Even the Charlie Brown version. She had a purity of spirit that you just had to admire.
and much like the republicans, lucy is very predictable (and mean-spirited)
Here is an observation by Jonathan Chait that seems pertinent:
"It's kind of funny how, when it comes to domestic politics, many liberals employ assumptions about human naturethat are wildly at odds with the assumptions they use about human nature when it comes to foreign policy. When you read the liberal blogs on domestic politics, concessions to the enemy are always counterproductive, will must be met with will, etc. When you read them on foreign policy, all those asumptions are flipped on their head. I'm not saying that these two sets of assumptions are completely impossible to reconcile, but it is pretty odd how easily they sit together"
Previous Anonymous said,
"republicans are stupid. there, nothing to parse words over. i will also add that they are greedy, controlling, and childish.
if republicans don't like that kind of talk they can go back to hitting on young boys and blowing strangers in bathrooms."
And resorting to the name calling and insults in your response is not childish? Regarding the blowing, did you forget about Monica? Regarding the controlling, who wants to spend/take taxpayers money without reasonable debate? Greedy, if me wanting to keep as much of my hard earning money as possible for my family then I guess I'm greedy.
Update:
Republicans have now gotten 42% of the bill for their tax cuts which are NOT stimulative. I can't help but wonder WHY Ds give in to the bullhockey of tax cuts. When they don't work, it will be blamed on Obama and the Ds BUT the Repugs will have gotten what they wanted in the first place. Give me a Break! Make bipartisanship a thing of the past. Write the bill without Republican tax cuts, bring it up for a vote and make them filibuster it on the floor like it's supposed to be done. Let it be voted down. Then give in to a few tax cuts targeted only to the middle class and make speech after speech after speech after commentary about obstructionism in a time of desperation.
and much like the republicans, lucy is very predictable (and mean-spirited)[[[
..Not like the nice Liberal democrats who'll happily defend the barbaric sucking the brains out of a viable human baby (even if a toe is still inside)or the starving to death of a helpless woman all with a gentle smile on their kind lips.
The democrat party is the party of death, no amount of fiscal magic will change that. In my house, we call the democrats 'deathocrats'.
dina
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home