Political Animal
Blog
E.J. Dionne Jr. today walks right up to a line I’ve approached myself on occasion.
For the moment, Republicans have no interest in moving the nation’s debate toward investments in job creation because they gain twice over from keeping Washington mired in discussions on the deficit. It’s a brute fact that Republicans benefit if the economy stays sluggish.
Dionne’s choice of words is a little coy — I suspect deliberately so — but the underlying message is worth considering, even if it’s provocative. Republican policymakers have an enormous influence on economic policy at the federal level, and under the current circumstances, and it’s at least possible, the argument goes, that GOP leaders are using their power in a deliberately destructive way with electoral considerations in mind.
Kevin Drum wonders whether this will ever be “a serious talking point,” adding, “No serious person in a position of real influence really wants to accuse an entire party of cynically trying to tank the economy, after all.”
That’s clearly true. As I’ve been reminded more than once after writing items like this one, it’s considered beyond the pale to discuss motives in debates like these. There’s nothing wrong with saying, “Republican economic policies would be disastrous for the economy.” But one tends to get in trouble for saying, “Republican economic policies would be disastrous for the economy — which may be why Republicans are pursuing them.”
But that’s why I find it all the more interesting when credible, well-grounded figures raise the argument at all. E.J. Dionne is known for being a responsible center-left voice, not an unhinged partisan bomb-thrower, and he came close to the “sabotage” argument in his column today. A few months ago, his Washington Post colleague, Eugene Robinson, conceded on national television that “maybe” the Republican approach to the budget “is to depress economic growth to set up the Republican Party for 2012, so people will be angry with President Obama and maybe elect a Republican.” Robinson, incidentally, is a Pulitzer Prize winner, not some wild-eyed activist.
And reader J.S. alerted me to these recent comments from Daniel Gross, a former senior editor at Newsweek and now an economics editor at Yahoo, who also argued that it’s at least possible that some congressional Republicans are pursuing a destructive economic policy on purpose. Indeed, Gross suggested it’s practically common sense: Republicans believe they will benefit from a weak economy, so it “stands to reason” that the party “would engineer policy to get that outcome.”
Gross added that there’s “an element” of the Republican Party “that just wants to blow stuff up.”
To Kevin’s point, I haven’t seen any Democratic officials willing to go this far, at least in public, probably because the accusation would cause a significant firestorm.
But there appears to be a growing number of credible voices who at least consider this a topic worthy of conversation.
Facebook
Twitter
Zorro on June 13, 2011 2:14 PM:
Cue the Beastie Boys...
Listen All Of Y'all This Is Sabotage
Listen All Of Y'all This Is Sabotage
Listen All Of Y'all This Is Sabotage
Listen All of Y'all This Is Sabotage
-Z
c u n d gulag on June 13, 2011 2:15 PM:
And after 4 years of throwing sand and wrenches into the works, if they win, how much does anyone want to bet that they'll follow a lot of the same policies that they now scream and shriek are Socialist/Communist/Fascist?
They'll just call them something else.
Cap'n Phealy on June 13, 2011 2:18 PM:
There's a relatively strong counterargument that avoids any talk of "sabotage", though no one in any position of authority in either major party will give it a voice. The fact is, if the economy is your major factor in deciding how to vote, and the economy is bad enough that you're going to vote against an incumbent President, then you absolutely must vote against every incumbent. Every single one.
After all, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If the current crop of elected officials isn't solving the problem, all of them must go.
Not gonna happen, of course. It's always the other guy who causes the problem, not me and anyone I like enough to give my vote.
g on June 13, 2011 2:23 PM:
And why shouldn't people say it? the Republicans have been accusing Obama of deliberately trying to destroy the economy, and along with it, the nation - they simply have no compunction about it. It's time to call it the way it looks.
Davis X. Machina on June 13, 2011 2:27 PM:
The worse, the better.
The GOP is the last remaining Leninist party in the parliamentary West.
All power to the soviets of preachers and hedge-fund managers.
Remus Shepherd on June 13, 2011 2:28 PM:
I wish our news media would call things what they are more often. The words 'liar' and 'sabotage', and the phrase 'malignant festering boil on the ass of American politics' should be used much, much more often.
tomb on June 13, 2011 2:30 PM:
I think exposing the Republican strategy is important and I think the evidence makes a powerful case for it. How else would you explain, for instance, why the GOP now opposes policies it once supported such as cap and trade, deficit spending, health mandates, etc. Remember "I want to see the president fail." "My job is to make him a one-term president."?
