JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 30, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The debate within the Democratic Party over President Obama's incipient economic relief program is being conducted between two sides that totally misunderstand its purpose. On the one side, you have administration centrists who support a sufficiently narrow plan that can pass Congress:
Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.
And on the other side, you have liberals who demand boldness:
“Will he commit all his energy to offering bold solutions, or will he continue to work with the tea party?” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said at a recent breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, adding: “If he falls into nibbling around the edges, history will judge him and working people will judge him.”
Here's what everybody is missing: Nothing of significance can pass Congress. Maybe -- maaaybe -- an extended pressure campaign could force Republicans to agree to extend the payroll tax cut. But even that would have modest stimulative benefit. Anything larger has no chance of enactment. Republicans have strong ideological and partisan motives to block any further economic stimulus. Obama can try to design a strategy to exact a political toll for Republican obstruction, but he can't design a strategy to result in passing any significant new stimulus.
The moderates who think Obama can whittle his proposals down to the point where Congress will let them sail through simply haven't been paying attention to the GOP's strategic decision to deny Obama bipartisan cover. And the liberals who insist on a big plan seem to be in denial:
“Even though [Obama] knows Republicans will not allow it to pass Congress, this is a debate that will be settled only by the election, and he needs to go into the election telling the truth about what it will take to get out of this perpetual high-unemployment rut that we’re in now,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a progressive strategy group.
Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, said the economy needs millions of new jobs — and the plan must meet that demand.
“The plan also needs to test the boundaries of what Congress is willing to do,” Ettlinger said. “The president should not start off trying to meet halfway people who only offer completely incoherent economic policy. The president should offer a plan that actually creates jobs, the jobs we need, and then take it to Congress and take it to the people. Offering a weak proposal and then complaining that Congress won’t take action isn’t the way to create jobs.”
It's true -- complaining about a weak proposal that didn't pass won't create jobs. At the same time, complaining about a strong proposal that didn't pass won't create jobs. Congress is not going to pass anything that will create jobs.
This does not mean there is nothing Obama can do. But his plan needs to be understood as a political strategy, not as a legislative strategy. The point of it is to propose something that is popular and which Obama can blame Republicans for blocking. There is no upside in blaming the opposition for blocking a bill that voters don't want to pass.
That means the plan does need to be somewhat big -- anything that's too small will transparently be seen as insufficient to the scale of the disaster. On the other hand, it needs to grapple with the reality that most Americans don't support the kinds of economic stimulus that economists think we need. Now, if Obama potentially had the votes in Congress to pass another stimulus, it would be worth taking an unpopular vote in order to rescue the economy. Since Obama does not and will not have those votes, he needs to conceive of his plan as a political message. There is no point in holding a message vote when the message is unpopular.
This seems to be a reality liberals have trouble acknowledging. There are a lot of issues where the public agrees with the left. Economic stimulus does not appear to be one of them. Now, public opinion is fairly hazy and ill-informed about this, and certain elements of economic stimulus can command majorities. But the passage of the first stimulus, at the height of Obama's popularity, shows pretty clearly that people instinctively think that, when the economy is terrible, having the government spend a lot of new money is not going to help. That they're wrong doesn't really matter for the purposes of this question.
The liberal dialogue about stimulus is almost a perfect parallel to the way conservatives talked about Social Security privatization in 2005. The idea was unpopular, and Democrats in the Senate were determined to block it. Conservatives, though, couldn't acknowledge this. They kept insisting that President Bush push harder, give more speeches, pressure Senate Democrats to give in. Conservatives kept saying this was vital -- we had to privatize Social Security or all would be lost, defeat was not an option.
This is not an argument for -- to use the popular epithet -- "fatalism." Obama has options. He can do his best to frame the debate so as to clarify that Republicans are blocking popular economic recovery measures, like the payroll tax cut and perhaps some infrastructure projects. Conceivably if he wins reelection, and the democrats make huge gains in the House, republicans will rethink their approach and open themselves up to some kind of compromise in 2013. In the meantime, I see no point in blinding oneself to reality.
