JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 24, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Ross Douthat argues that a budget deal that leans heavily on spending cuts vis a vis revenue is fine for President Obama, because he has a big tax hike in his back pocket:
if they do work out a deal — and this is the crucial part — it doesn’t have to include nearly as much in the way of revenue increases as a liberal president would normally prefer, because taxes are already scheduled to go up. Republicans are being intransigent on taxes in these negotiations for ideological reasons, but also because they know that if Obama is re-elected (which is more likely than not), they won’t be able to block tax increases: With a non-stroke of the pen, he can just let the Bush tax cuts expire — for the rich, or even for the middle class as well.
This is the trump card that liberals carry into all these negotiations. If we just do nothing on taxes except let the “current law baseline” run its course, their preferred vision wins.
I agree with this, but with two important caveats. First, letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I've been advocating this course of action for months. If Obama wins reelection, he can refuse to extend any tax cuts on income over $250,000. That will prompt Republicans to refuse to extend tax cuts on any income under $250,000 (as they signaled last December, and in keeping with their longstanding priorities, which deem the middle class tax cuts mere sweetener to get the tax cuts for the rich they really want.) Then the tax cuts expire while Obama blames Republicans for holding the (popular) universal tax cuts hostage to the (unpopular) tax cuts that only benefit the rich.
A combination of spending cuts now, gaining bipartisan credibility, winning reelection, then a tax cut showdown would be the ideal scenario. However, it depends on Obama winning reelection, which is far from assured. More importantly, it depends on Obama actually carrying out this plan. Will he? He should, and it's the best and easiest way to fulfill the administration's policy goals. And if it is the plan, the administration clearly shouldn't signal its intentions (why admit that you secretly want Republicans to block middle class tax cuts when you need to credibly pin the blame on them)? Still, my confidence in Obama's ability to execute aggressive political strategies is diminishing.
Second, the spending cuts in the budget agreement will probably involve a lot of bad policy. One potential source of savings is Medicaid, a lean program that provides bare-bones coverage to people who are in a bad way. Another is tight caps on domestic discretionary spending. As David Leonhardt recently noted, discretionary spending already has an unrealistically low baseline, and a deficit deal that cuts the baseline even lower would have terrible consequences:
According to the government’s official forecasts, discretionary spending is already slated to shrink significantly. Military spending will fall by 25 percent, as a share of the economy, over the next decade. Domestic programs will shrink even more, and by 2021 they will account for their smallest share of the economy since the 1950s.
I’m guessing you haven’t heard of these plans, however. That’s probably because plans is a bit of an exaggeration. Assumptions is a better word: per Congress’s orders, the baseline budget numbers unrealistically assume that future discretionary spending will grow only with inflation, rather than with population growth and economic growth, too.
As a result, Vice President Joe Biden, Republican leaders and the other deficit negotiators not only have to cut discretionary spending to make progress. They have to cut it even more than the Congressional Budget Office, the keeper of the official numbers, already assumes that spending will be cut.
And the scale of the cuts could do real damage. They could jeopardize food safety, highway quality and F.B.I. investigations. They could hurt the poor at a time when unemployment remains near a three-decade high. They could undermine education and scientific research, the best hopes for future prosperity.
Now, you can certainly find programs within the domestic discretionary budget that should be eliminated. But, overall, domestic discretionary spending ought to go up, not down.
I understand that Democrats aren't likely to have the opportunity to restore fiscal integrity entirely on their own terms. They wouldn't be able to do it even if they regained control of the House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority -- their caucus is just too fractious and risk-averse to do it without bipartisan cover. At the same time, the risk of Obama acceding to some dreadful policy choices is real and worrisome. Negotiating a bargain that does only minimal policy damage would be a feat.
78 comments
Gosh, if only we'd come to this conclusion back in December, and let ALL the Bush Tax-Cut Expire, then we'd already BE 6 months into improved revenue. But back then the recovery looked at-risk, 8.9% unemployment, so it was "too risky" not to fold to Republican intransigence. So NOW we've got 9.1% unemployment, rising slowly, and the entire credibility of the US Government Lending is on the line. And a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit. And we can't even get the Bush tax-cuts to expire until December 2012, AFTER the election is held. I think "mistakes have been made". I sure hope Obama stands firm THIS time, and quits making these "compromises" that damage the American economy.
- AllanL5
June 24, 2011 at 1:27pm
"At the same time, the risk of Obama acceding to some dreadful policy choices is real and worrisome." Ouch. I know Chait enjos Godfather allusions. Remember, after Michale took over the family business before Don Corleone died, and several capos (Clemenza, Tessio) asked to leave the family because they were frustrated with Michael for not taking more aggressive action against the other families who were intruding into their businesses, and the Don and Michael asked them to be patient. Well, Michael definitely took aggressive action (though Tessio wouldn't be around to enjoy the benefits). Maybe Obama is biding his time just for the right moment to settle the family's debts. We know who Barzini is in this scenario, but who is Tessio?
- rayward
June 24, 2011 at 1:41pm
Can everyone please stop saying "filibuster-proof?" It obviously wasn't.
- foxericf
June 24, 2011 at 1:49pm
Well I suppose it is OK. Because if the GOP controls the House, Senate, and Presidency, you better believe tax cuts for the rich are passed post haste through reconciliation. Even if the Democrats get the 24 House seats there will be enough Blue dogs to pass the GOP tax cuts. In other words Democrats have to win every Presidential election... We are doomed with a plutocratic party that has bamboozled a lot of old white people. We have to wait I guess until demographics catch up.
- MikeB.
June 24, 2011 at 2:33pm
"Negotiating a bargain that does only minimal policy damage would be a feat." It certainly would. Too bad some liberals would never stop kvetching long enough to admit it when it happens.
- GSpinks
June 24, 2011 at 2:53pm
Uh, A., Barack Obama's agreeing to an extension of the Bush tax cuts was the price he paid for the Republicans agreeing to a payroll tax cut, in an attempt to stimulate the economy. You can't have everything. How much easier it is for someone to run his mouth than it is to actually run things.
- liberalref
June 24, 2011 at 3:07pm
Obama also got an extension of sorely needed unemployment benefits with that deal in 2010.
- Pnaut
June 24, 2011 at 3:28pm
Agreeing to that extension also paved the way for other important lame-duck legislation, like the new START treaty approval, the Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Harass repeal, and the 9/11 First Responders compensation. I mean, it's sad that such a tax deal had to be struck for common sense stuff like new Start and the First Responders thing to be approved, given how nonpartisan those things out to be (DADT not so much), but that's the way it is, apparently.
- Curran1
June 24, 2011 at 3:29pm
Roid: "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 couldn't disagree more that "one thing, however, I think is certain: The more you contest, the better you do". If anything certainty of outcome is the one thing you cannot count on in such scenarios. Case in point, a Democratic congress opposed Richard Nixon's healthcare plan in the '70s because it didn't include single payer. There is no question they could have cut a better deal then than what they were able to accomplish in 2010. Ted Kennedy has been quoted as saying that his greatest regret was not cutting a deal with Nixon on healthcare. Mind you, I am not arguing against being in the game, rather I am arguing against strategic rigidity when circumstances demand agility. Mohammed Ali's rope-a-dope strategy may not have made sense to boxing aficionados in the early rounds of that fight with George Foreman, but his strategic agility paid off with the win. Obama may well prove to be equally as strategically agile, if not more so.
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 3:47pm
Oops wrong thread, but my point still stands.
