The New Republic

I've read most of those linked articles. Mr. Cohn is correct. This is excellent journalism. Informative, provocative, stimulating stuff.

- Konstantin

January 5, 2012 at 12:32pm

If Romney gets the nomination, I am hoping the issue will be framed as the protector of the middle class (medicare, social security, tax reform, consumer protection, education, balanced reduction of the deficit) vs. the protector of the privileged (cuts, cuts, and more cuts).

- Nusholtz

January 5, 2012 at 1:00pm

Look at what Republicans did to this country. Obama is making a difference, a substantial difference, and that is what I voted for. Republicans are in the way of a dynamic economy, instead advocating for a going out of business sale for the baby-boomer generation. Obama is fighting for the younger generation, as well as those currently receiving government benefits. He invests, GOP cuts. The choice between Obama and the modern GOP is the most stark contrast of any Presidential election in the history of the United States.

- RedState

January 5, 2012 at 1:13pm

I'm glad to see at least some liberal types learned their lessons in 2000. The way some of the locals rant, though, it's obvious some people still have some learning to do.
I think the 2010 midterms, with it's multiple unseatings of incumbents in solidly red districts, makes a clear and concise picture of how much the Grand Old Tea Party will tolerate any more deviance from campaign rhetoric towards more common-sensical, reality based governing strategies.

- GSpinks

January 5, 2012 at 1:21pm

Of course, it's not just liberals. Does any sane person want to go back and relive the aughts? The strategy used by the right, create an alternative reality, one with a socialist president, government takeover of health care, and adoption of sharia law, has worked in the minds of many; it has worked so well that many don't remember the aughts, the enormous deficits, accelerating disparity in inomes between those at the top and everybody else and stagnant or declining incomes of those in the middle, and, worst of all, a wreckless, feckless, and disastrous use of the men and women in uniform. I believe many liberals, as Cohn says, blame Obama for this sad state of affairs, because they have no other explanation for the amnesia that took hold of the country less than two years after the financial collapse, when it took a generation for amnesia to set in following the Great Depression. It's either Obama's fault or many suffer from a neurological condition far worse than amnesia.

- rayward

January 5, 2012 at 1:24pm

Completely completely completely agree.

- Wonderland

January 5, 2012 at 1:30pm

Any way to make this required reading for every Democrat and independent in the country?

- cspencef

January 5, 2012 at 2:09pm

Liberals are stupid at times and many of them are lazy (indeed the American electorate in general is lazy, if you look at the turnout figures comparaed to almost any other advanced democracy).

- ironyroad

January 5, 2012 at 2:17pm

Since this is Jonathan Cohn's wonky blog, I will ask a wonky question that didn't seem to be answered in Harold Pollock's Washington Monthly piece on the death of Obamacare. Since Republicans will almost certainly not be able to get 60 Senate seats in January 2013, it is likely that Senate Democrats would filibuster an outright repeal of the ACA. Pollock notes, however, that Republicans would push through a repeal by reconciliation using their bare majority, just as the Democrats got the final bill passed through reconciliation after Scott Brown's Senate election in January 2010. And Pollock thinks that, if any law impacts the Federal budget, it can be passed, modified or repealed via reconciliation. However, my understanding of the reconciliation process is that, in order to be passed, repealed or modified with 51 votes, the law doesn't just need to affect the budget but also needs to be scored as REDUCING budget deficits over a period longer than 10 years. Thus, the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 could be passed via reconciliation (without the need to worry about Democratic filibusters) only if the cuts sunset after 10 years -- a permanent enactment would have needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. By that token, how could a repeal of the ACA be scored as reducing the budget deficit? And, if it couldn't be so scored, how could the whole ACA or the budget-affecting parts thereof be permanently repealed by only 51 votes? Jonathan and others, I assume I'm missing something in my analysis, so please feel free to enlighten.

- wildboy

January 5, 2012 at 2:50pm

As an oft-times critic of President Obama, who nonetheless completely (and I mean completely) agrees with the main thrust of this and the Washington Monthly article, I know I will be circulating this thesis, and toning down any public criticism of Obama in this election year.