27 comments
Some good points here, but one needs to keep the endgame in mind. Congress being what it is, this is a purely political strategy, yes. Big or little, an Obama jobs plan is not going to get through the 112th Congress. Not even if it consists of nothing but tax cuts on billionaires financed by selling poor people's kidneys to Israel. But the 112th Congress won't last forever. In the best-case scenario, Obama campaigns on a big new jobs plan, and is rewarded with re-election and substantial Democratic gains in Congress. He will then have a chance (not a guarantee, but a chance) to pass that big new jobs plan. It would be very good if the plan were one that would actually produce jobs. The political strategy becomes an economic one at that point. Even in a middling scenario, where Republicans keep control of Congress but Obama wins re-election, the jobs plan Obama runs on will be his starting point for negotiations. Better a big one that can be whittled down to a small one than a small one that can be whittled down to nothing. I would also add that liberals seem to have a clearer view on the subject than centrists. Most of us acknowledge that this is about messaging and positioning rather than economics per se; so we're arguing for a strong message and a clear position. The centrists are the ones trying to come up with something that will get through the present Congress.
- Dausuul
August 30, 2011 at 11:52am
At this point, I lean towards the liberals who call for boldness. Is it time for a new chief-of-staff? Daley has been in that role since January, and I don't think he's helping Obama handle Congress.
- aboufade
August 30, 2011 at 12:06pm
Well, this a more realistic description of the unemployment situation than we've seen in most other TNR posts. In short, doing anything about the problem is a hopeless fantasy because of relentless Republican opposition to any measures that might improve the economy and bring down the unemployment rate. Obama needs to propose something really big that would be hugely popular with the American people and then let the Republicans reject it. He then needs to tell Americans, over and over, that they can thank the Republicans for the shortage of jobs and for our deteriorating roads, bridges, water mains, and schools. Maybe we'll get another bridge collapse to help him make his point. The Republicans have to be hammered relentlessly for their opposition to measures that would obviously help people and invest in the nation's future. They can't be allowed to get away with the lie that this would be just more wasteful spending that wouldn't create jobs. It's such an obvious lie that it shouldn't be hard to refute, but the Republicans will do their damnedest to make people believe it.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
August 30, 2011 at 12:45pm
Jonathan, Clearly you are correct in saying that the President cannot score points by selling an unpopular economic program, but what has ever been done to improve the public estimation of the kind of stimulus spending that economists think we need? All I have ever seen from this President is an embrace of the Republican ideology. What chance do voters have of forming an intelligent opinion of economic policy when the President himself is an advocate for the misguided prescriptions of the right wing voodoo economics crowd? What happens if a large number of Americans get smart about macroeconomics and realize that he has not put forward anything close to adequate for our current circumstances? I know that seems a remote possibility, and perhaps those voters will see his opponent as a worse choice, but doesn't this risk carry any weight - perhaps enough to induce the President to try to make the case for a policy based on competent economics advice? I think the President must make proposals that are popular, but if it is woefully inadequate and incompetent, it will be one more reason that his base of educated Americans will see him as a joke and a failure. I simply do not believe that Bill Clinton would be losing this argument to these ignorant Republicans, and I despise Obama for not even trying. Neil
- purcellneil@aol.com
August 30, 2011 at 12:48pm
@aboufade: I don't think any chief of staff could "handle" this Congress. I think what Obama needs is a mix of political advisors and folks who know how to push the limits of executive power, to accomplish what he can without Congress. ...wait, did I just advocate re-hiring the Bush Administration? Possibly I need to rethink my goals here.