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 3:49pm
AllanL5 "I sure hope Obama stands firm THIS time, and quits making these "compromises" that damage the American economy." It would help if you named a few of those damaging compromises that Obama has made. Merely saying these compromises have damaged the economy without laying out HOW or even WHAT those compromises are is just whining for whining sake.
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 3:56pm
Heh, Wkwami, I think you're clearly right that Dems should've taken Nixon's 1974 compromise offer on Healthcare, but I think that's distinct from what Roid is saying--in fact, he specifically mentioned that he approved of taking policy compromises when they're expedient. Rather, I interpreted Roid as objecting to Obama's refusal to contest things in the rhetorical sphere, which I'm not sure you've addressed, except to the extent that your own rhetoric might get you to foolishly turn down a good deal, as in 1974. But, again, I don't think Roid was advocating that. I would argue that, had Obama pushed the Healthcare debate earlier, and more consistently, we ultimately probably would've gotten legislation slightly to the left of where it ended up, and probably moderately more popular as well. Instead, because, in 2009, Obama allowed the right to define things over the airwaves in a relative vacuum, we ended up with legislation that is fairly unpopular--largely because people believe a variety of lies and half-truths. I would argue that this negative result was unnecessary, that a greater focus on communication would've improved the political results, and thus made space for (slightly) better policy results. Perhaps, if the Dems had played their cards better, Lieberman's demanded compromise, based on his split-the-difference-and-stick-it-to-the-left philosophy would've involved reducing a 'strong' public option to a weak one, or perhaps he would've accepted the 55+ Medicare buy-in. Who knows. Maybe that wouldn't've happened, but we at least wouldn't have lost the seat in Massachusetts. For what it's worth, I don't think you ALWAYS do better when you contest things rhetorically; a lot of the GOP probably wishes right now that they weren't having to fight over Paul Ryan's health plan. In fact, they seem to realize their best chance is often to (rhetorically) refuse to acknowledge what position they've taken. But, that said, it seems to me that, in general and over the long term, the principle is usually true.
- Curran1
June 24, 2011 at 4:14pm
Agreed. But take it further: step one: Obama wins re-election step two: let Bush-era tax rates expire at end of 2012 step three: on Jan. 2nd, 2013, ram through the Senate a tax cut for income under $250K. By "ram through", I mean send Joe Biden to preside and rule any filibuster or other gimmick out of order. Then send it to the House and dare the Repubs to vote it down.
- bjones
June 24, 2011 at 4:19pm
“Uh, A., Barack Obama's agreeing to an extension of the Bush tax cuts was the price he paid for the Republicans agreeing to a payroll tax cut, in an attempt to stimulate the economy. You can't have everything. How much easier it is for someone to run his mouth than it is to actually run things.” Lib – spot on, and this is precisely why I think Obama will wipe the floor with (almost) any Republican challenger during the debates (the bat-shit crazier opponent the better, I say). Not sure if the Republican Machine has quite figured out the electability aspect at this point, if ever. The past three years have been messy, tedious, process-laden endeavors. A number of wins – OBL’s just demise being the only of which that didn’t receive some degree of arrow-slinging – foundation setting to accomplish more progressive objectives during the second term. In other words, I don’t think he’s going to Unleash Unholy Liberal / Progressive Hell during his second term, but doing away with 1) the hideous DODT policy and 2) making gay marriage rights available in more states will be a pretty damn good start. -- OkiSaru
- OkiSaru
June 24, 2011 at 4:51pm
Bjones, doesn't any revenue bill need to originate in the House?
- Curran1
June 24, 2011 at 4:53pm
Oki: Getting rid of DODT was going to happen at some point--it was only a matter of time. In any case, time and the media are on our side on such issues, whereas accomplishing substantive things in the arena of governance and economics is much more difficult. That said, as for accomplishing 'more progressive objectives' during the second term, can you explain how this happens when, in a best case scenario, we never more than thin control (say, 53 votes) over the Senate until January of 2017, thanks to the 2010 midterms, and there are at least 5-8 marginal votes there on our side who are either dancing carefully to be reelected in reddish states, or are doctrinaire centrists? Do you have a plan to get progressive objectives through that? As far as I can tell, it looks like 2009-10 was it for our progressive moment, for the forseeable future.
- Curran1
June 24, 2011 at 5:00pm
Thank you, curran, for explaining what apparently I could not make clear. I am indeed talking about the necessity of contesting rhetorically, and preferably coordinating rhetoric with popular policy. That is why I say I don't fault Obama for compromising or even losing. I fault him for failing to make the effort to move public opinion and especially for allowing the Republicans to dominate the public square. The more you can move public opinion in your direction, the better deal you get when you are legislating and making policy. It is just that simple. Accordingly, I would reiterate that the most important responsibility of the president is not to make the policy widgets, but to secure the public support for the policy widgets crafted by his team of wonks. Obama is not doing his job.
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 5:21pm
Curran, the particular example of Ryancare as a counter-example to the necessity of rhetorical contest is a poor one. Rather exceptionally for the Republicans, that is a case where they made the Dem mistake of putting the policy foot forward rather than the rhetorical foot forward, and they have paid dearly for that mistake. This is precisely what the Dems have to stop doing. Dems have to learn to stop contesting with policy. Instead, contest with rhetoric, then make policy, covered by whatever the hell rhetoric you want, when you have the wind at your back (as, for example, Bush did when he used 9/11 for tax cuts).
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 5:26pm
"As far as I can tell, it looks like 2009-10 was it for our progressive moment, for the forseeable future." And my contention is that the moment was squandered because Obama failed to do his political job, to my great regret. He seems to have thought that once elected he could stop campaigning and just make policy surrounded by the comforts of the White House. Not in the modern world.
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 5:28pm
Damaging compromises (in terms of policy): A stimulus bill with only 25% of the spending we needed. Extremely weak financial re-regulation. ACA without a public option. Extension of the Bush high-end tax cuts. Failing to obtain an increase in the debt ceiling. Isn't that enough? How much better a deal we could have had if Obama had been willing to work to gain public support, we will never know.
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 5:34pm
Curran: "Rather, I interpreted Roid as objecting to Obama's refusal to contest things in the rhetorical sphere, which I'm not sure you've addressed, except to the extent that your own rhetoric might get you to foolishly turn down a good deal" Curran, there is a lot we agree on. And to be fair to Roid, he did make it crystal clear that he is not against compromising. So let me explain my position more clearly... My counter argument is that Obama's approach may be more deliberate calculation than failure to lead. Period. "I would argue that, had Obama pushed the Healthcare debate earlier, and more consistently, we ultimately probably would've gotten legislation slightly to the left of where it ended up, and probably moderately more popular as well. Instead, because, in 2009, Obama allowed the right to define things over the airwaves in a relative vacuum, we ended up with legislation that is fairly unpopular--largely because people believe a variety of lies and half-truths. I would argue that this negative result was unnecessary, that a greater focus on communication would've improved the political results, and thus made space for (slightly) better policy results." There is no guarantee of such an outcome had Obama done so. If anything there could have been unintended consequences, with possibly a much worse outcome. Bill Clinton failed at healthcare, and worse, gave us DADT, even though he did his best to sell it to the public. Keep in mind that the unpopularity of Obama's healthcare legislation had little to do with Republican demagoguery and much more to do with HOW the legislation was put together. Exit polling supports this. I remain unconvinced that had Obama done a better job of selling it, the outcome would have been different, especially since the Democrats had the votes to pass whatever they wanted, but for the recalcitrance of the Blue Dogs.
