JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 2, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The post-mortems on the debt deal are showing the degree to which, as I've suspected, the Obama administration completely misunderstood the Republican Party. Laura Meckler and Gerald Seib's tick-tock is especially good. Here are the negotiations bumping up against the fundamental ideological divide in American politics:
The next day, a Friday, a small group of Boehner confidantes warned the speaker about the political risks of working with the president. "The danger to him is making a deal with no one standing behind him," said one. "We wanted to be sure he understood that, and was going into it with his eyes open."
Meantime, the two sides couldn't agree on a key principle for how the tax code should be structured. The White House wanted to state up front that the code would at least maintain existing "progressivity," meaning the wealthy would bear the same share of the tax burden as they do now. Mr. Boehner's team balked, saying too many middle-class Americans pay no income taxes at all now.
Right -- the Republican desire to reduce the progressivity of the tax code is its central political goal. It's not going to compromise on that in a negotiation where Republicans are holding a gun to Democrats' heads. How did the administration not understand this?
And this part bordered on total parody:
The White House asked for an additional $400 billion in tax revenue, saying it was needed to get enough Democratic votes. White House officials say they got no signals the request would be a deal-breaker. But by week's end, the deal was dead.
On a Friday night, July 22, the president and Mr. Boehner held dueling news conferences, each blaming the other for the breakdown. The next day, the president called Mr. Boehner and offered to return to the $800 billion target, trying to save the deal. Mr. Boehner declined.
Within a few days, the White House would realize that taxes wouldn't be part of any agreement.
Within a few days? Years and years of cementing absolutist anti-tax fervor wasn't enough? Then, after they backed away from a wildly slanted agreement for the second or third time, refused to take phone calls, declared the deal dead, it took a few more days?
Laura came home that night and told Jim that she had spent the night with her ex-boyfriend. Jim asked that she agree to stop doing so, and when she refused to answer, he withdrew the request. She told him she despised him, left the apartment without saying where she was going, and would not take his repeated phone calls.
Within a few days, Jim realized the relationship was in trouble.
I suppose, to make the analogy work, Laura would have to have spent the previous couple decades working as a prostitute and authoring a series of tracts denouncing monogamy.
7 comments
The man really must be in thrall to his own post-partisan bullshit. He thought he had "converted" Boehner and saved a soul for his post-partisanship religion. So busy was he saving Boehner's soul, he forgot to be president.
- roidubouloi
August 2, 2011 at 10:17am
@roid That's a bit harsh, but I am starting to worry that Obama might actually, sincerely believe most human beings are fundamentally decent. That's always a fatal assumption.
- Shorpe
August 2, 2011 at 11:03am
- OK, "...the two sides couldn't agree on a key principle for how the tax code should be structured." but Boehner left the WH with the $800 billion target. Since the gang of six opened the week with revenue on the table it was hardly a surprise that the Senate was in for a similar deal. Was the Speaker dissembling when he took that target with him? Maybe someone from the gang should have told Obama the house was lying and would continue to lie. You know, his buddy Coburn could have told him "You'll realize in a few days they're liars even though Boehner is taking your deal back to the house.". I know WSJ likes to paint Obama as a dupe, what do they say about the people on the other side of the table who spent weeks working on a deal they had not intention of accepting?
- michaelg
August 2, 2011 at 11:20am
The genius roid was born to be harsh. The brilliant keyboard-pounders always know exactly what to do. In the real world, the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, but our naifs here don't know this elementary datum. How delicious it would be to thrust them into the Oval Office, burdened not with running their mouths, but actually running the country. I imagine they would be fleeing out the door at the White House before their first day was over, screaming in terror.
- liberalref
August 2, 2011 at 12:12pm
I refuse, absolutely refuse to believe that Obama still thinks Republicans are operating in good faith. In fact in a interview a while back he implied that after the stimulis debate he realized where the GOP was coming from. I think it's a political strategy on Obama's part to expose the radicalism of his opposition, like "golle gee, I don't know why, but they just won't agree to anything". That strategy has it's political costs to be sure (especially with his base) but it has been effective in exposing his opposition as completely unreasonable.
- Archon
August 2, 2011 at 12:35pm
libref, I agree with you about men, but my best-laid plans rarely run awry. And, to Chait- why are we assuming that the political speech that is being leaked from the white house exactly reflects the entirity of obama's views? Isn't it at least possible that one could see some advantage in saying "I was surprised at how unreasonable Boehner was being" even if one wasn't, in fact, surprised?
- miceelf
August 2, 2011 at 12:59pm
I'd be interested to read a psychological profile of Eric Cantor. He may be a nice guy, but I don't really believe that. He's a wicked little reptile, imo, the kind of person I despise, however sincere he may be in his beliefs. Still, I suppose I could take him at his word. But, is that really a virtue in a politician any longer? I don't see how.
- Tgossard
August 2, 2011 at 2:56pm