- Dausuul
August 30, 2011 at 12:54pm
Correct that this is now about politics, not policy. (Actually it always was first about politics. Welcome to the party, Chait.) Incorrect in its prescription, as usual. If the Democrats cannot distinguish and sell a frame distinct from that of the Republicans, they end up reinforcing the Republican frame, and he who owns the frame wins. It is indeed rather late to win the framing battle since Obama has been witlessly doing everything possible to reinforce the Republican frame that deficits are our most urgent problem and deficit-reduction the key to recovery (justified by economic determinists such as Chait for reasons I cannot fathom-- perhaps on the theory that policy is futile so might as well "be the only grownup in the room"). But, if the choice is between Republicans to implement the Republican frame or Democrats to implement the Republican frame, the Democrats lose. Because Obama and the Democrats would not even stir themselves to contest the Republican frame over the past 2 1/2 years, a great deal of strategic political territory has been ceded. Even making contrary noise would have helped. But no, Obama was too busy with his post-partisan narcissism and unable to take account of the Republican strategy absolutely to deny any Republican "cover" for anything. Still even starting now to deal with Republicans as they are would be better than nothing. So, the way to start is with every conceivable proposal that would be popular with the public and therefore certain to be obstructed by the Republicans. It does not matter whether it is really good or bad for jobs and the economy. EVERYTHING should be sold as a job creating proposal, whether it is or is not, just as the Republican claim that every single aspect of Democratic policy of the last 80 years is "job-destroying." Make the Republicans shoot down one popular measure after another and point to it as killing jobs. Best that can be done now, and not really so terrible as a political gambit. But forget sakes get over the idea that any policy progress is possible.
- roidubouloi
August 30, 2011 at 12:57pm
In case that wasn't clear, think up any and every proposal bold enough to capture the public imagination and be popular, no matter what the heck it is. Push if forward aggressively with claims about how it is job-creating. Let the Republicans kill it. Blast them for obstructing progress and damaging the economy.
- roidubouloi
August 30, 2011 at 12:59pm
might want to wait for the House GOP proposal on repealing a few job-killing regulations - could be some merit in what they propose. Lest we forget that Pelosi's Democrats are also viewed as intransigent ideologues...
- K2K
August 30, 2011 at 1:13pm
@Roi, I mostly agree with you, but I do think the end goal should be better policy. The key is to recognize that better policy requires a change of Congress, so the focus should be on proposals that a) give Democrats a strong chance of retaking Congress in 2012, b) could reasonably get through a reasonably likely 113th Congress, and c) would be good policy if they did. If we completely ignore the policy angle, we risk ending up in January 2013 with a big mandate to do a lot of stuff we don't in fact want to do. Moreover, policy is the whole point of politics. If better policy is flat impossible, why should any of us waste time campaigning and volunteering and donating? Fortunately, I don't think there's a contradiction in practice. There are plenty of big job-creating ideas that the public likes and that are also good policy. Obama need only put them out there and run on them.
- Dausuul
August 30, 2011 at 1:17pm
roi: "Correct that this is now about politics, not policy....Incorrect in its prescription, as usual....Make the Republicans shoot down one popular measure after another and point to it as killing jobs." I read the article as proposing exactly that, no? "The point of it is to propose something that is popular and which Obama can blame Republicans for blocking....He can do his best to frame the debate so as to clarify that Republicans are blocking popular economic recovery measures, like the payroll tax cut and perhaps some infrastructure projects." Did I miss something?
- dsimon
August 30, 2011 at 1:21pm
President Obama independent strategy better win the next election or they will reverse the ACA and he will be known for nothing. The political advice to do little reminds me of what comedian Redd Foxx said about health nuts who avoid eating and drinking various foods. They are going to feel awful stupid lying in a hospital dying of nothing.
- Nusholtz
August 30, 2011 at 1:37pm
Yet I don't see a set of proposals that meets any of the tricky goals articulated by Chait or my fellow commentators. Anything Obama does will be attacked as more "useless" spending/stimulus that raises the deficit and debt. Anything that's "small" and relatively immune to the spending charge won't give Obama political advantage (I doubt Plouffe's suggestion of free trade agreements and patent reform is really going to get people excited). I don't see a good way out of the box Obama has painted himself in. He first said that the economy was getting back on track, then acquiesced to debt concerns, and now can't push more spending to help the economy.