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 6:23pm
"You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!" It might be THE Chicago way, but it's not Obama, the Chicagoan's, way. When the Republicans pull a knife, Obama pulls a bowl of gummy bears.
- AaronW
June 24, 2011 at 6:27pm
Roid: "As far as I can tell, it looks like 2009-10 was it for our progressive moment, for the forseeable future." "And my contention is that the moment was squandered because Obama failed to do his political job, to my great regret. He seems to have thought that once elected he could stop campaigning and just make policy surrounded by the comforts of the White House. Not in the modern world." Roid, my counter argument is that the moment wasn't squandered; we have ACA, among other things, to show for it. Could things have been better? Probably, but things could have been worse too if he had done exactly as you said. And it seems you're only looking at the best case outcomes when the evidence suggests the opposite is equally true. Worse, you're assuming a failure of leadership when it is entirely possible that Obama is employing a different strategic approach than one you're used to (or comfortable with).
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 6:36pm
"It might be THE Chicago way, but it's not Obama, the Chicagoan's, way. When the Republicans pull a knife, Obama pulls a bowl of gummy bears." That was really funny. It is interesting though that the Chicago Way got the Sean Connery character killed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you know what they got Al Capone for? Not murder, but tax evasion! It didn't quite have the feel of shock and awe, not quite the way you take down a gangster. Either way, they got him, which is all that counts.
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 6:47pm
You may be right that nothing would've been different, re the ACA--it's impossible to tell; it does seem to me that, had the bill been even slightly more popular, that would've made things substantially easier in the house (and perhaps led to a house bill with a public option tied to Medicare reimbursements), but of course the real choke point was the Senate, and the marginal votes there seemed pretty doctrinaire in their opposition... I would point out, though, that, from what I remember, the GOP made process (and objections thereto) one of their main talking points, i.e. there was something sinister and undemocratic about it. It may be that 'how the legislation was put together' is not entirely unconnected from the rhetorical battles we've been discussing--especially since I can't think of anything particularly abnormal or objectionable about the process, myself. But anyway, as for your larger point, I'm sure you're right that Obama's calculation is deliberate--I guess I'm just not sure what his goals are, in that case (and whether this is the wisest strategy for whatever it is he's trying to do--though, again, I suppose it might be true that things could've gone worse on heathcare, given a more aggressive strategy. There were a lot of ways that could've blown up. On other matters, though, it still seems clearer to me that there's more of an upside for pushing harder and communicating). In the last day or so, someone suggested that O is largely a process-oriented politician, rather than having policy goals. Maybe this is true. I don't know. -C Roid: I definitely see your point on Ryancare.
- Curran1
June 24, 2011 at 6:52pm
I think Roid is definitely right on Ryancare. For the past 30 years the GOP has had a big advantage rhetorically by complaining about "big government" without saying what that means except picking out a few instances of non-defense spending waste that doesn't amount to a hill of beans and screaming about it. How else do you get tons of seniors whose very life depends on Federal government spending to come out and vote for you? For all the fuzzy math and complete horsecrap fraudulance of Ryan's Roadmap and budget plan, it at least cleared away some of the rhetorical garbage and showed a little of what the GOP really would want. The American people took one look and saw it wasn't pretty.
- MikeB.
June 24, 2011 at 7:01pm
Roid always I believe correctly talks of the importance of the "narrative." One tactical fault I see in Obama is not so much the compromising. (Let's face it, with our flawed and outdated Senate, any bit of progressive legistlation will have to be fatally compromised because voters in North Dakota for instance count more than I do in Pennsylvania.) The tactical fault I see is letting GOP bullflop narratives go uncorrected. In this sense the GOP plants ideas like cutting Federal spending increases jobs. By not countering this, it grows in people's minds to a majority now believe it. I don't think Obama can do it all on his bully-pulpit. I do think though they have to pick a few things out and hammer them with surrogates and the like. The DCCC got this with Medicare. Hit the GOP over and over on it. Neutralize their advantage among the FOX demo.
- MikeB.
June 24, 2011 at 7:08pm
Curran, the funny thing is, I do agree with you that his approach might not be the wisest strategy. Then again, who knows how it will all pan out. For now, I can only look at the score board and appreciate the points being racked up.
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 7:28pm
Cross-posted from Cohn on the impact of ACA on 2012: As I think back upon and recall the long, tortured process of adopting the ACA, the single thing that as most galling is that Obama and the Dems agreed to a multitude of Republican proposals without extracting any Republican votes in exchange. That was really idiotic. The Dems should have written a bill they could pass, as fast as possible, and then offered to consider Republican proposals, but only in exchange for Republican votes. That would have been bipartisanship aplenty, and the Republicans would have had to sign on in order to get a bill more to their liking. At least if the Dems had to pass a bill on strict party lines, they should have passed the best bill that they wanted. This alone was political malpractice of the highest order. Really incompetent on the part of the administration.
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 7:59pm
"At least if the Dems had to pass a bill on strict party lines, they should have passed the best bill that they wanted." That I completely agree with. But question is... why didn't congress do that, and can that be blamed on the Administration rather than congress? I just feel that the administration is taking heat for the Democratic congress' missteps. Not that the administration is completely blameless.
- wkwami
June 24, 2011 at 8:26pm
wkwami, a sitting President is the political leader of his party, not the Speaker of the House and not the Majority Leader. It is political incompetence not to orchestrate your legislative strategy with the congressional leadership, and not to take the lead, pushing them for what you want and figuring out how to get there, even if that is agreed to include a period where the President it less publicly visible on a given issue. Obama sat back and let Congress wander around without providing any guidance, at least as far as is publicly known. That just is not the way to get things done or to maximize the political benefits and minimize any political fallout. If he had sat down with key Dems and gamed this out, would they have allowed Baucus to wallow around wasting time in futile negotiations with Republicans in exchange for nothing? If so, that is even worse. At the end of the day, Pelosi and Reid deserve the credit for ACA. Almost none belongs to Obama. Worse, by his silence in the debate, he let the congressional Dems take a bullet for having succeeded.
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 9:22pm
Here's another example of what I am talking about: The Republican narrative on the weak economy is that it is due to out of control spending, especially spending on entitlements. This is economic nonsense, an inversion of reality. Even as to the deficit, virtually none is due to social security and about 20% is due to Medicare. The rest is the difference between non-entitlement tax revenues and the operating budget. Supply-siders, who purport to pay attention, believe this nonsense because they are nuts, or they don't believe it at all but are just shilling for the wealthy who benefit from this ideology. Leave aside that this narrative is nuts, what matters is that a large swath of the public believes this because 1) they are ignorant about economics and 2) it appeals to people's biblical sense of rectitude, that economic suffering is the "price" of profligacy. They imagine, most people imagine, that the economy is just a big household, even though it is not at al. What is the Democratic political narrative that competes with this? I have no idea. Does anyone?