Joe Afonso on June 13, 2011 2:32 PM:
I agree with what you say; but you know what, we need someone (something) to make noise about the Republican stategy--a little firestorm would is better than noise at all, which is what the Obaba admin has chosen to do. This stategy plays right into the Republican hands--Obama/Democrats, make some noise!!!!!!!!!
Holmes on June 13, 2011 2:32 PM:
Of course Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy, but first and foremost, the President(and Democrats in general) have to make the case for an alternative to the republicans' crazy policies. Without a plausible argument and/or vision for recovery, just pointing out the republicans are destructive, even if it's true, will just look like scapegoating.
Make the case for your policies and illustrate the difference between the parties' approaches. Explain the utility and benefit of stimulus. Explain the deficit.
Obama can be very effective when he wants, like the decimation of Ryan in that medicare speech. That single speech helped set the terms of the debate going forward. He can do the same on the economy if he is willing to take a risk and step on a few toes, including the banks and corporate America.
ManOutOfTime on June 13, 2011 2:37 PM:
No serious person in a position of real influence really wants to accuse an entire party of cynically trying to tank the economy, after all.
Then there must be no serious persons in the GOP. For my entire adult life, the majority of Repug talking heads and media mouthpieces have been doing exactly that - accusing the other side, that is, liberals, of intentionally wrecking the economy (and culture and civilization) for political gain.
sjw on June 13, 2011 2:38 PM:
And what would be the problem with a "firestorm," as Mr. Benen puts it? It would be a "win" for Democrats, a big pain for the Republicans, and perhaps make for real gains for the US economy (in particular the millions who are unemployed). Indeed, I keep wondering, why don't Democrats start attacking on this issue?
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 2:40 PM:
I still don't think this is intentional, as Republicans didn't support stimulus spending during the Bush years, even when the economy was cratering. In fact, there's no evidence to suggest that modern Republicans have EVER embraced the idea of government spending to bail us out, as it completely goes against the conservative ideology which they've made the cornerstone of their political strategy. They insist that government spending is the cause of recessions, not the cure; and this is one of the few things they've been consistent about.
Thus said, they'll happily tout the benefits of government spending in their districts after the fact, and have no shame in taking credit for projects they voted against. And what makes that most shameful of all is simply that they consistently argue AGAINST such projects; at least as far as it benefits anyone else's district but their own. But when the rubber hits the road, they full understand how important stimulus is. They just don't want anyone else to have it.
Goldilocks on June 13, 2011 2:42 PM:
Yes, echoing @sjw, a firestorm is exactly what's needed.
walt on June 13, 2011 2:43 PM:
There's a question whether ideology or political thuggishness is the real reason for Republican intransigence on governance. The answer is probably both, but the ideology is more a fig leaf for the thuggishness than vice versa. Republicans want to win more than anything else. They love the game more than life itself, and certainly the country or its "eteranl principles". This has always been a sport to them, a blood sport if you will. And they don't care who gets hurt, or even killed.
The real question is not whether they'll pay a price for this (obviously not since this nation's elites never pay a price for anything) but why Obama never called them out on this. It's 2011, the economy is getting worse, and your most potent argument, which happens to be true, is lying somewhere on a desk gathering dust. These people routinely put party before country and want yet another chance to hurt Americans. Someone needed to say this, someone with power and prestige, and Obama decided to play golf.
It's too late for this country.
Curmudgeon on June 13, 2011 2:45 PM:
"None Dare Call It Sabotage"
There's the perfect title for whatever article, news clip, book, blog post or restroom scrawl anyone would care to create.
The text practically writes itself. "All of these proposals and regulations sabotage any real chance of job creation, but we can't use that word because....well, just because."
The wealthiest one percent will never be touched by the trouble they create, but the results will ensure that they retain their wealth and influence in perpetuity. And the people who can do something about it are too cowed to speak the truth about it.
It doesn't get much more craven and shameful than that.
Anthony Damiani on June 13, 2011 2:47 PM:
Look, they came out early on hoping the President would fail (even if that made things worse for the country), and then they later declared that getting rid of the President was their #1 priority (more so than the good of the country). I don't see why this is even controversial.
Mike D on June 13, 2011 2:47 PM:
So what are the rules here? It's OK to say that we're mere moments away from being a Socialist country, but it's beyond the pale to say that some people are rooting for a bad economy so their political opportunities improve. Right?
Wait, what?
square1 on June 13, 2011 2:50 PM:
Once again, Steve Benen avoids the elephant in the room: The failure of the Democratic Party to attack supply-side economics and defend the proven Keynesian alternative.
