The New Republic

"often rank stupidity is at work" Best laugh I'll have all day JC. Thanks! And I agree with you, the WH as a collective aren't good negotiators.

- tmmats

June 22, 2011 at 8:59am

Deficit religion from Orszag? While it's true Orszag was considered a deficit hawk while at OMB, it was Orszag who, in his first article in the NYT after leaving the administration, argued in favor of the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

- rayward

June 22, 2011 at 9:21am

I think there's a fairly simple explanation involving some combination of the two. Obama was genuinely interested in a deal to address long-term deficit issues. So he probably figured that if the Republicans are going to hold up the debt ceiling increase, why not use it as an opportunity to get a deal to address long-term deficit issues. The problem, as Chait frequently notes, is that this incentivizes dysfunctional hostage-taking behavior by Congressional Republicans. But a failure to recognize the negative impact of a short-term decision on long-term structural incentives does not really reflect rank stupidity or incompetence. It's pretty common human behavior.

- RerunStubs

June 22, 2011 at 9:27am

"As for Drum, "they couldn't possibly be that stupid" is a classic error. I've made it myself. One of my general rules of interpreting human behavior is never to assume a complicated plan is at work when incompetence is available as an explanation. Incompetence can involve many factors, and often rank stupidity is at work. I agree that Obama is not stupid, but how many memoirs of presidential decision making have we seen that emphasize bureaucratic inertia, lack of good information, panic, exhaustion, distraction, and so on?" How true!

- arnon

June 22, 2011 at 9:37am

They are bad negotiators because the have no political strategy whatsoever. To form one would necessarily require: (1) gaming out Republican moves and counter-moves, (2) figuring out a rhetorical line than can be hewed to consistently by the president and congressional leaders, (3) figuring out how policy decisions and politics can be used to advance each other. There is no evidence whatsoever since the inception of this administration that they have done any of this. The evidence is that most of what they do is completely ad hoc. A smart guy I worked for a long time ago taught me that even a mediocre strategy pursued consistently will trump no strategy every time. I have had in the intervening 30 plus years more than enough opportunity, in both directions, to observe that this is correct. It describes exactly what we are looking at as between the two parties, the mediocre strategy of the Republicans, same set of lies repeated endlessly, is trumping the absence of any strategy on the part of the Democrats. No sane person could have willingly decided that negotiating with Republicans with a gun to your head is clever, subtle, or anything other than a recipe for disaster. Not smart. Dumb. The same guy also taught me that it is possible to be "too clever by half." If this was a deliberate choice rather than a horrid oversight, that makes it even worse. The debt ceiling should always be raised at the time a budget is adopted in order to accommodate that budget. It didn't used to be necessary to take this precaution. Now it is, and Obama should have seen it coming when he acceding to extending the Bush tax cuts.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2011 at 9:38am

I also agree that: " He could have negotiated a budget deal with Republicans the way Bill Clinton did -- by negotiating over the budget, with the threat being a government shutdown that would probably benefit him politically, rather than a debt default that could blow up his own election." I hope Obama team smarten up and stop thinking that any compromise no matter how ruinous for working people is what will get him re-elected. It won't.

- arnon

June 22, 2011 at 9:40am

Off topic, here is an excellent WaPo piece on executive compensation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html

- liberalref

June 22, 2011 at 9:47am

People, I have a capital idea. I think that Barack Obama should make roid his Everything Czar. In my vision, roid would be the administration's premier strategist. He would lay down the grand narratives that Obama and his people would adhere to. They would coordinate with the Democrats in Congress. Also, given that roid fancies himself as something of a policy wonk, he should be delegated substantial policy-making powers, too. if this were to come about, could you imagine the victories that our side would roll up? We would be unstoppable. Like the 1962 New York Mets.

- liberalref

June 22, 2011 at 9:56am

- Obama is persistent, that quality can only be appreciated in retrospect. Consider, the opposition is daring to speak of the necessity of increasing revenue. Coburn said, "We’re going to fix the country, and some of that is going to be revenue increases, that’s the only way you’re going to build a compromise and get it signed by this president.". It's never been a matter of preferring a bipartisan agreement, a reform of tax policy wouldn't get through the Senate in '09, '10 or now along a party line vote. It's naive to think either party would ignore their interests until crises demanded they shift their focus.