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 9:28pm
Roid and wkwami, it's certainly true that, while the Prez deserves some blame for (as far as we can tell) not leading Congressional Dems enough on the ACA (it's anyone, guess why Obama rejected Rahm's advice in early July 09 to pressure Baucus to get the bill out of committee--that was a deliberate choice on Obama's part not to take action)... But those congressional Dems, or at least the ones in the Senate, it's there fault, too--for taking forever and fighting amongst themselves and being bad negotiators, even while the opposition whipped itself into a disciplined parliamentary party. That said, while there are clearly limitations to how much Obama could've done to improve that situation in the Senate--the land of 100 egotists whose procedural rules and committees, as we all know, are the living embodiment of the constitutional freedoms laid out in 1787, and not at all a choke point beholden to special interests, obstructionist manipulation of the rules, and a constitutionally jerrymandered composition (Just ask Chris Dodd. You know? The lobbyist?), yet there is evidence he could do some things; after all, Baucus only (finally!) kicked his bill out of committee when Obama did, in fact, threaten to release his own version of it. So, yeah, there's plenty of blame for both branches of government. As for congress, though, it's those marginal votes that are the worst about it--mostly I place this blame on Blue Dogs and 'centrists' like Nelson and Bayh, but we mustn't forget Feingold's ass, too. Financial reform would be several steps better if the piece of shit hadn't held back his vote and driven Reed into the arms of Scott Brown. He'll always have a spot near the bottom of my shitlist for that.
- Curran1
June 24, 2011 at 10:35pm
And, hey, wkwami, I'm glad you can enjoy the points we have scored. To me it all just seems so inadequate to the needs of society and the world that it's hard for me to get too enthused--especially when the GOP has been so successful at blocking any further reforms and pushing their own agenda, despite controlling only one half of the legislature. It's scary--how will we get any of what we need to do, done, if they take the senate (which, just based on the numbers, is going to be fairly difficult to hold unless someone starts doing something different soon). There are just so many things we need to get done, from carbon emissions, to some sort of legislation that helps allow working people to bargain for a larger share of economic product...or at least keep their position from deteriorating further...to the investments in technology and education that seem necessary to get our economy growing again in the long term--enough to get unemployment down again without short term stimulus. It's hard for me to let 2009-10 go by, with so much left on the table that needed to be done; I don't know how we'll do any more of it, now, for a long time.
- Curran1
June 24, 2011 at 10:45pm
"after all, Baucus only (finally!) kicked his bill out of committee when Obama did, in fact, threaten to release his own version of it." Yup.
- roidubouloi
June 24, 2011 at 11:03pm
There have been many comments about Obama's failure to fight, his tendency to bring gummy bears to a knife fight. It could be due to a refusal to engage in the usual rhetorical Washington-as-usual games to frame the debate, resulting in roid's criticism that Democrats then compromise far more than necessary because the frame has been set by Republicans. There is an alternative explanation, though I don't know how probable it is. Obama knows that moderates like accommodation and don't like hyper-partisanship. Obama knows that a Republican presidency would be a disaster, possibly undoing most if not all of the "progressive moment" of 2009-10. So Obama will do what is necessary to appeal to moderates and win a second term. Once that is secure, he will have a freer hand to turn up the rhetoric for more progressive policies. But reelection has to come first. I'm skeptical that he'd take that more active leadership role, but I wouldn't rule it out.
- dsimon
June 24, 2011 at 11:45pm
Not just policy losses, dsimon, but electoral losses too. Your interpretation is possible, but it should not preclude "good cop, bad cop" in which a coordinated communications strategy has officeholders other than the president drumming the more extreme criticism of Republicans while the president adopts a more moderate stance. It is also possible for the president consistently to articulate a positive narrative leaving others to do the negative narrative. That is a standard technique. That these means of pushing a Democratic frame without having the president seem extreme are so well traveled and understood by people who "do politics" leads me to believe that your explanation for Obama's behavior is possible but likely not correct. Personally, I think Obama thinks of himself as someone above and outside of party politics, and that explains his behavior. A huge error. He is not, and politics is a team sport. By failing to exploit the advantages of coordinated action amongst members of the team, Obama and the Dems lose ground to the highly disciplined Republicans.
- roidubouloi
June 25, 2011 at 12:13am
I'd also add that, in failing to articulate a narrative of the ways GOP policies were responsible for the crash and the economic meltdown, Obama (and the entire left) have created a vacuum in voters' minds that the GOP has been happy to fill: the bad economy is Obama's fault! Conservative economic policies could've been at least partly discredited for a generation, maybe two (see: 1933-1972, see also: New Deal coalition),but noooooooo, Obama couldn't bring himself to articulate any sort of critique of the previous decade's policies or ideology, and so we're back where we started, fighting tooth and nail against ideologues willing to argue the world is flat as long as it serves the interests of their hero-capitalist backers--as they blame us and we clean up their mess. It's absurd. And yet, here we are.
- Curran1
June 25, 2011 at 1:05am
I still think a Democratic primary challenge would be healthy. It wouldn't harm O's reelection chances all that much and it might make him wake up. The question is who? I was reading about Al Gore's Rolling Stone essay castigating Obama for slacking on climate change and mused on whether he could be induced to throw his hat in the ring, though I have a hunch that for all his leadership on the environment Gore is too cozily in bed with the bankster/financial assholes.
- AaronW
June 25, 2011 at 1:07am
Curran: "Obama (and the entire left) have created a vacuum in voters' minds that the GOP has been happy to fill: the bad economy is Obama's fault!" That's not accurate. A recent poll showed that more people hold Bush solely or mainly responsible for the bad economy than Obama. http://www.businessinsider.com/people-still-blame-bush-more-than-obama-for-the-economy-2011-6 That's probably not too bad, considering the number of people who want to blame Obama for everything. Still, that doesn't excuse more aggressive messaging that may have made those numbers still better for Obama or made more people more amenable to Democratic policies for dealing with the problem.
- dsimon
June 25, 2011 at 10:56am
AllanL5 writes: "Gosh, if only we'd come to this conclusion back in December, and let ALL the Bush Tax-Cut Expire, then we'd already BE 6 months into improved revenue. " These tax cuts on everyone pull in $300B a year. We're facing a nearly $2T/year problem. What dems keep missing here is tax cuts + war do not come close to closing the deficit. Yes, we gotta start some where. But until Dems understand there's a real problem to be solved here, crying over Bush tax cuts and a few wars seems silly. How about dems propose a fix that closes the gap, and THEN if we're just $400B away, then we look at restoring tax cuts and war funding. Obama is spening over a $1B a more than Bush EACH YEAR. And for what?
- seattleeng
June 25, 2011 at 11:42am
Wkwami, your arguments, boiled down, seem like "he's made lemonade out of lemons". Very few people among the commentors here don't appreciate Obama's achievements. Am I glad that we got the ACA, payroll tax cut, the first responder funding, etc.? Absoluetly. That doesn't mean that there isn't room for criticism, and Lib's walk-a-mile-in-my-shoes argument notwithstanding, I think roid and currant make great points. We'll never know if he got the best deal on any of these issues because he rarely made a public argument. The worst of it is that there were more liberal or centrist alternatives for many of these fights - ACA, stimulus, tax cuts - that would have been better for the economy that never got the public airing they deserved - the right wing successfully framed every issue (except altar boy Ryan). The president cannot be a bully, but he is uniquely positioned to speak among the "co-equal" branches of government. BTW, did Seattle mean $1T?