It is rather asinine to attack the GOP for allegedly ignoring job creation when the GOP has consistently claimed that tax cuts will create jobs and consistently pushed for more tax cuts.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is led by a bunch of gutless corporate whores. It is impossible for the Democratic Party to accuse the GOP of deliberately harming the economy when the Democrats are incapable of coherently articulating what the proper policies should be.
In the past two years, Democrats have repeatedly rejected Keynesian economics, either unilaterally (e.g. Federal wage freeze) or in bipartisan fashion (e.g. deficit reduction in a recession and extension of Bush tax cuts).
IOW, Benen wants to accuse the GOP of deliberately harming the economy because the GOP won't support policies that Democrats either openly reject or, at best, grudgingly support.
zeitgeist on June 13, 2011 2:52 PM:
Can someone ask these hypotehtical Democrats of which Steve speaks why it would be bad to invoke a significant firestorm?
I hate to sound like a shill for Lakoff, but this is the very title-giving premise of "Dont Think of an Elephant" -- that when you have to respond to the other side's framing, you inherently reinforce that very frame.
If the Republicans are put on the defensive and have to explain why they aren't sabotaging the economy for electoral gain, along the way they have to amplify the message that in fact they might be sabotaging the economy for electoral gain.
So long as Team Obama itself is not the main messenger, this is a win-win issue for Democrats. Let 527s do the work, or safe-seat Congresspersons, or the DNC, but it certainly is not an a good reason to avoid this issue for fear of a "firestorm."
Note that is a never a concern for the Republicans. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson raised millions of dollars for his campaign fund while riding out a "firestorm."
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 2:53 PM:
Were Democrats to try to nail Republicans for opposing a stimulus bill, it would fit right into the Republican's plans. This is the battle they've wanted all year, which is why they've been hyping this phony baloney deficit crisis. They don't care about the deficit. They want to revive the old Tax & Spender v. Fiscal Conservative fight they've been winning since the 80's.
Instead, Obama screwed them up by agreeing that the deficit was a problem and trumped them by finding spending cuts, but then arguing that the rich need to pay more taxes and we still need to invest in infrastructure and other key areas. And so Republicans are forced to actually locate all these mythical areas of waste they keep talking about, when all they REALLY wanted to do was to attack Obama for being a big spender.
Now, maybe this is a battle we can win. Maybe we can explain to people why a stimulus bill is good for the economy and create jobs. Sure, it was a political loser for us last time, as Republicans STILL beat us up for increasing spending; which is an argument that many independents find appealing. But maybe we can thread the needle this time and get people on our side for once; assuming the media lets us explain ourselves instead of labeling us as Big Spenders, like they always do.
But of course, that's all a big gamble and the only payoff would be political, as Republicans simply cannot allow a stimulus bill to pass. Or...we could keep letting Republicans hang themselves with the Ryan Plan and Pawlenty's new Unicorn Plan. Sure, it'd be best if we could pass a stimulus bill and improve the economy, but that won't happen in either case.
So the only question is whether we want to take a gamble on a strategy that hurt us politically in the past, or continue using the strategy that Obama developed for us this year. But in no case should we act like this is a win-win for us to push a stimulus bill, as history suggests it's a lose-lose. Oftentimes, doing something is worse than doing nothing.
patrick on June 13, 2011 2:53 PM:
I think there is a mix of mostly true believers who want to reduce both stimulus and the deficit, and the fewer cynics who know its bad for the economy but go along entirely for reasons of self-interest.
Remember that modern American economic theory, sadly, is influenced greatly by Milton's Friedman's theories. Friedman is the man who claimed that FDR made the depression worse by his deficit spending and its attendant debt. And Friedman, the anti-Keynesian, became the head of the Chicago school of economics and won a Noble Prize and is a huge and unfortunate influence on modern economic and political theory. Even within Obama's administration it has recently come to light that Timothy Geitner, allegedly a democrat, told Obama that further stimulus would be "candy", and that for long term economic gain controlling the deficits were the highest priority.
It's not that I don't think most Republican politicians wouldn't sell out the country, or at least the poorest 99% of the country, in a heartbeat, but between Rand and Friedman they have a philosophical framework that is popular and seems rational to most of them. I think most here agree that much of the underlying modern economic theory is irrational to the point of being highly destructive and seemingly traitorous. But it is not so clear to me that many republicans aren't true believers.
jpm on June 13, 2011 2:56 PM:
Great, as if we needed another data-point to establish that our two party political system is irretrievably broken.
Don't think for a moment that the Democratic party is above this either, just think back to when the financial sh*tstorm hit during Bush's last year with dems thinking, "aw, that's too bad. . ."
