The New Republic

That is "selfessness" I believe

- polijunky

September 8, 2011 at 9:43pm

"Having disarmed the criticism, if opponents refuse to meet him halfway, he is well positioned to win the ensuing fight." Do tell, what fights has Obama won this way? Not a single policy battle that I can think of. And when the price of reasonableness is to be the perceived loser in the policy battle, then there is a terrible political as well as policy cost. As for the politics, it is perfectly fine to create the appearance of reasonableness if there is no cost in doing so or if the benefit outweighs the cost. In this case, there is no cost as there will be no policy. Nor can there be any policy gain from being as unreasonable as the opposition because there will be no policy. It has always been clear to liberals, if not to Chait, that politics and policy are not the same thing.

- roidubouloi

September 8, 2011 at 10:33pm

"Do tell, what fights has Obama won this way" Reelection. That's the hope.

- Virginia Centrist

September 8, 2011 at 11:52pm

I do think that Obama has achieved some policy wins against implacable opposition. Getting any sort of comprehensive healthcare reform passed was a major accomplishment, Clinton couldn't get it done - Obama did. The extension of unemployment benefits in last year's compromise was good policy, that seemed impossible to pass until he did it. The fact that there will be significant defense cuts in this Summer's deal is not insignificant. Is it far from what I would like to see? Hell yes! But I do not blame Obama for that. Overall I think he is playing the long game, or rope a dope. His goal is not to win the issue of the moment. Winning the issues of the moment was impossible long before Scott Brown got elected, it became impossible as soon as Susan Collins and Olympia Snow proved to be on board with the rest of the Republicans. It's important to remember that Democrats do not vote lock step like the Republicans, and they never will. The watering down of the healthcare bill was not done just in response to Republican opposition, it was also done to get some Conservative Democrats on board. I'm much more frustrated with Harry Reid than with Obama. His unwillingness to change Senate rules screwed Obama over when Democrats could beat the filibuster, and his allowing the Senate to stay in session so Obama couldn't do recess appointments this Summer was criminal. All in all I remain hopeful. The Republicans are being baited out to show themselves for what they truly are. I hope the follow through is there to show that the emperor has no clothes. Tonight was a good start down that path.

- Attrill

September 9, 2011 at 12:26am

Obama got his ACA because he did not need, and did not get, a single Republican vote, despite many pointless concessions to the Republicans. His goal should always have been to maintain public support and use it to extract the best policy he can. Rope a dope does not maintain public support. Americans do not want a president who lays on the ropes. If he had a knock out punch to deliver when he comes off the ropes, maybe. But he never did. There is no excuse for not going toe-to-toe every day. My understanding is that the Senate remains in session because it cannot adjourn without the consent of the House. But when there was a Democratic House, Reid could have cooperated to allow recess appointments. Did Obama even ask? Is Reid at fault for this or is Obama? He has been very slow with his appointments.

- roidubouloi

September 9, 2011 at 12:50am

Americans (the majority) also don't like stimuluses, r. So should we go be guided by what Americans do or do not like?

- liberalref

September 9, 2011 at 9:16am

Somehow, roi's and Attrill's comments seem as though they are out of sequence: Attrill has the correct reply to roi's comment about compromising with Republicans on ACA. It wasn't Republicans he was compromising with, it was conservative Democrats. Dems still can't muster the sort of party discipline that Repubs have. They got Collins and Snowe to fall in line and vote against a bill they supported, but we couldn't have done the same for Baucus. That was what was needed to get past the filibuster in the first round. with full support from Dems.

- ramcat

September 9, 2011 at 9:25am

That is ahistorical, ramcat. There were in fact hundreds of concessions to the Republicans in the ACA. However, Obama forget, in his post-partisan haze, to make it a condition that he get Republican votes in exchange. He also enabled the Baucus circus in which the Republican members of the circus troupe ran out the political clock while openly declaring that they had no intention of voting for the bill even if it met their demands. What Obama might have done is construct his ideal bill, negotiate for the Democratic votes he needed, then turn to the Republicans and ask what they wanted, in short order, in exchange for their votes, and not just one or two. He could then have compromised to get their votes or, if they were not immediately and reasonably forthcoming, turned his back and passed the all-Democratic bill.

- roidubouloi

September 9, 2011 at 10:54am

When it is a matter of politics, we need to be guided by what the American public likes, meaning what they respond to in both political rhetoric and behavior. With respect to policy, obtain the best deal you can and slather it with necessary rhetoric. The Republicans have demonstrated over and over again that with sufficient message discipline they can call anything its opposite and persuade the public that that is so. The Democrats simply refuse to learn this lesson. For marketing purposes, you appeal to the sensibilities of the market as it exists. But, unless you are a Republican or supply-side wacko, you don't consider empirical matters, the shape of the earth for example, to be a question of faith or public opinion. Thus, the opinion of the public about stimulus is only important for political purposes. It is quite irrelevant to the economics. The successful politician sells his policy -- good, e.g. stimulus, or bad, e.g. invade Iraq -- by whatever means necessary.