- michaelg

June 22, 2011 at 10:11am

You can't get a bi-partisan agreement, when one side refuses to compromise, or even recognize your compromises AS compromise. All you can choose then is to fold and let the other side "win" (though in this case that means lunatic policies that damage the economic recovery) or to stand pat and let your stronger position and conditions force THEM to fold. And if you want to be a Democrat, you should make some compromises in their direction, even if they'll refuse to acknowledge that you've done so. You do get better policy that way. But if the Republicans DEMAND further spending cuts, damaging the recovery, there's no compromise there. And Obama has the stronger hand -- he's the PRESIDENT for heaven's sake, and he has the Senate behind him (mostly), and if Republicans force a default then even the lunatic Tea-Party will probably stop supporting them. Besides, Obama also has the superior Economic Policy -- let the Bush Tax-Cuts lapse, bring some soldiers home, continue stimulus spending, cut Defense, implement the ACA to reduce Medical expenditures. If the Republicans can't sign on to ANY of that, then America NEEDS the Republicans to fold. Because letting them win will damage America.

- AllanL5

June 22, 2011 at 10:40am

As ever, lib, you comment on other posters because you don't dare speak to the subject at hand. Even you know that expressing an opinion would open you to ridicule. Best for you to confine yourself to linking to off-topic articles. That way you cannot possibly get into any trouble. There is no expression of your own and not even any risk that the point made in the reference will be an embarrassment.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2011 at 10:44am

What sort of illegal substances are you doing, r.? I comment on the issue(s) under discussion all of the time. Even by your standards, your comment is egregious.

- liberalref

June 22, 2011 at 10:56am

Roid: "They are bad negotiators because the have no political strategy whatsoever. To form one would necessarily require: (1) gaming out Republican moves and counter-moves, (2) figuring out a rhetorical line than can be hewed to consistently by the president and congressional leaders, (3) figuring out how policy decisions and politics can be used to advance each other. There is no evidence whatsoever since the inception of this administration that they have done any of this." It is more likely that you may not understand their strategy. While I agree with Jonathan Chait that "they couldn't possibly be that stupid" is a classic error, in this case, it doesn't square with the fact that these dithering idiots in the White House somehow keep getting some pretty good results given the political circumstances. The Republicans on the other hand have done all the things that would make them great negotiators by your definition, and have got nothing much to show for it, but I digress. Supposing Obama and his advisors have gamed out the Republican moves/counter moves and decided that maybe, just maybe, being perceived as a politically naif and a weak compromiser-in-chief, is in itself a strength, the kind of strength necessary to get results in this current political environment. I call it the Briar Patch Theory, which someone else seems to have beaten me to: http://bit.ly/mqZoIr [Basically, my theory is that Obama is Brer Rabbit and the GOP/Tea Party is Brer Fox and that the GOP threw Obama into the "briar patch" when it comes to both the recent budget bill negotiations AND last fall's extension of the Bush era tax cuts. Here is why I think that. First of all, the cuts to future budgets are not going to be painless but I thing Obama knows that they need to be done and the amount he "gave up" on the 2010 budget (the one they almost just shut the government down over) still amounts to less than a 2% cut of the total budget AND the GOP really didn't get ANY of the significant social issue riders that they wanted as part of the deal. In other words, I think Obama was willing to concede on the money issue because he knew it HAD to happen and yet he was able to prevent the vast majority of cuts to specific programs that would have really alienated his base (e.g. EPA, PELL grants, Planned Parenthood, etc).]

- wkwami

June 22, 2011 at 1:30pm

We all want Obama to be something he's not. He's is a process President, not a principles President. He has policy goals, but they are secondary to his process goal--that is, to work with opponents. He doesn't try to make political capital (he doesn't use the bully pulpit, he doesn't use the veto pen), but rather works within the political environment as it exists. He doesn't argue, he debates. So Chait sees him "blundering" (because they give up policy ground) but the administration sees itself as winning (because they're making progress on big issues).

- polcereal

June 22, 2011 at 1:50pm

Your post is excellent, pol.