George Colombo on June 13, 2011 2:59 PM:
I don't see how this is even debatable. Mitch McConnell admitted as much a long time ago. It's despicable behavior and it is shameful that the entire Democratic Party abdicates its responsibility to even point this out.
Tom Allen on June 13, 2011 3:07 PM:
“No serious person in a position of real influence really wants to accuse an entire party of cynically trying to tank the economy, after all.”
Especially if it's true. This is why so many Democratic bloggers in DC get called members of the veal pen. If they admit the truth, they lose their credentials as a "responsible center-left voice, not an unhinged partisan bomb-thrower", and then who would pay their salaries? Who would invite them to those swell soirees and squirt-gun parties? Better to wait for more established voices to say something, then follow the herd.
max on June 13, 2011 3:08 PM:
I agree this is no longer debatable. The top 1% are making money now and they will make a lot more if they can put a Republican in the White House. It's a win-win for them to make sure the recovery barely staggers into election day.
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 3:10 PM:
"Once again, Steve Benen avoids the elephant in the room: The failure of the Democratic Party to attack supply-side economics and defend the proven Keynesian alternative."
Square1, you really don't know what you're talking about. Obama has CONSISTENTLY been pushing the exact policies you're talking about; rejecting supply side economics while hyping Keynesian policies. The only reason you couldn't know this is because you must not be reading his speeches.
Even when he mentions the deficit it's always immediately followed by him insisting that we need to tax the rich more and invest more in infrastructure. He's not agreeing with conservatives, but stealing their argument out from under them and putting them in a bad spot.
He has also vowed to end the Bush taxcuts for the rich and consistently derided it as a stupid policy that he was forced to accept due to a unique circumstance. Now, maybe he's lying about all this and is trying to trick us with every speech he gives, but you can't claim he's not using liberal rhetoric to defend liberal policies, because the truth shows you're wrong.
I happened to write about this just yesterday:
Breaking News: Obama Gives Liberal Speeches All the Time
And back when Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, I highlighted his speech on the subject, in which he said things like this:
"Now, Republicans have a different view. They believe that we should also make permanent the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I completely disagree with this. A permanent extension of these tax cuts would cost us $700 billion at a time when we need to start focusing on bringing down our deficit. And economists from all across the political spectrum agree that giving tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires does very little to actually grow our economy."
Obama's Clear Liberal Voice
Does that sound like someone who supports supply-side economics? Nope. Sounds like a liberal to me.
phillygirl on June 13, 2011 3:11 PM:
No wonder we're screwed. Even those commentators who have summoned the courage to question our right-wing overlords are terrified of being impolite. (Hello, Steve? E.J.?) Look, Mitch McConnell announced the sabotage program at the very start. And taking him at his word is "an accusation" that would cause a "significant firestorm"? It would? And so what if it did? I understand why Obama and the Dems are screwing us: They need the corporate and Wall Street cash. But when our own side's bloggers apologize for pointing out the obvious, we're lost.
barkleyg on June 13, 2011 3:17 PM:
Channeling Golda Meir:
Until the REPUGS learn to love their country as much as they HATE Obama, we is in REAL ECONOMIC TROUBLE!
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 3:33 PM:
Care to bet when BHO compromises with the Repubs he'll call the resulting agreement on a debt reduction plan to save the economy from a credit crisis imposed by the debt ceiling "the equivalent of Economic peace in our time-- or similar verbiage"?
Yes, I will take that bet, gdb. Obama has consistently outmaneuvered Republicans in almost every battle and the only reason you don't see that is because you're already convinced that he can't possibly be doing so. In your mind, he needs to insult Republicans while abandoning any pretense to compromise, or he's already lost. If full victory is the only victory, then no, we can't possibly win. But partial victory is not the same as defeat.
Or did we forget already how Obama routed Republicans the last time this came up? It was just last April, so I'm not sure how you've forgotten so soon.
Secondly, my point wasn't about what Obama might do, as I'm not a psychic and unlike yourself, don't pretend to know the future. Square1 stated that Obama doesn't attack supply-side economics or defend Keynesian economics. That is demonstrably incorrect, as my posts show. You can read any Obama speech you like and you'll find him supporting liberal policies at every turn.
