JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 25, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
One of the underrated impediments to a debt ceiling hike is the Republican belief that any agreement with President Obama is by definition a bad one. Part of this is the rational partisan urge to deny Obama a big accomplishment he could use to position himself for 2012. Another is a simple heuristic. Budget agreements are convoluted and require assumptions about how present agreements will bind future actors. If you consider Obama a socialist, then anything he agrees to by definition can't be a moderate deficit-cutting program to reduce government.
Obviously, we can't get into the heads of various Republicans and suss out their mental processes. But you can almost prove that this phenomenon is occurring via a simple thought experiment. Obama has signaled his support for at least two major deficit-reducing agreements. When presented with these plans, conservatives have two major decisions to make. One is, does this constitute a genuine (or supportable) deficit-reduction program? And two, is Obama's support for it genuine?
In theory, these would be two separable questions. You could map out conservative reactions into four boxes, representing the four yes/no positions on those two questions. In reality, conservative reaction has broken down into just two positions. You have those who dislike the plan while agreeing that Obama supports it, and those who like the plan in question but doubt Obama supports it. The other two boxes (like the plan and agree that Obama supports it, and dislike the plan and doubt Obama supports it) appear, as far as I can see, empty.
So, for instance, when word leaked of an Obama-Boehner Grand Bargain, you had the Wall Street Journal editorial page denouncing the deal for raising taxes. Charles Krauthammer, by contrast, described the details as "offers of surpassing scope and reasonableness," but insisted they could not be real because they were being proffered behind closed doors. The Journal opposed the reported plan, which allowed it to accept reports of the plan's details, while Krauthammer liked the details, which forced him to angrily deny its existence. Other conservative commentary I've seen has fallen into these two categories.
Likewise, last week the Gang of Six came out with a deficit proposal. After both Republicans and deficit scolds assailed him for failing to openly endorse the deficit commission's plan last December, this time Obama embraced the Gang of Six. Conservative reaction again fell into the same two camps. You had conservatives attacking the Gang of Six. (This was the majority reaction, as the Gang of Six plan was significantly more liberal than the deal Republicans had walked away from with Obama.) You also had conservatives praising the Gang of Six but assailing Obama. See Peggy Noonan's column this weekend:
It is time for the president to get out of the way....
The other day he announced the Gang of Six agreement with words that enveloped the plan in his poisonous embrace: "I wanted to give folks a quick update on the progress that we're making." We're. He has "continued to urge both Democrats and Republicans to come together." What would those little devils do without Papa? "The good news is that today a group of senators . . . put forward a proposal that is broadly consistent with the approach that I've urged." I've urged. Me, me, me.
That approach includes "shared sacrifice, and everybody is giving up something." He was like a mother coming in and cheerily announcing: "Dinner's served! Less for everybody!"
We're trying to begin a comeback, not a famine. We're trying to take actions that will allow us to grow.
He's like a walking headache. He's probably triggering Michele Bachmann's migraines.
The Gang of Six members themselves should have been given the stage to make their own announcement, and their own best case.
The president, if he is seriously trying to avert a debt crisis, should stay in his office, meet with members, and work the phones, all with a new humility, which would be well received. It is odd how he patronizes those with more experience and depth in national affairs.
This is more or less what a Republican staffer inadvertently conceded when he told Mike Allen that Obama's embrace killed the Gang of Six plan. Republicans simply may not have the emotional capacity to accept a bargain that they don't see as a humiliation for Obama. Obama seems to have figured this out, and is trying to let Democrats in Congress make the deal for him. The Journal has favored just raising the debt ceiling even without policy concessions, and is trying to pitch a compromise ironed out within Congress as a repudiation of Obama's negotiating skills. (Today's editorial argues, "it says something that the country has a better shot of getting something out of a divided Congress than it does out of the Oval Office."
The Journal seems to view this angle as the best way to get conservatives to back down -- sell them on cutting a deal with Democrats in Congress, and present this as a repudiation of Obama. Well, whatever works for them.