- liberalref

June 22, 2011 at 2:25pm

Now your really picking up the pace, lib. Bravo! Your insights continue to astonish. I look forward to your next remarks on punctuation. ____________________ wkwami, I am baffled as ever by your insistence that the Republicans have nothing much to show for their efforts. They managed to lard the stimulus with tax cuts in lieu of spending and kept its size to a minimum. They economy hobbles along with high unemployment. The financial reform is largely a sham and they are in the process of gutting even that. They managed to prevent most of what could have had a profound effect on health care, single-payer or a public option, and turned the entirety into a political liability for the Democrats. They kept the Bush tax cuts in place and have managed to make the deficits of which they are the authors into a political liability for the Democrats. They have taken tax increases off the table. Then, on the strength all this, they pounded the lights out of the Democrats in the last election, have a good chance of taking the Senate in the next, and have a shot at Obama to boot. They accomplished this despite being hugely discredited by the Bush years and in the face of large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Would you have expected them to enact their program despite being in the minority? Indeed, they appear to be making significant headway in forcing their agenda on the president and the Democrats despite controlling one house of Congress. If that is not an astonishing political turnaround and success in a very short period of time, then what on earth would you consider success? Impeaching Obama?

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2011 at 2:47pm

Roid, I hear what you're saying. However, in this political climate serious legislation cannot be passed without some compromise. Can we really blame Republicans for lack of single-payer or the public option? This was certainly a self inflicted wound (Blue Dogs). May I also suggest that Republican demagoguery did not turn healthcare legislation into a political liability for the Democrats, it was the way the bill was passed (the 2010 election results confirm this, and the Dems lost that election due to their perceived non-performance on the economy). Your points are valid, but I do think you give way too much credit to the Republicans. I simply do not see this astonishing political turnaround that you impute to them - RyanCare is going nowhere, not to mention the Republicans are not exactly winning over voters with their policy positions.

- wkwami

June 22, 2011 at 3:50pm

For some reason my response is not showing, let me try again... **************** Roid, I hear what you're saying. However, in this political climate serious legislation cannot be passed without some compromise. Can we really blame Republicans for lack of single-payer or the public option? This was certainly a self inflicted wound (Blue Dogs). May I also suggest that Republican demagoguery did not turn healthcare legislation into a political liability for the Democrats, it was the way the bill was passed (the 2010 election results confirm this, and the Dems lost that election due to their perceived non-performance on the economy). Your points are valid, but I do think you give way too much credit to the Republicans. I simply do not see this astonishing political turnaround that you impute to them - RyanCare is going nowhere, not to mention the Republicans are not exactly winning over voters with their policy positions.

- wkwami

June 22, 2011 at 3:59pm

I don't object to compromise, wkwami. Not a bit. I am for taking as much as circumstances will allow and then working on the rest. However, what is obtainable politically is largely a function of public opinion. The first responsibility of successful politicians is therefore to win the battle for public opinion, or at the very least to fight it. Even if you lose, you get more for having moved opinion in your direction. I do not see Obama waging the political battle. Hence he gets far less than he could and should. Certainly, a lot of the way ACA was passed contributed to the negative perception. But that too is a political failure. You have to manage public perception and that includes managing the way you go about things. And I just don't see how you can say that Republican demagoguery had nothing to do with it. The public perception of the ACA today, in terms of choice, cost, whatever, death panels, largely follows the Republican script of lies. Finally, as to policy, the Republicans will never be popular because of their policy positions because study after study has shown that the public dislikes their policies. Not just now, but for decades. Their political genius has been to sell themselves despite the unpopularity of their policies. The Democrats, in contrast, have trouble selling themselves despite the fact that Democratic policy positions are overwhelmingly more popular. Half the time the public doesn't know whose position is whose, thanks in part to incessant Republican lying, and the other half of the time it cannot be bothered to understand policy. Ryancare was an uncharacteristic lapse on the part of Republicans, actually staking themselves to a policy rather than just adopting a policy (which they were not in a position to do) and lying blatantly about what it means. I suspect the Republicans, in the flush of victory, forgot that policy is their weakness and just got carried away. They paid the price and won't likely make that mistake again soon. Bottom line, there is only a tenuous relationship between political rhetoric and policy. The Dems try to sell policy, good policy, and fail. The Republicans make bad policy but cover it with lots of rhetoric, have largely had their way for the last 30 years and have taken over the court system to boot. It is know a tool of corporate interests and a foe of ordinary people. Why do you say we are winning? Because Roe v Wade has not yet been overruled?