- IowaBeauty

January 5, 2012 at 3:04pm

I feel childish beating a dead horse, but rayward's and irony's respective comments ("a reckless, feckless, and disastrous use of the men and women in uniform," and "Liberals are stupid at times") just make me relive a pain similar JC's and my mutual pain of the 2000 election. I cannot, for the life of me, believe that so many liberals at this magazine supported the invasion of Iraq, and for some reason, set aside their otherwise consistent rationality on that single issue.

- RJSampson1

January 5, 2012 at 3:46pm

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a single liberal friend who has expressed any hesitation to voting for Obama. This seems consistent with the fairly high percentage of Democrats who prefer Obama as the nominee. Meanwhile, it seems like Romney is the one who has a problem with enthusiasm within his party for his candidacy, although they will still be driven to the polls by their hatred of Obama.

- kluhman

January 5, 2012 at 3:58pm

That is some scary, scary stuff right there. It makes the current gridlock look like the height of sane and competent government. And whatever you may think of his performance in office, Obama is all that stands between us and that.

- Dausuul

January 5, 2012 at 5:48pm

RJSampson1, I supported the war in Iraq for the exact same reason I supported the war in Libya, both Gadhafi and Hussein were cancers in their countries who have shown repeatedly that they have zero respect for international laws. The main difference between the 2 wars was in the prosecution of the wars, Bush was staggeringly inept, Obama was near perfect. As to the series of articles (which I am still reading) Republicans best hope is to lose this run and position themselves for 2016, hopefully by then a Republican like GHWB will be available. The US needs 2 functioning and rational parties to keep the other in check, right now Republicans are batshit insane (though a Huntsman Presidency doesn't scare me, if he were to catch fire he would have every reason to thumb his nose at the wingnut part of the party and run as a moderate Conservative). If Republicans win though they would overreach again and sew the seeds of their own destruction, demographics are their enemy. (thank God)

- blackton

January 5, 2012 at 5:59pm

I don't disagree that a Republican victory this year will be terrible. At the same time, it is difficult to make oneself behave enthusiastically with regards to a candidate about whom one feels no enthusiasm. Last time around I was quite enthusiastic about Obama. I donated a total of $600 to his primary and g.e. campaigns; I defended him agressively on these very TNR boards; I joined an Expats for Obama Internet group; I encouraged my mother, who still lived in Virginia at the time, to volunteer for his campaign there. This year I have done none of these things, nor am I likely to do so. What Cohn is asking of liberals is that we pretend to a passion for Obama that we do have on the basis of a purely rational risk/benefit calculation. While Cohn's position is sensible on it's face, it fails to take into account how politics actually works. "Things will be worse with the other guy," is not a rousing slogan. And if Obama does lose as a result of a fall-off in enthusiasm from liberals--and young people, and minority voters--the object of Cohn's anger and frustration shouldn't be Drew Westen, but President Obama himself. Maybe if he had paid more attention to who his true constituents were and to what it was about himself that excited them about him in the first place, he wouldn't be facing the challenging reelection campaign that lies before him.

- AaronW

January 5, 2012 at 6:57pm

"the object of Cohn's anger and frustration shouldn't be Drew Westen, but President Obama himself. Maybe if he had paid more attention to who his true constituents were and to what it was about himself that excited them about him in the first place, he wouldn't be facing the challenging reelection campaign that lies before him." I disagree. First, the primary reason for the challenging nature of his reelection is the state of the economy, and do not see what he could have done within the political constraints of the last 3 years that would have resulted in a significantly better economy. And the same applies more broadly. Obama has made mistakes, but I cannot envision actions that would have produced significantly more progressive achievements given the opposition he has faced. Indeed, he and the Democrats in Congress have a long and impressive list of accomplishments that they should be proud of. Perhaps I am more pragmatic than some, but I am quite enthusiastic about his presidency and the prospect of his reelection. Even after 3 years, I continue to find it a huge relief and source of pride to have an intelligent, thoughtful, and well-spoken president, particularly in comparison to Bush and what the Republicans have to offer.