25 comments
But Jonathan, we are so lucky because we have many commenters out here who can get inside the Republicans' heads. They are all evil, it is that simple. Don't you read the scribblings below your texts, J.?
- liberalref
July 25, 2011 at 2:07pm
I think Peggy Noonan's probably right but for the wrong reasons. O should let Congress deal with this manufactured crisis, for better or worse, and crack down on the budget. Spend on Executive authority to pay all expenditures previously authorized by Congress for as long as they want to clown around with the debt ceiling, then address their budget. Veto all spending that's not paid for, and Congress will have to produce something the public will quickly be able to weigh in on. Good policy, good politics.
- Robert Powell
July 25, 2011 at 2:11pm
One of the often heard criticisms of Obama is that he does not lead. But even the best leader needs troops who are actually willing to follow. Who can lead an anarchist crew like the Tea Party freshmen? Boener can't. McConnell can't. Thomas Friedman has said the problem with the Palestinians is that they hate the Israelis more than they love their children. It appears the current GOP, either consciously or neurotically, hate Obama more than they love America.
- Ouroboros
July 25, 2011 at 2:28pm
I believe my post above qualifies as one of the mind-reading scribblings to liberalref refers.
- Ouroboros
July 25, 2011 at 2:30pm
Reid already called the Republicans' bluff by offering spending cuts equal to the increase in the debt ceiling, which, by an odd twist of fate, is about equal to the amount stolen from the social security trust fund.
- rayward
July 25, 2011 at 2:40pm
The debt is way, way too big and had we a choice, shouldn't be any bigger. But the time to address that happened 10 years ago, when the Republicans cut taxes, and then, after that, ran two unfunded wars, and then enacted an unfunded prescription drug benefit to the drug companies. It's like, after a lifetime of smoking cigarettes, the patient has lung cancer and instead of dealing with it, the Republicans are just arguing over anything that comes our way. It doesn't matter what, just anything of which they can find to argue about.
- Nusholtz
July 25, 2011 at 2:45pm
Obama outsourced the debt ceiling negotiations to Biden, which was evidence that he didn't lead and just wanted to go around the country giving partisan speeches. A real President would get in there and get this thing solved, dammit! Then Obama gets involved in detailed meetings, spends weeks trying to jawbone the parties to agree, concedes a whole bunch of stuff to Republicans. But all this leadership just makes it worse, and he really needs to get out of the way of the legislative branches' solving this problem, as the Constitution requires (see George Will's column this morning). I guess this means that Obama should have shown the best kind of leadership that Republicans expect from Democratic Presidents, which would be to accept all of the Republicans' conditions to whatever legislation they need to pass and then not bother to run for re-election next year.
- wildboy
July 25, 2011 at 3:28pm
The closing Noonan sentence ("It is odd how he patronizes those with more experience and depth in national affairs.") deserve particular attention and ridicule. The affectation ("It is odd . . . "), presumption (the President America voted for should just sit his ass down so that six older white men from the South and heartland can better wallow in "depth") and hypocrisy (this is a woman who worked for Reagan and supported W. Bush) make for yet another classic.
- mtinora@me.com
July 25, 2011 at 3:43pm
If only Obama would receive a Mormon-style Revelation that he and Biden should resign and allow Speaker Boehner become President. Republicans would call that amazingly creative leadership.
- cforeman
July 25, 2011 at 3:52pm
The press is reporting now that the House of Representatives is prepared to offer a bill extending the debt ceiling for about one year. And the bill won't be exactly "clean". This is something the President has said he opposes. Secrecy surrounding the negotiations remains the order of the day as the press tries to move the curtain away. This degree of secrecy seems extraordinary for Washington. The post suggests that the President nixed the Gang of Six proposal when he raised the proposal during his negotiations with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Speaker has said that a possible agreement between him and the President was blown apart when the President tried to insert the terms of the Gang of Six proposal into the negotiations. So, my question is, who is going to write the definitive account of these events?