Before people attack Obama for not talking like a liberal, they really should bother hearing what he's saying. He's still as eloquent as ever, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
latts on June 13, 2011 3:34 PM:
Being a southerner by birth and generally familiar with the right-wing mindset, I'd argue that the American right does not want and has never wanted a stable, broadly prosperous economy during any election cycle, and in fact use economic sluggishness as much to conceal their own goals as to bludgeon Democrats. They prefer constant worker anxiety and a low undercurrent of desperation, with particular pain inflicted on urban areas and minority voters (i.e., Democrats), which keeps their base a) convinced of their own relative virtue as proven by their continued survival, b) uncertain enough to continue to embrace the culture wars as a substitute for economic stability, and c) convinced that a low-wage, marginal-education, environmentally-destructive, bottom-rung economic model is in fact superior to more developed economic and social ones. It's a hybrid of cultural validation and economic cornering for their base, and punishment for everyone else... except, of course, the plutocrats.
Old Uncle Dave on June 13, 2011 3:36 PM:
Maybe some "serious" democrat will take a cue from Fox news and say, "I'm not saying the GOP is intentionally trying to wreck the economy in order to blame it on Obama and improve their chances in 2012, but that's what a lot of Americans are saying."
Take Them at Their Turd on June 13, 2011 3:37 PM:
What George Columbo and phillygirl said. Why don't the media take Mitch McConnell at his October 2010 turd?
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Everything — everything — the GOP does makes perfect sense (to them) when you view it through the lens of McConnell's admission. It'd be nice if the media would finally, you know, take the Senate Minority Leader (ah, what irony that phrase holds these days) seriously and consider the lengths to which he and his party might go to achieve their "single most important" objective.
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 3:45 PM:
Turd, the problem is that there's a HUGE difference between McConnell saying he wants Obama to be a one-term president and suggesting that they're being anti-American and are intentionally sabotaging the economy. Similarly, all of us wanted Bush to be a one-term president, but I doubt any of us wanted the economy to suffer.
And seriously, don't y'all see why accusing them of sabotage can be bad for us? Even when conservatives made those claims against us, it was mildly controversial. If liberals say it, even liberal bloggers, the media will create a firestorm about it and use it to force Democrats to backtrack on the accusation. Sorry, but those are the rules of the road and they're not going to change just because they're unfair.
Beyond that, are we suggesting that they wanted to hurt Bush, too? Or are we to forget that they allowed the economy to tank and didn't support economic stimulus then, either? It's kinda hard to say they're doing this on purpose when they've been saying the same stuff for decades.
JW on June 13, 2011 3:46 PM:
Your take on the obvious could probably be phrased in a more condescending manner, but then again, maybe not.
It's people like you who needed to hear Walter Cronkite question the course of American involvement in the Vietnam war, before daring to question it themselves.
jTh on June 13, 2011 3:50 PM:
Good doctor, I mostly agree with you, but at a couple of major junctures, Obama has verbally praised the compromise as if it were better than his preferred solution. (Sorry I can provide the links, but surely you know which two instances I mean.) And I do think he's prone to providing the deficit hawks a bit too much cover.
I do hold out hope that he'll come out swinging more aggressively next year.
(Steve, please DO something! These are absolutely the most miserable illegible Captchas that I have EVER seen.)
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 3:58 PM:
Anyone who thinks we can put pressure on Republicans by accusing them of sabotage just hasn't been paying attention. Here's how I see it going down on a hypothetical Meet the Press interview with McConnell.
MTP: What do you say to Democrats who claim Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy in order to hurt President Obama's electoral prospects in 2012?
McConnell: I say that the only thing sabotaging our economy is Obama and his failed economic policies. Rather than growing the government to unprecedented size, he needs to be helping small businesses by cutting taxes and burdensome regulations. We need to be helping the ECONOMY grow, not the government.
MTP: So you're saying that Obama is to blame for the sluggish economy.
McConnell: Absolutely. No doubt about it. The sooner we can get government out of the way, the sooner we can get our country back on the right track. Yada, yada, yada. Ronald Reagan.
And that's the best you'd see, even on a relatively neutral show like Meet the Press. Fox News and the Limbaughs would be hyping this as evidence of how hateful and delusional liberals are. And in no case would this put the least bit of pressure on Republicans whatsoever, as they could deftly pivot it into another attack on Obama without blinking an eye.
I'm not sure whoever put the idea out there that Democrats can change the political world simply by being more aggressive, but I'm just not seeing it. After all, Republicans attack Obama with impunity and have the most watched news channel beating him for three years, yet Obama remains the most popular politician in America. Obviously, political attacks are far less powerful than we might imagine.
rob on June 13, 2011 3:59 PM:
Here is how ridiculous this entire conversation appears to me:
Try to imagine that over at some right wing blog just now the right wingers are debating whether the President, Democrats and liberals like Krugman really are trying to improve the economy or are just saying that to help democrats get elected. Some have expressed concern that if they ascribe ulterior motives to the Democrats, they may be criticised by Rachel Maddow.