- kluhman

January 5, 2012 at 7:51pm

Since 2007, with the hope that at some point he would exceed my early assessment & expectations, I've believed that Obama is/was the least qualified Dem candidate for President. However, Biden is the most qualified. Biden's my candidate. I'm voting for Biden. VP Biden, and at least having Biden's voice in the White House, excites me.

- Konstantin

January 5, 2012 at 8:00pm

I think you are correct, wildboy -- no matter how much it wants to, the GOP can't repeal Obamacare through reconciliation without changing the current legislative rules or breaking a Democratic filibuster, or constructing a fraudulent cost estimate. I assume that they would try to push through a rules change or bundle the change with other spending cuts to get around this.

- JEFF FREY

January 5, 2012 at 8:16pm

@kluhman, Forget about Obama vs liberals for the moment and answer me this: Suppose a definable subset of a politician's supporters become disillusioned with the politician and he loses an election as a result. Who is to blame for the loss? I'd say it's the politician. It is a politician's responsibility to lead and inspire. It is not a voter's responsibility to be inspired. I agree that Obama's troubles are closely tied to the stagnant real economy, however it is not at all obvious to me that there is nothing Obama could have done differently that would have placed him in a stronger political position today than that in which he finds himself. Specifically look at young people. Obama's victory in 2008 came on the back of unprecedentedly high support from and turnout of young voters. This is the same group that has been disproportionately affected by America's horrendous employment situation. After three years of surrender to Republican blackmail and enervatingly measured rhetoric on the subject of the economic crisis and those responsible, Obama is in a remarkably weak position to engage people in their twenties who are suffering with an unemployment rate north of 20%. How many of the millions who were caught up at least in the idea of Occupy Wall Street supported Obama in 2008? How many will support him this time around? The truth that Cohn doesn't really acknowledge here is that if Obama loses this time around it won't be because he was abandoned by university-educated liberals in Boston and Seattle but because he was abandoned by politically disengaged black people and twenty-three-year-olds in Virginia and Ohio who voted for the first time ever in 2008 and who in 2012 won't go to the same trouble. And if he does lose such marginal voters, he'll have no one to blame but himself.

- AaronW

January 5, 2012 at 8:50pm

But, AaronW, it is a voter's responsibility not to cut off his nose to spite his face. If liberals are not willing to hold their noses and vote for a liberal politician who does not fully inspire them, then they get what they deserve when the other side wins. I agree with you that Obama could have done some things better, and could have done more to inspire even when he had no way to "win" on the policy front. But I think kluhman is essentially correct -- I don't think he was going to get much more done in terms of policy no matter what he did.

- JEFF FREY

January 5, 2012 at 10:26pm

Maybe you didn't read my entire post, Jeff. I really don't think flight of the liberals is going to be the decisive factor. If Obama loses--and though I haven't said so here, I actually think he'll probably win--it will be flight of the Democratic-leaning occasional voters, people like blacks, Latinos and younger people who tend to feel excluded from the system and tend to go to the polls less reliably than older, whiter voters. In 2008 they did go to the polls for Obama in unprecendented numbers largely because they believed that Obama "felt their pain" in a way that no other presidential candidate ever had in US history. But over the intervening three years, Obama has often seemed at pains to keep such folks at arms length and has sought instead to prove himself non-threatening to the white establishment. White educated liberals such as myself may grumble, and we might not donate as much money this time around, but in the end most of us will come out to vote for the far lesser of two evils. What BHO needs to worry about is that a critical percentage of his more marginal supporters simply sit this one out, not because they feel betrayed by him but simply because the threshold of excitement required to get them out to vote for anybody simply isn't there anymore. Maybe he couldn't have done anything to fix this situation. I can't know for sure, but I can say for sure that Clinton in '96 Obama is not. He does a piss poor job of making people who already support him feel good about themselves for supporting him. He acts like he already has those votes in the bag and therefore expends all his energy at trying to get the opposition, made up mostly of people who are never going to support him, who basically hate his guts, come over to his side. So yes, Obama has been dealt a lot of shitty cards and maybe he'd lose no matter how he played it. But I still say that as a politician, he's mediocre at best and that if he loses the political game, the fault is his.

