The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Why did Obama immediately rule out single-payer? Even if it's not a current possibility, there's still value in pushing for these positions, value you recognize yourself. It's something that Republicans are immensely more skilled at, and it's unrelated to their current insanity tactics.

[bmags]

Your premise is wrong. Obama let the legislators legislate (as oppose to Clinton in 1993, and this strategy historically has worked well), and the legislators did not have the votes to get that in the "60 vote" world.

[StrangeSox]

You really don't think there's anything more that Obama could have done to press a liberal agenda?

 

edit: "Obama sits on sidelines, gets s*** 'compromise' from conservatives" is kinda the story of his presidency.

 

edit2: Obama actually laid out general policy guidelines in the summer of 2009 for HCR, and it notably did not include single-payer. He could have promoted that idea then. Why not? Are democrats incapable of seeing Republicans succeed repeatedly in pulling discourse to their viewpoints?

Edited August 3, 2011 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

You really don't think there's anything more that Obama could have done to press a liberal agenda?

 

edit: "Obama sits on sidelines, gets s*** 'compromise' from conservatives" is kinda the story of his presidency.

 

edit2: Obama actually laid out general policy guidelines in the summer of 2009 for HCR, and it notably did not include single-payer. He could have promoted that idea then. Why not? Are democrats incapable of seeing Republicans succeed repeatedly in pulling discourse to their viewpoints?

 

What do you thinks easier "we want to cut gov't and taxes" or "we want to completely undercut an industry with tens of thousands of american jobs and profits with a incredibly powerful lobbying industry and replace it with a government run insurance program"? That's why the republicans are better at pulling the populace to their right. The "pro-tax" lobbies aren't very strong, they dont' really exist.

 

I'm not saying obama has been perfect, I'm saying this narrative that all he needed to do was negotiate harder is ignorant of the structural issues that have arisen with a rigidly aligned republican party. Rather than blaming the actors we need to start blaming the institutions and start looking for changes, and in the meanwhile putting pressure on the actors with proven-effective means of pulling them left. You guys can do your "I'm going to let a republican get into office and then complain about their outRAGEOUS policies", and i'll try to work within the means of the system to put a more fluid system in place while fighting for progress anywhere I can find it and working hard not to let it go.

[StrangeSox]

Obama actually laid out general policy guidelines in the summer of 2009 for HCR, and it notably did not include single-payer. He could have promoted that idea then. Why not?

[Jenksismyhero]

What do you thinks easier "we want to cut gov't and taxes" or "we want to completely undercut an industry with tens of thousands of american jobs and profits with a incredibly powerful lobbying industry and replace it with a government run insurance program"? That's why the republicans are better at pulling the populace to their right. The "pro-tax" lobbies aren't very strong, they dont' really exist.

 

I'm not saying obama has been perfect, I'm saying this narrative that all he needed to do was negotiate harder is ignorant of the structural issues that have arisen with a rigidly aligned republican party. Rather than blaming the actors we need to start blaming the institutions and start looking for changes, and in the meanwhile putting pressure on the actors with proven-effective means of pulling them left. You guys can do your "I'm going to let a republican get into office and then complain about their outRAGEOUS policies", and i'll try to work within the means of the system to put a more fluid system in place while fighting for progress anywhere I can find it and working hard not to let it go.

 

For the same reason, Democrats often have the "better" side of the argument regarding social services, because the fall back is always "so you'd rather have starving kids and old people dying in the streets!?" No one wants or agrees with that, but that's what the argument becomes, just like any pro-tax argument becomes "government's taking all you own!"

[Jenksismyhero]

Obama actually laid out general policy guidelines in the summer of 2009 for HCR, and it notably did not include single-payer. He could have promoted that idea then. Why not?

 

Because he knew it had no chance of passing? Why waste the political capital by pissing off moderate dems?

[StrangeSox]

Because he knew it had no chance of passing? Why waste the political capital by pissing off moderate dems?

 

It would legitimize it as a valid viewpoint in healthcare discourse. Republicans always propose far-right ideas that make center-right ideas look centrist or moderate in comparison. When nobody argues for single-payer, then public exchanges get held up as an idea of crazy far-left socialist Marxists.