Jeesh.
biggerbox on June 13, 2011 4:21 PM:
A few years back, it was only us Very Shrill people who were saying that we actually had no proof that Saddam had WMD and war would be a very bad idea, and at the time No Serious Person would entertain the thought.
I have a feeling that a few years from now, this will feel like that.
At this point, the only thing worth debating is which ones are trying to tank the economy out of pure cynical political interest, and which ones have are stupid enough to believe their own tangled rhetoric.
xando fooe on June 13, 2011 5:04 PM:
As the Senate minority leader has clearly stated that his number one priority is defeating Obama, it would follow that this goal surpasses that of enacting any legislation to would help the economy or create jobs.
I don't see the deliberate undermining of the economy to be a theory, but an obvious fact.
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 5:04 PM:
Yes, GDB. We didn't win politically in 2010. But we had lots of legislative successes; which is what Republicans attacked him for. Had he followed the advice of people like yourself, he would have compromised on nothing and gotten nothing. It would have been one long mudfight that achieved nothing. I fail to see how that's preferable over the Healthcare Law, Wall Street Reform, Stimulus Bills, and repeal of DADT that we got.
And that's the thing: For as much as you guys imagine you're more liberal than Obama, your REAL complaint is that he's not partisan enough. You'd rather see him engage in a mudfight and insult Republicans than pass legislation. I'm sure life was a lot better for you during the Bush Years than now, huh. It's a lot easier to tear other people down than to build something up. That's why you're pretending as if we could somehow win if only Obama insulted Republicans.
And really, have you already forgotten how Obama routed Republicans in April over budget cuts?
http://biobrain.blogspot.com/2011/04/correction-obama-greater-magician-than.html
square1 on June 13, 2011 5:42 PM:
Dr. Biobrain:
Don't tell me what I want. I am not a partisan. I could give a crap about the Democratic Party. All I care about is results.
If Obama can find a way to pass a stimulus package, lower the unemployment rate, reduce my health insurance premiums, wean America off of coal, oil & gas, solve the climate change problem, and reform the financial services industry by getting on his knees and blowing every Republican in Congress, then more power to him. Somehow, I don't see that happening.
The reality is that, in order to achieve a liberal policy wishlist, it will be necessary to cross a bunch of wealthy and powerful people. Since entrenched interests will fight their balls off to maintain their wealth and power, liberals might as well accept that they are going to have to fight if they have a prayer of succeeding.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of conflict-averse Democrats -- the President included -- who believe that you can achieve liberal ends while avoiding ugly fights. So, what these conflict averse Democrats do is they politely approach Corporate America and ask, "Please, may we have higher wages, a clean environment, and a stable and growing economy?" And Corporate America responds "Over my dead body, dipshit. You can have the crumbs from my table and like it."
Then the conflict-averse Democrats -- terrified of taking on corporate America -- retreat to the base and plead with the base to accept the meager crumbs that corporate America is offering. The conflict-averse Democrats are so terrified of being forced to confront Corporate America and having to fight for a better deal that the conflict-averse Democrats actually convince themselves that the crumbs being offered are a great deal. And these cowardly Democrats convince themselves that anyone who is unsatisfied with crumbs is simply an unreasonable idealist.
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 6:01 PM:
Square1, if you still imagine Obama embraces supply-side economics and doesn't defend Keynesian economics, then you're so far from reality that it's hopeless; as evidenced by the links I provided.
But if you're willing to admit that Obama promotes liberal economic policies all the time, then what else is he supposed to do? He can't pass liberal legislation until we get back the House. It's impossible. And no amount of tough talk can change that. It was hard enough when Republicans could filibuster in the Senate last time, as we couldn't possibly get anything passed without a few Republicans crossing over. And now it's utterly impossible.
And without a doubt, what Republicans want most is for Obama to follow your advice and give them a real mudfight. That way, they can avoid having to embarrass themselves by making real proposals. They're not afraid of a fight. It's what they live for and it bugs the hell out of them that Obama won't give it to them. Or do you remember the 90's differently than I do? Back then, we had a tough talking president who gave us conservative policies. Now, we have a nice guy president who gives us liberal policies...or did, back when he could.
Tough talk is easy. But how can it possibly get liberal legislation through the House when it's controlled by Republicans? So what are you talking about? It's not risk-adverse Dems that are preventing us from getting liberal policies. It's that IT'S COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. Why are you pretending otherwise?
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 6:18 PM:
"You think the stimulus package was a big winner?? It helped prevent a Depression, but guaranteed a Great Recession-- while touted as the final economic solution by BHO."