- AaronW

January 6, 2012 at 12:45am

Sorry to rain on the parade, but The Repub nominee, whoever that may be, is highly likely to win. Odds are on, BHO will be deemed responsible for (and with much good reason) 9% unemployment or more and rising in a flat or falling DNP. It's then ABO time-- Anybody But Obama. And the nature of the Anybody matters less than BHO had 4 years to correct the great Recession/Lesser Depression-- and didn't. And BHO will be promising small increments of more of the same-- that he can't deliver [Google Hungary as a case on point. Or Spain.] It will be hard to say who are the greater fools-- those buying the Repub ABO or those buying that re-electing BHO will do anything other than provide the Repubs a Democratic Hoover against whom they can run for a generation. A rational, non-nut-job, argument can be made that Mittens (the probable nominee) with a Repub House and Senate (both highly likely) would get more stimulus legislation passed than BHO ever would. Repubs will rediscover Keynes once in power-- budget balancing is a lessor goal.

- drofnats1

January 6, 2012 at 2:24am

drofnats, I share in your disillusionment with BHO, and for a long time I shared in your wish that some inspiring candidate would stand up to challenge him from the left, but it hasn't happened and it isn't going to happen, and I cannot in any way share in your belief that the status quo is so godawful that anyone, even a Republican, who shakes it up should be favored over Obama. The modern GOP is fascist inasmuch as it believes that anything and anyone who stands in opposition to its goals is, ipso facto, illegitimate. The Supreme Court plays a key role in the Republican campaign to subvert American democracy, and should a Republican victory in 2012 enable the party to consolidate conservative control of the Court, as most assuredly it would, it would be an unmitigated disaster. While I can follow the logic of your idea that if we are to be stuck with disastrous Republican economic policy it would better if there were a Republican in office to take the blame, thereby discrediting the party once and for all, an equally likely scenario is that another four years of GOP control over 2.5-3 branches of government would fatally weaken our democracy to the point that public opinion would cease to make an difference whatsoever. It is worth remembering that neither Mussolini nor Hitler came to power by means of a popular revolution or a coup.

- AaronW

January 6, 2012 at 8:23am

Shoot, we had Bush-II in office for 8 years, resulting in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, yet every single Republican running for office continues to claim that FURTHER tax-cutting and spending-cutting will bring prosperity. Well, yes, to the Mr. Potter's of this world, but it isn't going to help Bedford Falls. The point being, after that enormous disaster, you'd think Republican Supply-Side Economic Policy would be completely discredited. But that's not what we find.

- AllanL5

January 6, 2012 at 9:52am

Blacks aren't going to stay home in droves. His election meant the evisceration of that invisible ceiling for blacks, and his re-election means it wasn't some sort of fluke, but that a black man can be a good president. Latinos probably won't either as soon as one whiff of republican immigration policy hits the wind. I'm still waiting for the first ethnic American in Arizona to stand up and say "thank you" for their new immigration policy. I'm not holding my breath, either. And if the Republicans starting making it a big deal they're going to draw in every other demographic, especially the college kids and these people aren't going to just fall in line with the GOP propaganda, either.

- GSpinks

January 6, 2012 at 12:32pm

This election scares me too. A Republican victory would be truly terrifying. One thing to remember though, is that in the medium to long run (meaning after this election) the Republican party is doomed because of its repudiation of minorities and the young. A new party will have to become prominent, or the Republican party will have to radically change, in order to keep our two party system alive. The crazies, God willing, won't prevail this time, but if they do, it won't be for long.

- Erik_S

January 6, 2012 at 1:59pm

I'd also like to second Jeff Frey and AaronW on the points of liberals cutting off their noses to spite their face. I think enough has been said on that topic at this point, including the debate over whether or not things will be the same, better, or worse if the GOTP takes over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's where it boils down to a bit of a guessing game, and my Magic 8 Ball says, "Don't bet on it."

- GSpinks

January 7, 2012 at 1:31pm