- polcereal
August 30, 2011 at 1:46pm
I agree with roid. I don't see the public's shallow aversion to the word "stimulus" as a putting bold proposals and subsequent GOP-blaming off limits. I don't understand why he's not on the stick. If he is making us wait all this time for obviously ineffective garbage -- I'm talking about the proposal, now -- then I don't know that he appears the sage moderate so much as an irrelevant, out-of-touch, ineffectual leader who can't even summon the balls to *argue* for what's necessary.
- JakeH
August 30, 2011 at 2:02pm
polcereal, so he can propose a balanced budget stimulus -- that is, stimulus that's paid for -- as elsewhere suggested on the site. I don't know. If you can get out there with a large, credible solution and find a credible way to pay for it, why not? Keep in mind, it doesn't have to have any chance of passing. It just has to be amenable to an effective sales pitch.
- JakeH
August 30, 2011 at 2:06pm
If the Republicans are holding America's economic recovery hostage, in order not to give Obama a "win", then I think Obama needs to put up an economic package to make that extremely clear. The problem with his 'pre-compromised' efforts so far have been that once he gave up what he really wanted (and the country needed), he wound up adopting so many Republican approaches that simply don't do very much (yet another tax-cut? Really?) that when they didn't work all he could do was dig in his heals to not lose too much. The bottom line is that until the Bush tax-cuts expire, America is going to have a very slow and mild recovery. Every time Obama tries to do something dramatic, the Republicans use that opportunity to hold America hostage and exact even more concessions that damage the current recovery. Any proposal he proposes will, as you point out, die in the House, but he MUST lay that at the feet of the Republicans.
- AllanL5
August 30, 2011 at 2:08pm
@polcereal: Republicans will attack Obama for "useless spending/stimulus," sure, but they'd do that anyhow. If you never do anything your opponents can't frame in a negative way, you'll never do anything, period. The point is to pick a fight in which Obama is stepping up with bold new plans for job creation, and Republicans are saying "No, no, no!" That's a good place to be in. Americans may say they don't want more stimulus, but it's like how Americans say they want to cut spending--it sounds good in the abstract, but support for spending cuts melts away as soon as you start putting specific programs on the table. Likewise, if you put on the table specific proposals to fix infrastructure, to hire teachers, to support science and research, to rebuild American manufacturing, you won't necessarily be hobbled by abstract opposition to stimulus spending. I'm not saying all of these ideas would command popular support--you'd want to do some polling and see which gets a good response--but some of them likely would.
- Dausuul
August 30, 2011 at 2:14pm
@Dausuul: I agree the best position is to offer specifics and show up the Republicans as pure obstructionists. But your suggestions--that sounds an awful lot like the 2009 stimulus, and most of the country thinks it didn't do any good. Again, I don't see a set of proposals that really accomplishes what Obama needs to do. @JakeH: I saw the balanced budget stimulus idea, but that is also politically problematic. Big stimulus combined with tax hikes? It makes some policy sense, but politically: yikes.
- polcereal
August 30, 2011 at 2:34pm
polcereal: "Anything Obama does will be attacked as more 'useless' spending/stimulus that raises the deficit and debt. Anything that's 'small' and relatively immune to the spending charge won't give Obama political advantage" That's why you package them as lots of smaller proposals. Democrats can say this one creates jobs at minimal cost, that one creates jobs at minimal cost, and that one creates jobs at minimal cost, and Republicans shot down each and every one of them. So it gives Democrats multiple targets while avoiding the big-spending label. And Democrats could couple popular jobs programs with popular revenue increases such as closing the carried interest loophole. Polls show that most people think jobs is a far more pressing issue than the debt, so to the extent that Democrats get to talk about the former while Republicans complain about the latter, the tradeoff should benefit the Dems.
- dsimon
August 30, 2011 at 2:44pm
Since the "Centrist" way is working so well, why not mealy mouth around a little bit more, right? It's done wonders for Obama's approval rating. Keep letting Reoublicans define you Obama - you may hit 30% approval yet!