Really? Can you please provide some quote of Obama claiming that to be the final economic solution? Because I'm pretty sure you made that. Or did you forget about about the jobs bills Obama passed, or the economic stimulus Obama got in the compromise last December? Remember, the whole reason why he begrudgingly accepted the extension of the Bush taxcuts, which he has repeatedly derided? Are you even paying attention at all?
As for the healthcare reform, if you're from the can-do generation, then why wasn't this done before? It was a decent bill that has already helped many people get insured and will only help more people as time goes by. We effectively neutered the insurance companies, as they have to provide decent insurance, can't gouge for profits, can't deny for pre-existing conditions, and can't rescind policies unfairly. If I remember correctly, those were all very important issues for liberals...back before Obama got them for us. Now, it's like it didn't happen at all.
And as for DADT being a bone...bwa ha ha ha ha! You say that like it's a bad thing. At what point will you realize that Obama is doing a decent job under the circumstances?
square1 on June 13, 2011 6:25 PM:
Dr. Biobrain: With respect to the battle between supply-side and Keynesian economics, nobody is accusing Obama of being an arch supply-sider. My point is that he has clearly failed to sufficiently lead any broad-based rebuttal to supply-side economics.
Yes, it is trivial to find statements where Obama endorsed Keynesian policies. It is also trivial to find statements where Obama endorsed supply-side policies. And it is trivial to find statements where Obama seems to have no strong policy preference and is happy with whatever policy outcome a bipartisan majority can produce.
President Obama and his supporters appear to have virtually no grasp of the concept of narrative. While Republicans generally hold core (if wildly misguided) principles and constantly tell a story to the public that explains political events in a way that reaffirms their core principles, Obama and his supporters vacillate between narratives; creating a confusing, contradictory story for the public.
For example, if a Republican was in Obama's place and asked to tell the liberal narrative, the Republican would tell a simple story: Once upon a time, I was elected in the midst of a financial crisis. It was a crisis borne of excessive deregulation. The crisis caused massive unemployment. I wanted to get America back on its feet by following in the proven footsteps of F.D.R. and using government spending on infrastructure to put people back to work and keep jobs from going overseas. I had some initial success, but Republicans blocked more job-creating projects and insisted on job-killing tax cuts. Their policies caused America to slide back into a double-dip recession. If you re-elect me and give control of the House back to the House, Democrats will finish the job that we started.
That is a story.
But what story has Obama told? He has done a terrible job explaining WHY we had a financial crisis in the first place. He can't blame it on TBTF banks because he didn't fight to break them up. He can't blame it on the repeal of Glass-Steagel because he didn't want to restore that law. He can't blame it on excessive leverage because he didn't fight to impose hard leverage caps. He can't blame it on mortgage fraud because he has done next to nothing to prosecute financial services fraud.
And Obama has no story to explain high unemployment. He can't blame a lack of stimulus because he never asked for a significantly larger bill and has since endorsed anti-stimulus "deficit reduction" policies and anti-stimulative tax cuts.
Again, if Obama wanted to consistently tell a story that he had much bigger plans and the GOP has obstructed those plans, then that would be smart. Instead, Obama and his supporters have undermined that story by, first, pre-emptively adopting GOP policies and then by claiming massive legislative successes. To hear Obama and his supporters tell it, Obama has done nothing but string together success after success. Just look at the Obama accomplishment website!
The problem with this? When people are not satisfied with the results, Obama has given people no reason to blame anyone other than him and Congressional Democrats.
DKDC on June 13, 2011 6:30 PM:
I don't see how it hurts politically to point that out. You could convince some independent voters.
Hey America. Obama is trying to make it better, but the republicans are blocking him. Vote for a democrat in 2012.
Of course, Obama will have to come up with a simple stimulus plan that he can convince independents will work. That is probably the harder part. The public has heard the MSM repeat republican talking points for so long about how the deficit and govt spending are dragging down the economy. It's going to be hard to counteract that brainwashing.
square1 on June 13, 2011 6:54 PM:
DKDC:
It won't be easy to change 30+ years of GOP supply-side propaganda, backed by a wealthy D.C. chattering class that has benefited tremendously from neo-liberal economic policies. But the first step begins with Democrats not repeating the propaganda. In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats have decided that they want to join in the anti-deficit talking-points party.
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 8:05 PM:
Square1, I didn't just find a trivial reference attacking supply side. He says it in all his economic speeches. In fact, he consistently gives the narrative you're looking for. Read his speeches and you'll see what I mean.