- roidubouloi

September 9, 2011 at 11:00am

"Obama's speech will probably not force Republicans to act. But it may help clarify that they are the ones blocking action." That, indeed, is the critical goal here. The party of "Hell No!" has managed to get their policies enacted (Boehner got 98% of what he wanted) while blaming the President and Democrats for their negative outcomes. And Obama has been enabling this behavior, by pre-compromising on his offers, not standing firm when Republicans took America hostage, and then blaming all of Congress for the results (instead of just the Republicans). If this speech signals a departure from his earlier behavior, it might work. I'm concerned he's already pre-compromising reductions in entitlements, calling for tax increases only on "millionaires" and "corporations", and asking the "Super Committee" to INCREASE their "balance the budget" efforts. The most likely outcome of all of this is yet more grid-lock. I just hope he's prepared to nail that gridlock to the Republicans, where it belongs.

- AllanL5

September 9, 2011 at 12:30pm

"Having disarmed the criticism, if opponents refuse to meet him halfway, he is well positioned to win the ensuing fight." The problem with this approach is the danger that the Republicans DO meet him halfway. Half way from where they start is a lot further to the Right than people who voted for O'bama ever expected him to end up. It might make a few Independents from the commentariat feel all warm and fuzzy but the end result is a win for the Republican agenda.

- IggyPop

September 9, 2011 at 1:03pm

Roi and Iggy are right. As posted in somewhat greater detail on Cohn's blog, by the numbers previously published by economists that understand Keynesian theory (Krugman, DeLong, Johnston, etc), the amount of stimulus requested by BHO (about $450B) is less than half that needed (about $1T) to be rather sure that the economy will recover.And has uneeded tax breaks for business .. Same problem BHO had two years ago...two little, this time also too late, and already negotiates away Medicare cuts. I agree with Krugman that the proposal is 2-3 times more/better than I anticipated. Paul is more impressed with exceeding low expectations for BHO than I am. And I disagree on the political soundness of aiming low for a proposal that will never pass.-- then negotiating down from there. You really think BHO will do otherwise? I'd like to take your bets on that.. even odds, PT Barnum style. That's easy money. I think Robert Reich says it best of anyone today: "Two cheers for the president and his America's Jobs Act. Cheer Number One: In presenting it to a joint session of Congress, he sounded as passionate and determined as he's ever sounded. Second cheer: He laid out the problem correctly and effectively. He explained why jobs and growth must be the nation's first priority now -- not the federal deficit. The economy is in crisis. People are hurting. So government must act, and act quickly. It's irresponsible at a time like this to suggest that government should simply close down. But a jeer because the jobs plan he presented isn't nearly large enough or bold enough to make a major dent in unemployment, or to restart the economy. $450 billion sounds like a lot -- and is more than I expected -- but some of this merely extends current spending (unemployment benefits) and tax cuts (in Social Security taxes), so it doesn't add to aggregate demand. The net new boost to the economy is closer to $300 billion. That doesn't approach even half the gap between what the economy is now producing and what it could produce at or near full employment. And much that $300 billion is in the form of temporary tax cuts to individuals and companies. Some of these make sense -- enlarging the Social Security tax cut, extending it to employers, and giving small businesses a tax holiday for new hires. But temporary tax cuts haven't proven to be particularly effective in stimulating new spending in times of economic stress. People tend to use them to pay off debts or increase savings. Companies use them to reduce costs, but they won't make additional hires unless they expect additional sales -- which won't occur unless consumers increase their spending. That leaves some $140 billion for infrastructure -- improving outworn school buildings, roads, bridges, ports, and so on. And $35 billion to help cash-starved states avoid more layoffs teachers. Both good and important but still small relative to the overall need. Why did the president include so many tax cuts, and why didn't he make his proposal sufficiently large to make a real impact on jobs and growth? Because he crafted it in order to appeal to Republicans. To get it enacted, he needs their votes. I'm having a dizzying sense of déjà vu. The first $800 billion stimulus (spread over two years) wasn't nearly large enough given the drop in aggregate demand. And half of it was in the form of tax cuts. The reason it wasn't bigger and contained so many tax cuts was to get Republican votes. But its apparent ineffectiveness -- it saved around 3 million jobs, but that didn't save it from appearing to fail -- made it harder for the White House to do anything more to stimulate the economy, and ward off what's likely to be a double dip. That's been the heart of Obama's dilemma. Big and bold enough to make a difference, and Republicans are certain to reject it. Small and focused on tax cuts, and maybe Republicans will bite. But even if they sign on, what's the point of the exercise if it won't have a measurable effect on jobs and growth? And why would they sign on this time, anyway? Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell scoffs "This isn't a job plan. It's a reelection plan." That's precisely the problem. McConnell and company have stated publicly that their number-one objective is to unseat Obama and regain the presidency in 2012. They don't want to give the President anything he could possibly claim as a victory. And they're not terribly worried if the economy stays awful through Election Day because that's the best way to fulfill their number-one objective. The president would have done better with a plan that was big enough to make a real difference. And then, when Republicans rejected it, campaign on it. So two cheers -- for both the president's style and his words. And one jeer: He failed on substance and strategy." But which of thaese draws the biggest cheers or jeers? BHO does well on words. His style is OK, but not compelling. Perry does well on style and strategy, poorly on words and substance. If unemployment is 8% or more next August, put your bets on Perry.

- drofnats1

September 9, 2011 at 4:09pm