- WandreyCer
August 30, 2011 at 3:38pm
@polcereal: I don't think most of the country even knows what was in the 2009 stimulus. In any case, there are plenty of other proposals out there, like Jared Bernstein's FAST! thing, and the infrastructure bank that Obama has already been pushing. Write down all mortgages held by Fannie and Freddie. Beef up unemployment insurance. Raise corporate taxes but give a big tax credit for each new hire, with restrictions so companies can't abuse the law by "churning." There are a million ways to do fiscal stimulus--the only problem is getting any of them through Congress. So pick a couple that scale big and poll well, and run with them.
- Dausuul
August 30, 2011 at 3:47pm
There's an article about Obama's expected jobs program at Politico, with more than 500 responses. I don't know if the readership of that website is more conservative than the electorate at large, but I sure hope that's the case. The great majority of the comments sound like they were written by Tea Party types, and many are absolutely cretinous and hate-spewing. If these people represent the kinds of Americans that Obama must bring over to his point of view, the situation truly is hopeless. The Republicans must rub their hands in glee when they read this stuff. Does anyone here know anything about the Politico readership? Please tell me it isn't a representative cross section of America.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
August 30, 2011 at 4:06pm
Politico is knee-jerk winger propaganda written by hacks who think of themselves as respectable.
- WandreyCer
August 30, 2011 at 4:21pm
@DaveyD, I can't speak to the specific leanings of Politico readers, but keep in mind that anybody commenting on a political site in an off year is NOT representative. Most Americans aren't paying attention to politics and won't be until mid- to late 2012. Sites like Politico, or TNR for that matter, attract people who are highly plugged in to politics, which means most will be strongly affiliated with one side or the other.
- Dausuul
August 30, 2011 at 4:49pm
That Obama cannot get anything Keynesian through this Congress is a given. Why is debatable-- because he's a brilliant stategist doing rope-a-dope or liberals somehow ruined him to date are two theories Obamaphiles buy. Most voters don't. Most voters believe he is in this position because of some combination of bad policies and bad politics. And that is highly unlikely to change. On his current trajectory, BHO could win a re-election in 2012 if the Repbubs nominate enough of a nut AND unemployment doesn't increase. I'd bet against the latter if you are willing to risk any money. That leaves everything in economic shambles 2013 -2016. The only hope is an economic crisis in the next 3-5 months that brings Progressive candidates to espouse Keynesian policies and challenge Repubs, Blue Dog Dems and BHO. A slim hope-- but I see no one else proposing any other solutions-- Hail Mary's or otherwise.
- drofnats1
August 30, 2011 at 6:33pm
Roi. Fyi, your Hail Mary is also a correct solution. It is really what I propose. But I know that BHO can't and won't do it. I think you really also know it. Ergo, someone else must do it-- otherwise BHO re-elected or not, 2013-2016 (and maybe beyond) are conceded to the Repubs. The US becomes a second rate semioligarchic/theocratic power-- because power really depends on the economy, not ICBMs.. Google USSR.
- drofnats1
August 30, 2011 at 6:46pm
"Here's what everybody is missing: Nothing of significance can pass Congress." Here's what you are missing, Jon: Whether anything can pass Congress is totally beside the point. Roidubouloi has it exactly right, Obama and the Democrats need to think up lots of big, bold, beautiful jobs policy, sell the hell out of it, then dash it to smithereens on the Republicans' heads. You defend against this idea with your suggestion that the public doesn't like stimulus. Okay, so don't call it "stimulus." Call it "Putting America Back to Work" and "Tax Relief for Working Americans." Warren Buffet has already published an essay in the Times about how the payroll tax is unfair and the rich should pay lots more in taxes. Talk to Buffet behind the scenes and get him to fund a Super PAC devoted to the payroll tax issue, and then when Republicans block the payroll tax extension, the Super PAC runs ads in every GOP House district saying "Republican incumbent Joe Schmo voted against tax relief for working Americans..."
- AaronW
August 31, 2011 at 1:49am
Sorry, that should gave read, "payroll tax CUT extention..."
- AaronW
August 31, 2011 at 2:50am