- NR409654
June 25, 2011 at 12:30pm
Ah well, here is seattle just making stuff up again to conform the world to his political views. How about a reality check, yet again (sigh): According to the official budget report of OMB, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html total outlays in 2009 were $3.52 trillion. For 2011, $3.73 trillion. These are not in constant dollars. Add about 4% to the 2009 figure for inflation and you get $3.66 trillion. The real increase in Federal outlays over the two years is about 2%. Our population is growing at about 1% per year. So, the real per capita growth in Federal outlays over the two-year span is just about zero, and this while still in the grip of huge unemployment. Much too little. Of the increase in expenditures, $120 billion is in social security and Medicare. 2009 expenditures other than social security and Medicare were $2.42 trillion, $2.52 trillion adjusted for inflation. 2011 expenditures not including entitlements $2.51 trillion, a decrease, and a larger decrease per capita. The deficit, $1.41 trillion in 2009, is projected to fall to $1.15 in 2011. The contribution of entitlements to the deficit was $258 billion in 2009, everything else $1.15 trillion. In 2011, the contribution of entitlements to the deficit is $356 billion, almost all of it in Medicare not social security. The operating budget deficit is $790 billion, once again giving the lie to the right-wing meme that entitlements are the key problem. They are a future problem, and a bigger one because Republicans resist all measures to control medical costs the account for most of it. The current problem is that, in the grip of supply-side anti-tax mania, we fail to collect enough taxes to pay the operating costs of government. As Chait has written numerous times, the Bush tax cuts, the Bush wars, and the Bush recession together account for the entire deficit.
- roidubouloi
June 25, 2011 at 12:49pm
(Dsimon: I did see that poll! It's good news. I think I agree with the rest of your assessment on the issue as well--clearly, we're not getting all the blame, but I still think we could be doing better on that question)
- Curran1
June 25, 2011 at 1:32pm
Cross posting my comment to another article (with slight revisions).
********************** Some of you give the Republicans too much credit, so much so that you've even revised history to fit that narrative. Can anyone please show me any data that suggests Republican demagoguery led to ACA unpopularity, hence Democrats 2010 defeat at the polls? Do you think that voters are so naive as to not understand that each party exaggerates? Democrats had a majority to pass anything they want, yes, but that doesn't mean they agreed on policy. Ya think all that it would have taken was for Obama to just make the case to the public, and some Blue Dog senator would suddenly get swayed? Those Blue Dog senators are not your average clueless voter from the backwoods of Appalachia or inner-city concrete jungle. These are men (and women) with well (in)formed policy positions. Obama looked at the team he had and adopted the strategy that best fit the situation. This is not just a matter of making lemonade out of lemons. It is more like making lemon meringue pie out of apples and oranges. As I read these comments across all the topics under discussion, I get the impression that some presume a better outcome as a certainty had Obama just advocated more strongly for his policies. Others seem to think that Republicans "insanity" has created a toxic political environment that makes it almost impossible to get anything done. Valid as they may, it still misses the point. Here's an open question to all of you... Why didn't FDR, Johnson, or Clinton, pass single-payer healthcare? These Presidents were all considered successful, who left behind battle tested leadership templates Obama could have used to his advantage. Surely the political environment under each of these Presidents was more conducive to compromise, and from what some commenters have said, it would seem FDR, Johnson, and Clinton strongly advocated their policy positions better than the "naive" Obama, not to mention Republicans were less crazy back then as well. So what prevented those Presidents from taking full advantage to enact single-payer, or get better deals than whatever they were able to accomplish? This columnist nails it (and articulates my point that I've struggled to get across so many times) when he says... "I’m not convinced that his political fortunes would be brighter had he postponed the health care issue to attack some ostensibly more feasible alternative political agenda. The economic and fiscal crisis would have been just as bewilderingly complex. Republicans would have been just as implacable, just as resolute in opposing the centerpiece efforts of an Obama presidency. The administration’s political strategies and private negotiating posture would have the same characteristic difficulties. The president’s difficulties with his own political base would have been rightly magnified by his failure to follow through on a matter of central concern to so many people. I am convinced that the moment to address the central gap in American social insurance could easily have been lost. Some of the same people who now lament the president’s decision to focus on health reform might instead be lamenting the president’s lack of boldness in missing the once-in-a-generation opportunity to assist tens of millions who are now uninsured." The point is, as with FDR, Johnson, and Clinton, this President is working with the hands he has been dealt, crafting his own strategy that works best for him (I don't know whether it's the wisest strategy, only time will tell), and has more than enough to show for it. The Obama strategy may not be sexy, flashy, or shock and awe people, but it seems to be getting us forward. It may come across as a failure of leadership to some, an adhoc strategy to others, but it may also be a well crafted and deliberate strategic calculation by Obama. This is not to say he cannot or ought not be criticized. Just that the criticism must be supported by facts on the ground.- wkwami
June 25, 2011 at 6:18pm
wkwami, I think you're sort of missing the point. Yes, in this thread we have gotten side-tracked into a discussion as to whether ACA was as good as it could have been and whether it would/could have been better had Obama hyped it more aggressively, but the only reason we're even talking about ACA is because it is the only significant example of an unambiguous political success on Obama's part. I applaud Obama for ACA (although Pelosi deserves most of the credit). Do I think it could have been better had he handled the political game differently? Maybe a little, but that's not my major concern. I do think in particular that Obama was stingy in his provision of political cover for Democratic congresspeople who supported health care reform and that, while it may not have mattered with respect to the failure to get a public option, his failure to sell ACA more consistently and effectively increased the Democratic House caucus's vulnerability in Nov 2010. But the real focus of this thread and of the critique of Obama has nothing to do with ACA. It has to do with the fact that despite Democratic control of the White House and the upper house of the legislature--and for 09-10 both houses--the Republicans are calling the shots on the economic and fiscal management of the United States government. Not only that, when those horrendous supply-sider, Republican policies bear their predictably horrendous fruit, the Republicans manage to leave Democrats holding the bag. Somebody in this or another thread pointed out that in a recent poll 2/3 of the public supports NOT raising the debt ceiling. If true--and I don't have any reason to doubt this figure--then that should be a serious concern for Obama; it should be a problem that he needs to do everything in his power--and he has a lot of power in this particular regard--to correct. He needs to go on television and EXPLAIN the debt ceiling, what it means, how it has been treated in the past and, in graphic terms, what a failure to raise it will mean for the country. Also he needs to make it crystal clear whose fault it will be if it doesn't get raised. He cannot continue to stand around with his thumb up his ass saying, "I don't believe that when push comes to shove the Republicans will jeopardize the full faith and credit of the USG." Of course they will! Has he been paying attention?
- AaronW
June 25, 2011 at 7:50pm
wkwami, I never suggested that Obama should not have undertaken health care reform and universal coverage. My contention is simply this: In a democracy such as ours, you can do almost anything as a political leader if you have the support of public opinion, even it it is not what public opinion supports. Therefore, the first responsibility of a political leader is to cultivate public opinion. That is an intricate dance of rhetoric and policy, it is wearing, it is difficult. But it is the primary task. If you fail at this, you accomplish little and what you do accomplish is easily undone. If you succeed, then you have the opportunity for lasting policy success, even with lousy policies. See, e.g. Ronald Reagan. Obama does not do his political work. Period. I am not criticizing his legislative strategy, although I think there is room for criticism there too. I am criticizing is failure to shoulder the burden of moving and holding public opinion behind him and the Democratic party. I do not see him even trying to do this job. The result has been big losses for the Democratic party, jeopardizing everything Obama has done including the rescue of the economy in the first days of his presidency. As Aaron points out, the Republicans, not the president, are calling the shots on economic policy. They have persuaded the public that they are right when they are in fact pursuing the worst possible economic policy. The president's job is not wonk-in-chief or legislator-in-chief. It is politician-in-chief. FDR and LBJ both accomplished vastly more than Obama in terms of domestic policy. They did not shirk their political burdens even when, in the case of LBJ, it was in the service of a bad cause. I cannot count the times I recall seeing LBJ on television intoning, "My fellow 'mercans . . . " They are hardly comparisons that prove your point. Clinton might have but was undone by allowing his marital problems to get in the way of his job, not least by allowing the inexperienced and untested Hillary to run his health-care initiative as a pay-off for her ignoring his infidelities.