- Doug12
July 25, 2011 at 3:52pm
"all with a new humility" Yes, Peggy. We all recall the humility of George W. "I'm the Decider/Mission Accomplished" Bush and Richard "Unitary Executive" Cheney. Cheney in particular just exuded humility. With their complete denial of the structual deficit left by Bush, the 3 steaming piles of shit that they left in the Oval Office (2 wars and a financial meltdown), the Republicans again stick to their time/space theory that the world was created on January 20, 2009 - except for that shining decade of the 80's when St. Ronald reigned. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decide_0923.html
- dubyadoubte
July 25, 2011 at 4:08pm
That makes a lot of sense. My fear is that it's not just about Obama because the noveau Randian base requires constant radical excitment and Republic saving battle. It helps give meaning to their clearly inadequate lives. There'll be another crises soon after the Drudge refresh. God help Obama if he does get relected with another Randian congress. He'll be knackered at the end of it.
- IggyPop
July 25, 2011 at 4:12pm
I for one enjoyed the "Stop Spending! Morons" sign. Because it's true. Despite our current surplus of morons, they'll run out eventually. Why won't SOMEONE think of the children???
- miceelf
July 25, 2011 at 4:17pm
- "Republicans simply may not have the emotional capacity to accept a bargain that they don't see as a humiliation for Obama." Calling Dr. Phil.
- michaelg
July 25, 2011 at 5:00pm
Of all the stuff that I read coming out of the right wing, Peggy Noonan's, for some reason affects me beyond reason. I don't know if it's because before the 2008 election she actually seemed to like Obama or of it's because she'a mealy mouthed so-and-so with no apparent need to have facts back up her assertions, or if it's because those assertions are delivered in an NPResque style (at least when heard) ... she's one of the few people who can reliably get me frothing at the mouth.
- NR409654
July 25, 2011 at 5:03pm
Agreed NR. Her sands shift even faster than Orrin Hatch's or Flip Romney's. It's all about ObamaHate.....cons can't be seen or even contemplate any decision that could conceivably be interpreted as helping Obama. The country be damned, this is about white, middle-aged, male, christian hegemony.
- desertdog
July 25, 2011 at 6:23pm
A. Because he's Black. B. Because he's a Democrat--and certainly Obama is no socialist or radical. C. Because they are filled with hate for poor people. D. Because they hate the elderly. E. Because their radical agenda is more important than the lives of Americans. F. Because they are on a power trip. G. Because he's Black.
- bufatutu
July 25, 2011 at 6:55pm
bufatutu 'bout sums it up.
- Sophia
July 25, 2011 at 7:02pm
I've said it a few times myself, but yes, exactly. And they hate Michelle Obama because she's there as well, in the White House! And as a reasonably healthy and energetic couple who still appear to find each other cool, they probably have sex occasionally too, in the goddamn White House! -- which drives a section of the country into near-insanity.
- ironyroad
July 25, 2011 at 7:21pm
Meanwhile, though - I don't get it. I don't get Harry Reid, I don't get why the Democrats have utterly, completely and totally caved. No revenues at all?
- Sophia
July 25, 2011 at 7:33pm
Meanwhile, though - I don't get it. I don't get Harry Reid, I don't get why the Democrats have utterly, completely and totally caved. No revenues at all?
- Sophia
July 25, 2011 at 7:33pm
Because: the people are not impressed with Republican ideology. So why are they getting away with this?
- Sophia
July 25, 2011 at 7:34pm
Ooops. Don't know why all the multiple posts - sorry, I only hit the button once. But maybe the computer system wanted to make a point?
- Sophia
July 25, 2011 at 7:35pm
Sophia, the revenues can be addressed later when the Republicans want to again extend the Bush tax cuts. At that point the President will hold the negotiating club. Right now they need to raise the debt ceiling and agree to cuts enough to get us at least through the next election.
- kwestlund
July 25, 2011 at 9:43pm
It's personal.
- laurig
July 25, 2011 at 10:01pm