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2011 at 4:30pm

I've said as much before; Obama promised budget cuts during his campaign, so technically he "caved" on this "negotiation" before it ever began. This does appear to be a great opportunity to fulfill another campaign pledge using Republicans for cover. And wkwami makes a great point about exactly what ground is being conceeded: nothing much, and certainly nothing unconscionable. Roi, it seems to me the biggest gripe thus far is that Obama could have accomplished so much more. Maybe you're right, but at the end of the day it's all just speculation. For starters, there's no telling how things would have played out if the Senate had eliminated the filibuster in a timely fashion. At the end of the day, I'm happy that all the progress appears to be in the right direction; I'll take a baby step forward over no steps forward any day.

- GSpinks

June 22, 2011 at 4:30pm

We don't know what could have been accomplished, gs. One can never know the outcome of a political contest until it is fought anymore than you can know the outcome of a sporting contest. This is particularly when many factors are uncertain, and there is always a great deal of uncertainty surrounding political contests. One thing, however, I think is certain: The more you contest, the better you do. The more opportunities you take to contest and frame the debate in your terms, the more breaks you can catch. You have to be in it to win it. I simply do not see Obama contesting for public opinion. On the occasion when he did so, in response to Ryancare, it was a huge success. I do not fault him for not winning these political struggles. I fault him for not fighting them. That is in no way redeemed by achieving something within the political context he was given, because his job is not only to make the best of a given political hand but to change the political climate in pursuit of his agenda. Indeed, I would say that is his most important job. Wonks can make policy. The president is in a unique position to engage the public, particularly if he uses his position as party leader to orchestrate supporting rhetoric and action by legislators and governors. See, e.g., FDR. The Republicans are going about that relentlessly. I think they have plenty of results, even if they are negative results, things they prevented from happening, to show for it.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2011 at 6:47pm

Reposted from Obama and Afghanistan: Obama, I believe, holds the long view, i.e. that the U.S. economy is undergoing a generational change, and the world is undergoing an epoch change, including but not limited to economic change. The former will take up to (and possibly longer) than the balance of this decade. The latter could take an additional two decades, until about 2030. There is little that can be done to dramatically change either situation. As painful as it is for many, the economic and societal changes will continue much as they have by now: a succession of recoveries and declines. Nothing will dramatically change any of this. Healthcare reform and economic reforms will do their part but not greatly affect the outcome. It's more the idea of reform than an actuality. Obama sees this and is content to let the process continue and will not force an outcome. Meanwhile, his political advisers probably want to see Republicans do their worst if they will and take what they get. If the debt ceiling will not be lifted then let it be on their heads. I doubt the world will end by failing to raise the limit. It will be messy and traumatic but not a catastrophe as some would have it be. I felt the same way about cries of doom over the collapse of a bunch of irresponsible investment banks. They exaggerated the consequences of failing to act then and they are exaggerating them now. Politically, both Obama and Congressional Repubs will suffer but the latter will suffer greater. Obama will be probably be reelected and Democrats will recover some of the seats they lost in 2010. I think Obama's advisers serve him well. He can take the soft road while they take the tough road. The overall outcome will maintain stability with minimal loss. Is it principled to do so? No but it may be both responsible and correct in the long run.

- Tgossard

June 24, 2011 at 4:08pm

“We all want Obama to be something he's not. He is a process President, not a principles President.” Amen Pol, and an insightful post in few words. Considering the multitude of obstacles he inherited, have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s navigated the landscape as best as possible (for the betterment of the country vice the party, BTW). Given the hand. What drives me crazy is the “Obama is frustrating his base” theme. What, is any sane Democrat-or-independent-leaning voter going to turncoat into a Bachmann supporter? Time, baby, time. Address the key issues at hand during the first term in a measured, responsible manner; destroy the Republican challenger face-to-face during the debates (unless it’s Huntsman or Romney, but there’s hardly a guarantee either of those rather rational gentlemen are worthy in the eyes of hard-line Republicans) and execute the more progressive policies in the second term when all is secure. -- OkiSaru

- OkiSaru

June 24, 2011 at 4:25pm

Yeah? How is going to do that with a Republican Congress, okisaru? That Obama is a process president and not a principles president or, more to the point in my opinion, unwilling to engage in political combat for any reason as far as I can tell, is hardly justification for his failings. It suffices simply to say, "That is his nature?" Absolutely anything can be excused that way. The president's number one responsibility is politics, doing what he can to create the political climate that makes possible the policies he wants. Obama is not doing his political job and it shows in terms what he has been able to accomplish.

- roidubouloi

June 24, 2011 at 5:42pm