[bmags]

It would legitimize it as a valid viewpoint in healthcare discourse. Republicans always propose far-right ideas that make center-right ideas look centrist or moderate in comparison. When nobody argues for single-payer, then public exchanges get held up as an idea of crazy far-left socialist Marxists.

 

On the flipside, it could have prolonged the health care debate to a length where it couldn't have passed. It took long enough to go from public option to no public option to the point of near fallout, before this bill was finally enacted. My main complaint with the healthcare proceedings is they didn't speed it up that summer.

[StrangeSox]

You just keep conceding that all political discourse in this country can only be framed in conservative narratives and that it's a-ok for Obama to continually adopt those narratives. Every time he does that, he reaffirms the validity of their economic views instead of challenging it.

 

The flip side to that, which is my position now, is that Obama's just another neoliberal. He's not challenging them because he really does accept the way they frame policy. He fully supports an austerity package.

 

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/08/email-to-john-cole.html

[StrangeSox]

Also this from Glenn

 

How can the leader of the Democratic Party wage an all-out war on the ostensible core beliefs of the Party's voters in this manner and expect not just to survive, but thrive politically? Democratic Party functionaries are not shy about saying exactly what they're thinking in this regard:

 

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. "Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they're absolutely certain of -- they're going to hate these Republican candidates," Mr. Mellman said. "So I'm not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”

 

In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals' beliefs or how much they squawk, because we'll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That's the Democratic Party's core calculation: from "hope" in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.

 

Democrats do not give a s*** about their base. They take them for granted. Continuing to vote for them just because they're not Republicans only reinforces this behavior. Challenge them in primaries, and if the more liberal candidate doesn't win, don't vote for the conservative Democrat.

Edited August 3, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

I posted this elsewhere but it fits here nicely:

 

If Obama doesn't cave, he'll take a beating politically. If he did that, there's no way he wins next year and that means we'll have a Republican in the White House. Can you imagine that?! Think of all the spending cuts they'll enact! They might even muster up enough strength to threaten Medicare or Medicaid! And there's no way they'd let the Bush tax cuts expire! And they certainly wouldn't have ended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or closed Guantanamo, and who knows how many Muslim countries they'd be bombing right now.

[bmags]

You should poll their base and see what they identify as, then convince yourself that they are liberal.

[StrangeSox]

Well, if the best reason you can give a liberal or a leftist to vote for Democrats who don't hold any of their principles is "they're not Republicans (but they'll adopt their narratives and pass conservative legislation with little or no fight)," then I won't buy what you're selling.

[bmags]

That's nonsense. You need to realize that people ARE concerned about the deficits. There's a reason the republicans got so much traction with it. But they didn't end the welfare state. They got some discretionary cuts, bfd. There was a hell of a lot done for the progressive cause recently and in this administration. But liberals won't even remember DADT as progress, or DOJ not backing the DOMA, or lily ledbetter, or ACA as soon as they pass. They'll rightfully move on and want more, but suicidally will give up any ground they gave up in exchange for someone who could promise everything and get absolutely nothing.

[Balta1701]

That's nonsense. You need to realize that people ARE concerned about the deficits. There's a reason the republicans got so much traction with it.

Because the people have been convinced that deficits are what is causing the stagnant economy. They've been convinced of that because both parties have agreed, said so repeatedly and constantly for 6 months, and because virtually no public figure has stood up and said that the deficit is the only thing keeping us from falling back into recession.

 

People are concerned with what directly affects their lives. Right now that's their lack of jobs and the fact that they haven't gotten raises in 11 years because of a lack of wage growth. The public debate has succeeded in blaming this on the deficit.

 

If it is true that the deficit is the problem with jobs right now, then this deal will help immensely, and, for example, will assure Obama's reelection. If I'm right though, and this deal will actually hurt the economic recovery 1937 style, then the President went along with a frame that will hurt his reelection chances, endorsed a bill that will hurt his reelection chances, and taught everyone a lesson that will hurt his reelection chances.