- roidubouloi
June 25, 2011 at 10:29pm
How many times, Mr Chait? Removing the high end tax cuts does not raise enough money, about 25% of the total shortfall. The strategy are you advocating makes no sense. I think Douthat is dead right here, at least as far as the excerpt is concerned. The tax hikes (or more accurately return to Clinton ere rates) are in pocket, absent positive action to extend them. It is and has been foolish to focus on the 250k divide, as the fiscal benefit is below the line. Agree to reasonable cuts over time, with some deductions eliminated, and reiterate expiration of Bush cuts as a path to fiscal sanity. Should be a no-brained, fiscally as well as politically. It appears that both the house and senate are odds-on repub come 2012, with Obama in the White House. What's done is done - fiscal sanity and consolidation of policy gains should be the Dem strategy now.
- ds111
June 26, 2011 at 11:26am
I recall that as a teenager Ronnie interrupted my evenings' viewing of That's Incredible! and Simon and Simon for a prime-time televised address or press conference several times a year (ten maybe? more?). FDR, of course, was on the radio with his fireside chats every single week. I don't live in the US presently, so I cannot comment directly on the frequency of Obama's prime-time interruptions, but given that just about every one he does give gets rehashed here at TNR I reckon my estimate is accurate enough, and though I have tried (not very hard) and failed to find the relevant statistic online, my back-of-the-hand calculations suggest that Obama takes it directly to the people far less often than any of his recent predecessors with the notable exception of George W Bush, and I would have thought that Junior's example is one that Obama would have wanted to eschew.
- AaronW
June 26, 2011 at 4:46pm
Wkwami Can anyone please show me any data that suggests Republican demagoguery led to ACA unpopularity, hence Democrats 2010 defeat at the polls? On my phone, so please forgive a direct link, but it Doyle be reasonably easy to find the numerous surveys that found that people who opposed the ACA in the abstract supported it when the prime details were explained to them. These were widely discussed, including here. While causation is always difficult to prove in cases like this, the reasons given for their initial opposition tended to read like GOP talking points. It's possible they came to these (generally incorrect) views themselves, but it's pretty certain they didn't get them from the Dems. As, to a number of posters points above, they weren't exactly out selling it. Now, was the ACA the only or prime reason for the 2010 results? No, that's probably the state of the economy and the usual midterm swing. Did it hurt? Hard to see that it didn't.
- Nari224
June 26, 2011 at 8:30pm
er, "Doyle" = "should" after a little auto correct apparently.
- Nari224
June 26, 2011 at 8:32pm
Roid, let's examine your LBJ claims more closely: Health Care Reform Circa 1965: Polling on Medicare "A month later, after Congress had rejected Kennedy's proposal, an Opinion Research Corporation poll found 44 percent said the plan should have passed, while 37 percent felt Congress did the right thing... Following Pres. Lyndon Johnson's election, Americans remained somewhat divided on the plan, with 46 percent telling Harris pollsters in Feb. 1965 that they'd prefer "a Federal law which would provide medical care for the aged by a special tax, like Social Security" and 36 percent more inclined to support "a plan of expanded private health insurance." Then, as now, Democrats were more apt to favor the government option (58 percent) than were Republicans (27 percent)." This is similar to ACA numbers. It would seem that LBJ moved public opinion only 2 points from 44% to 46% after Kennedy's assassination, not to mention the bill had been defeated in the previous session of congress. From what you said, LBJ vigorously advocated for Medicare. What then explains his lack of results in overwhelmingly convincing the public to back his plan at a time when the political environment supposedly was more conducive to deal making (Republicans were supposedly less crazy, right?)? Why then can we assume a better outcome if only Obama had reached out to the public more? And if as you believed LBJ, unlike Obama, did his political work, then such work should have resulted in a better outcome to the extent that he should have extended Medicare to all Americans. So why didn't he push for that? I think LBJ took what he could get at the time AFTER having advocated strongly, but realizing that the law of diminishing returns was kicking in. I think his experience proves that further advocacy does not necessarily guarantee better results. Which brings me to my point... Obama's lack of advocacy for some of his policies isn't necessarily a failure to do his political work as you suggest. Rather, it may be that Obama learned from his predecessor and didn't waste political capital, once he had also determined he ran the risk of diminishing returns from further advocacy. Given the facts, why is that not a plausible explanation? This quote from the same article really puts things into perspective for me... "An April 2009 survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation found nearly eight in 10 (77 percent) consider it "very important" for the country as a whole, add in those who consider it "somewhat important" and you have near unanimity (96 percent)." In other words, 44 years after it's passage, long after LBJ had stopped advocating for it, Americans unanimously support Medicare after experiencing the benefits. So much for advocacy in the moment.
- wkwami
June 26, 2011 at 10:24pm
Uh, wkwami, if I may speak for roi, I don't think he was talking about LBJ's push for health reform per se. I'm not even sure how forecefully Johnson ever did argue for Medicare. Roi, I believe, was speaking more generally about LBJs advocacy for his Great Society social welfare programs, for civil rights reform--the real biggie--and for the Vietnam War. In your narrow focus on ACA you seem continuously to be missing the point, several points actually.
- AaronW
June 27, 2011 at 1:11am
And do you have anything to say about Nari224's post?
- AaronW
June 27, 2011 at 1:13am
AaronW: "Somebody in this or another thread pointed out that in a recent poll 2/3 of the public supports NOT raising the debt ceiling. If true--and I don't have any reason to doubt this figure--then that should be a serious concern for Obama; it should be a problem that he needs to do everything in his power--and he has a lot of power in this particular regard--to correct. He needs to go on television and EXPLAIN the debt ceiling, what it means, how it has been treated in the past and, in graphic terms, what a failure to raise it will mean for the country." This poll from June 9 suggests otherwise... "A large majority of Americans say the U.S. economy would probably suffer serious harm if Congress fails to give the federal government more borrowing authority. But barely half support raising the government’s debt limit, even if lawmakers also sharply cut spending. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 55 percent of Democrats and half of Republicans and independents support a debt-limit deal that includes a steep reduction in the size of government. But 37 percent of Republicans, a third of independents and nearly a fifth of Democrats say they are against raising the debt limit, under any circumstances." According to the article, "the poll suggest that people believe" that raising the dent limit "is not about additional spending. This is about honoring the obligations that the United States government has made. And the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, as some of these rating agencies have suggested, would be severe”, and yet the voters still don't support raising the debt limit. What else to do except get to work and get something done as opposed to going on TV to try and sway voters.