Now, if you want to argue that his speeches are lies and that he can magically pass legislation that all common sense says he can't pass, that's one thing. But don't lie to me by saying he's not hyping liberalism in his speeches or explaining why Republicans are wrong, because I've read his speeches. He consistently does what you'd expect him to, with the exception of insulting Republicans. You'd know that if you bothered reading his speeches.
If anything, the fact that you don't know all this just goes to show the limits of his speeches, as even many liberals don't know he's giving liberal speeches.
Doctor Biobrain on June 13, 2011 9:00 PM:
Btw, it should be noted that there are no actual supply siders anymore. Sure, they demand tax cuts, but their arguments are demand side. They insist we need to let the rich keep more of their money so they can spend it to hire more people and buy more equipment and whatnot. In other words, to increase demand by letting them buy more. That's classic demand side thinking. Similarly, when Obama cuts taxes on the poor and middle-class, that is so they can spend more money; which also puts it on the demand side.
In contrast, supply side economics dictates that if we cut taxes then businesses will supply more goods, and thus produce us out of a recession. And if that sounds like gibberish, that would explain why no one says this theory anymore.
So, we're all demand siders, and the only question is who gets to determine what is demanded. And this isn't just a pendant correction, because once we acknowledge that we're all using the same basic theory, it makes the Republican argument sound much worse.
square1 on June 14, 2011 1:53 AM:
Dr. Biobrain: You would sound considerably less like an asshole if you did not condescendingly tell me what I do and do not read.
I am quite aware of what Obama and his surrogates have and haven't said. In speeches. In interviews. And in off the cuff remarks.
A good -- and by no means unusual -- example of Obama failing to defend the macroeconomic principles of Keynes was Obama's response to the 2011 budget agreement.
Early on in the run-up to negotiations, it appeared that Democrats were on message. Citing independent analyses, Democrats repeatedly and accurately referred to GOP budget proposals as "job-killing".
However, rather than proudly speaking out against the stupidity of targeting deficit reduction in a stagnant economy with high unemployment and low interest rates, the White House embraced deficit reduction in principle and pledged to meet the GOP halfway. The "job-killing" meme died a swift death when it became obvious that Democrats could not accuse the GOP of pushing a plan that would kill jobs, when they had just rushed to agree to kill half of those jobs.
By the time that Obama signed the 2011 Budget, Obama lamented cuts to individual programs as being "painful", but completely failed to denounce short-term spending cuts as counterproductive from a macroeconomic perspective.
On the contrary, Obama gushed about "the largest annual spending cut in our history." He went on to add that "beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America compete for new jobs..."
Listening to Obama, it would be impossible to come away thinking Obama believed that federal government spending should be increased, not decreased. As a result, the public has not been primed to blame either the Bush tax cut extensions or the budget spending cuts for continued high unemployment and stagnant GDP growth.
Lex on June 18, 2011 9:31 PM:
Godwin's law suggests that the GOP is, in fact, engaged in sabotage.
Lex on June 20, 2011 4:57 PM:
Occam's razor, not Godwin's law. *slaps head*
Drew Spinoso on July 06, 2011 4:27 PM:
We have 25% less people paying taxes (they are broke cuz their job is overseas) we have wealthy paying 25% less taxes while their pay has gone up. This is a difference of 50% less tax revenue and we have been fighting war after war the last 10 years.
We need to roll back the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, fix our import taxes, get rid of lobbyists, and the power of trans-national corporations and get back to normalacy!
Have we completely forgoton history? Fascism is brought about through wealthy corporations spending mass amounts of cash to get their puppet in power. Well if all elections can be bought or rigged there's no reason to believe we aren't there now!
How can anyone explain why the top 400 people in the U.S. only pay 15% income tax? We talk about having the highest corporate tax rate but everyone forgets that no corporation has paid the maximum ever! Why is congress fighting for these uber wealthy tax loop holes? Why would any logical human vote for these idiots.
Let's go over the numbers is it more benefical for an economy if a billionaire makes 50 billion and pays his Chinese employees nothing or if the billionaire makes 25 billion and pays his American employees the difference and they go out and spend their money on American Made products. People the money we make goes out of this country faster than it comes in! We have blood slowly draining from our veins and we are Romanticized with the notion that we just saved $2 and bought a Chinese product over an American Made product. We are killing our country with the stamped idea that this is Capitalism but Adam Smith would be roling over in his grave if he knew how we have twisted his philosophy into this Corporate Monster! Adam Smith believed in small companies which served a community. Not the multi-billion dollar corporations which bend laws to suit their own good. Wake up people because we are on life support and God is about to pull the plug on our worthless asses!