- wkwami
June 27, 2011 at 1:24am
AaronW: "Somebody in this or another thread pointed out that in a recent poll 2/3 of the public supports NOT raising the debt ceiling. If true--and I don't have any reason to doubt this figure--then that should be a serious concern for Obama; it should be a problem that he needs to do everything in his power--and he has a lot of power in this particular regard--to correct. He needs to go on television and EXPLAIN the debt ceiling, what it means, how it has been treated in the past and, in graphic terms, what a failure to raise it will mean for the country." This poll from June 9 suggests otherwise: http://wapo.st/m905a6 "A large majority of Americans say the U.S. economy would probably suffer serious harm if Congress fails to give the federal government more borrowing authority. But barely half support raising the government’s debt limit, even if lawmakers also sharply cut spending. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 55 percent of Democrats and half of Republicans and independents support a debt-limit deal that includes a steep reduction in the size of government. But 37 percent of Republicans, a third of independents and nearly a fifth of Democrats say they are against raising the debt limit, under any circumstances." According to the article, "the poll suggest that people believe" that raising the debt limit "is not about additional spending. This is about honoring the obligations that the United States government has made. And the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, as some of these rating agencies have suggested, would be severe”, and still don't support raising the debt limit. I think the best thing Obama can do is get to work and forge a compromise rather than go on TV and try to persuade voters.
- wkwami
June 27, 2011 at 1:34am
I'm a little skeptical of the idea that political capital is 'wasted' by arguing for a policy. FDR maintained his political capital until the economy double-dipped and he made political mistakes--but even thereafter maintained a good deal of it, and continued to use it to effectively press for policy. Bush II had success applying pressure to do whatever was necessary to get his policies passed, and only cratered in 2005 when the public gradually seemed to decide (especially after Katrina), that he had a credibility problem, and possibly a competence problem. By allowing the second big move in his legislative agenda to bog down, however, Obama and congress both lost popularity, because they got caught pushing hard for a slightly unpopular bill--which Obama ultimately had to come out for as a partisan, anyway, long after much of the damage was done. Obama clearly lost substantial political capital passing healthcare, more, I suspect, than if he'd just gone all in in the first place. And if healthcare contributed to the 2010 electoral loss...talk about hemorrhaging capital... To go back to LBJ, Johnson lost his political capital not when he pushed too hard on The Great Society (he achieved, what, 85 of 87 policy objectives for the session, I think?), but when the public turned against his agenda after the Watts riots, etc. It's that latter movement that a pol has to be careful of, not necessarily voters just getting tired of advocacy and rhetoric.
- Curran1
June 27, 2011 at 1:38am
Curran: "I'm a little skeptical of the idea that political capital is 'wasted' by arguing for a policy." You're right to be skeptical. However, I am not saying political capital is wasted arguing for a policy. Rather at what point does the advocacy for a policy position become counterproductive? I am saying I questions the notion that further advocacy would yield better outcomes, when the opposite is also true.
- wkwami
June 27, 2011 at 2:10am
Well, wkwami, those poll results are sufficiently bizarre that I would question how the questions were asked and what they really mean. Your hypothesis is that they mean that a majority of the voting public holds fixed, logically inconsistent beliefs about the debt ceiling, and that in consequence the voters should be ignored. I think it's more likely that these inconsistent results indicate that a majority of voters lack any understanding at all of what the debt ceiling debate is all about and are therefore ripe for education and being influenced. Also, there is the issue of whom the public will blame if and when the ceiling is not raised and disaster ensues. If Obama remains publically mute on the subject and continues to work exclusively behind closed doors, it increases the likelihood that Democrats will bear the brunt.
- AaronW
June 27, 2011 at 3:17am
If you're looking for an example of how a sitting president can campaign for a policy and move public opinion overwhelmingly in its favor while simultaneously knee-capping politicians who oppose the policy, look no further than Bush II's advocacy of the Iraq invasion. Would outcomes be different if Obama had pushed his policies using tactics from the Rove/Cheney playbook? It's impossible to know. But you must acknowledge that any argument to the effect that Obama has done the best he could have done must look at individual cases, because the Bush/Iraq war example makes it plain that IN PRINCIPLE it is possible for presidents effectively to campaign publically for a policy.
- AaronW
June 27, 2011 at 3:30am
And one must not lose sight of the fact that the Republicans have a constant, active, coordinated campaign against Obama and the Democrats. My political mentor taught me that most of these rhetorical contests are fought to a draw. Only occasionally does one side pull out a victory. But if you fail to contest, then the other side gets to win a lot more. That is what I see happening today in the court of public opinion. Soccer is a low scoring game. Imagine if one side didn't bother to have a defense.
- roidubouloi
June 27, 2011 at 10:40am
It would be very hard to argue that FDR and LBJ did not dominate public discourse. That doesn't mean that they won everything or every battle, but they left little room for their opposition to maneuver. That, oddly, is what the Republicans are successfully doing to the Democrats, leaving them little room to maneuver, even though the Republicans were in the minority and now control only the House. They succeed due to Democratic political passivity, starting at the top.
- roidubouloi
June 27, 2011 at 10:42am
AaaronW: "If you're looking for an example of how a sitting president can campaign for a policy and move public opinion overwhelmingly in its favor while simultaneously knee-capping politicians who oppose the policy, look no further than Bush II's advocacy of the Iraq invasion. Would outcomes be different if Obama had pushed his policies using tactics from the Rove/Cheney playbook? It's impossible to know. But you must acknowledge that any argument to the effect that Obama has done the best he could have done must look at individual cases, because the Bush/Iraq war example makes it plain that IN PRINCIPLE it is possible for presidents effectively to campaign publicly for a policy." I couldn't disagree more! After 9/11 Americans were drunk on revenge, patriotism, you name it. Even I could have sold America on attacking Canada. As I've explained before, the Iraq lie worked because the administration, including the Democratic opposition and the MSM (TNR included), colluded to sell it to the American people. No being for the war made you unpatriotic. That is the kind example I'd use to make a point in how to effectively advocate for a policy. By the way, I am not making the argument that Obama has done his best. I am simply saying the notion that he is not leading, or has no strategy, or that more advocacy for his policies would result in better outcomes is simply unknowable.
- wkwami
June 27, 2011 at 1:47pm
I meant to say: Not being for the war made you unpatriotic. That is NOT the kind example I'd use to make a point in how to effectively advocate for a policy.
- wkwami
June 27, 2011 at 1:54pm
"It would be very hard to argue that FDR and LBJ did not dominate public discourse." Roid, I acknowledged that it certainly helps to advocate for one's position. But there is no certainty that any advocacy, or continued advocacy, depending on the policy, will result in better outcomes. LBJ's advocacy for civil rights not withstanding, I believe voters attitudes were impacted more by what they saw on their TV screens, as to how Blacks were being treated. I have never believed in the power of rhetoric alone to sway people. Were that to be the case, Republicans, as good as they are at messaging, should have convinced the public long ago to support privatization of Social Security and Medicare. Likewise, I'd expect Obama to convince the public that his economic policies are working. If you don't have a job there is little chance of anyone convincing you the economy is improving. And, if you've been positively impacted by Medicare and Social Security, then one can convince you otherwise. I agree with you that rhetorical advocacy can be good, but it has its limitations, and in some instances it can actually be counterproductive. "Soccer is a low scoring game. Imagine if one side didn't bother to have a defense." Or maybe one side could deploy an unconventional tactical formation that may not make sense to you? Watch the Spain vs. Switzerland game from FIFA 2010 World Cup in South Africa. If ever there was a mismatch that was it. Spain, which entered the tournament as favorites, and would go on to win the cup, lost that game to the Swiss. What Switzerland did - they sat their four midfielders on the 18 yard line, essentially playing an 8-2 formation instead of a 4-4-2 formation. A single ball through the middle on the counterattack resulted in the Swiss scoring on the Spaniards. Playing defense for defense's sake or attacking for attacking sake does not necessarily yield positive results. Sometimes you have to make your opponent believe they have you on the ropes, and it's only a matter of time before they finish you off. Then you turn the tables. Whether this is the Obama strategy, I do not know. But I wouldn't bet against it either.
- wkwami
June 27, 2011 at 2:54pm
Well, wkwami, I just don't see it. Of course there is no guarantee of a different outcome, and I have said this repeatedly, but if you do not contest for public opinion then you will not be able to take advantage of opportunities and your opponents have a field day. There may be an occasion once in a blue moon where rope-a-dope is an effective tactical variation, but as a routine matter? I don't think so. I also do not think that by any stretch a party that has just taken an electoral drubbing can claim to be succeeding at persuading the public of anything. After the ACA was finally done, I said here that the Dems should focus relentlessly on jobs, offering one bill after another for the Republicans to oppose if that is what they were determined to do. There are various ways of making the point. I don't see Obama working to advance Democratic values and policies. If he worked at it and failed, okay. Sometimes a political change requires long-term effort before public opinion yields and in the meantime you may make some gains or minimize losses -- just what the Republicans have been so effective in doing, minimizing their losses despite big Democratic majorities. Part of Obama's job is also to inspire his supporters by demonstrating that he is working on what they care about. He isn't doing that either. This contributes to demoralization and low turn-out on the left. Contest by immobility based on a deep tactical plan? Perhaps, but I highly doubt it.
- roidubouloi
June 27, 2011 at 4:22pm
wkwami, believe what you want to believe. In February 2001 when America was supposedly "drunk on revenge"--and after Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had initiated their pro-invasion campaign--support for an invasion stood at 52%. By the start of the war that was up to 62%. and in May 2003 peaked at 79%. Also polls before/after Bush's February 2003 SOT showed a 4 point jump in support for the invasion and a 7 point jump in his approval rating. And what about the pressure his campaign put on Democratic lawmakers? Would Hillary Clinton have voted for war authorization had Bush and his agents not been agitating publicly for war? I cannot know her mind, and it could be that she and other Democratic congresspeople who voted in support were influenced solely by Bush's dishonest WMD bill of particulars, but I think it's much more likely that they voted they way they did in part because entirely through the administration's public campaign made a 'no' vote politically problematic for them. And really the polls don't tell the whole story anyway. The focus of the president's political job isn't entirely or even primarily changing public opinion; it's about modulating the intensity of public interest in particular issues. So, you're correct insofar as that just a few months after 9/11 a slim majority of people supported an invasion of Iraq, at least in the abstract, but what do you think would have happened had right then Bush announced that American forces were moving into Iraq the same way they had recently done in Afghanistan? What if he had neither sought nor campaigned for support from the public, the Congress and the UN? It would have gone over like a lead balloon.
- AaronW
June 27, 2011 at 4:43pm
That's 'SOTU.'
- AaronW
June 27, 2011 at 4:45pm
Also, wkwami, why do we have election campaigns? Presumably because they work. And if that is indeed the case, please explain why campaigning for an issue is different than campaigning for an individual.
- AaronW
June 27, 2011 at 5:21pm
Roid writes: "total outlays in 2009 were $3.52 trillion. For 2011, $3.73 trillion. " Alas, you are pointing to the fat man who weighs 300 pounds and noting that he gained just 4 pounds last year. He is still fat. There is a reason you left out 2007 spending, isn't there? In 2007, spending was $2.73T. In 2009, it was $3.52T. In 2011, $3.73T. In 2009, spending jumped 18% over 2008. Are you seriously arguing that spending has not dramatically increased under Obama?
- seattleeng
June 27, 2011 at 5:44pm
Well, the budget for 2009 was not Obama's, it was Bush's. You made the point about increases by Obama, not me. So, I properly compared Obama's current budget to Bush's last budget. Facts are awkward, aren't they? You wanna discuss the changes between Bush 2007 and Bush 2009?
- roidubouloi
June 27, 2011 at 8:11pm
Bush proposed a $3.1T budget for 2009. TARP was extra and approved up to $300B, recouping all but $25B of that. So, as Bush left office, he'd signed off on $3.1T. Yes, that was a big jump over the year prior $2.73 (13%). And a failure in that regard. But we still have Obama's jump to $3.5T (another 13%). Another failure in that regard. But to you, increased government spending is good no matter what. I know. I know.
- seattleeng
June 28, 2011 at 12:13am
But to you, increased government spending is good no matter what. I know. I know. That's more than a bit of a strawman, but while we're on the topic it seemed to work just fine for the Germans, the results of which I recall you being quite enamored with at the time. Until they started their austerity measures (or at least cut back their stimulus), an action I also recall you approving of, which tanked their economy. So, Obama presides over a $400B (mostly temporary) increase in spending in the worst economic downturn in nigh on 80 years, and that's what you harp on? Seriously? Good to know that you view Bush's explosion in spending as a failure, but curiously fail to note that Bush's additions to the Budget were largely structural. As Roi already noted, the deficit is the (unfunded) Bush tax cuts, (unfunded) Bush wars and Bush economic collapse. Absent those, we'd be back in the heady days of the late 90s and arguing over how fast to pay off the debt.
- Nari224
June 28, 2011 at 8:37am
Oh, and unfunded tax cuts are economically indistinguishable from increased government spending, so contra your strawmen, I'm going to guess that it's a fine example of gov. Spending that Roi doesn't view as an unvarnished good.
- Nari224
June 28, 2011 at 8:45am
Sorry, that's indistinguishable from a budgetary perspective, not from an overall economic one obviously.
- Nari224
June 28, 2011 at 8:47am
In a severe slump, increased government spending pretty much is an unvarnished good. As Keynes correctly pointed out, from the standpoint of economic stimulus, paying people to dig holes and fill them in again is as good as anything else. The proof is World War II where we spent billions paying people to march up and down Europe and the Pacific blowing things up. They didn't even bother to fill the holes in. Yet that massive spending wrenched us firmly and finally out of the Depression. That is not to say that we should not want as much value for what we spend as possible. But that is a different point. The much vaunted "waste, fraud and abuse" accounts for a very small portion of the Federal budget. Otherwise, budget cuts would be easy. A modern industrial economy is not supply-constrained. It is demand constrained. We always have excess, idle productive resources. The private sector simply will not generate sufficient demand to keep productive resources employed because it is also generating income inequality that leaves too much income in the hands of the wealthiest. Since Reagan, supply-side idiocy has only exacerbated this problem when what the tax structure ought to be doing it is mitigating it, both to maintain demand and some sort of equitable distribution of income. In a demand-constrained economy, the government sector should grow to take up the slack in private demand. We would of course be much better off if, instead of subsidies to oil corporations and such, we used our public resources to maintain and build necessary infrastructure, much of which is crumbling in this country making us that much more vulnerable to foreign competition. But the same supply-side morons with their economic fantasy life will not countenance spending on our infrastructure, or human capital, in the form of education, or anything else. What will rid us of the plague of this religious mania, supply-side economic doctrine, that bears nor more relationship to the reality of a modern economy than alchemy does to chemistry?
- roidubouloi
June 28, 2011 at 11:15am
But if you fail to contest, then the other side gets to win a lot more. That is what I see happening today in the court of public opinion. Soccer is a low scoring game. Imagine if one side didn't bother to have a defense. Is this your explanation as to why B Hussein Obama is the most popular politician in DC?
- GSpinks
June 30, 2011 at 1:18pm
Not saying much.
- roidubouloi
July 2, 2011 at 4:36pm