 

At least with the Tax cut deal, I could still sit there and say "It's a bad deal, but it's still a stimulative move." Here, I have to say "This is a bad deal and it's a contractionary move".

[StrangeSox]

DADT was dead judicially either way. DOMA could likewise be doomed and we're to the point of Republicans passing gay marriage laws. These are victories that are in line with liberal policy, sure, but they're mostly moderate or centrist victories as a majority of the country supports them. You seem to be framing it as "anything not right-wing" is good enough. Politicians can explain why Republicans are wrong instead of adopting their viewpoints and working to come up with bad policy to implement terrible ideology.

 

People were more concerned about jobs, but Democrats never pushed back on the framing. ACA is likely the only major healthcare reform we'll get for decades, and it's largely a pro-private insurance patchwork. Yes, there are benefits here. Yes, Obama's been better than McCain-Palin would have been, undoubtedly. But he's still been a bad President for liberal policy. If anything, liberal economic policy has only been damaged by him. His foreign policy has been a disaster; his record on civil rights in this area worse. When do you say "enough" and stop supporting Democrats just because they're not Republicans?

 

 

[bmags]

Yes, this deal will probably hurt the recession, not as much as default, however.

 

But my point is that narrative stood less of a chance if liberals didn't repeatedly remove themselves out of the process. What did you think was going to happen when they didn't vote in 2010, at all, and a wave of "the debt will kill us all" came in? Liberals don't organize unless they are in the minority, but they'll only put in enough work to get into the majority and then stop doing ANYTHING worth a damn.

[StrangeSox]

The easy counter-point here is still "look at the Republicans." Tea Party doesn't represent a majority of Americans. Most Americans want entitlements left alone and want taxes raised on the wealthy/corporations. Even if the Democrats mysteriously have to adopt Republican economic views that say government deficits are stalling our economy and advocate for them often and loudly, why do they need to advocate for a plan that's farther to the right of the general public?

[StrangeSox]

Yes, this deal will probably hurt the recession, not as much as default, however.

 

But my point is that narrative stood less of a chance if liberals didn't repeatedly remove themselves out of the process. What did you think was going to happen when they didn't vote in 2010, at all, and a wave of "the debt will kill us all" came in? Liberals don't organize unless they are in the minority, but they'll only put in enough work to get into the majority and then stop doing ANYTHING worth a damn.

 

Obama and Congressional Dems could not be giant cowards* and actually fight back against the rhetoric, thus getting their liberal base re-charged? Anything but "adopt far-right economic views and promote contractionary policies in the midst of a terrible recession that's way, way worse than we originally thought?"

 

How, exactly, is that supposed to get the liberals out there and supporting their Democrats?

 

*They're a bunch of neoliberals who actually embrace this policy which is a stronger reason not to vote for them than 'republicans made them do it!' or blaming liberals for failing to force Democrats to enact good policy that are ostensibly party planks.

[StrangeSox]

Because the people have been convinced that deficits are what is causing the stagnant economy. They've been convinced of that because both parties have agreed, said so repeatedly and constantly for 6 months, and because virtually no public figure has stood up and said that the deficit is the only thing keeping us from falling back into recession.

 

Exactly. By validating the Republicans' view that the deficit is our problem, they've cemented the idea that the stimulus was ineffective at best or even detrimental and undermined any future potential for another stimulus.

 

Adopting conservative policy narratives and then working to make them slightly less conservative than the Tea Party would like doesn't exactly warrant a lot of support from liberals. Which is all my original point was: there's good reason to be disaffected right now.

[BigSqwert]

 

Obama: Debt Ceiling Deal Required Tough Concessions By Both Democrats And Democrats Alike

WASHINGTON—A day after signing legislation that raised the government debt ceiling and authorized steep budget cuts, President Obama thanked Democrats as well as Democrats for their willingness to make tough, but necessary, concessions during negotiations. "I'm truly grateful that both Democrats and their Democratic counterparts were able to reach this consensus, accepting an agreement that is far from perfect not just for Democrats, but also for Democrats," Obama said Wednesday of the deal that cut federal spending $2.1 trillion over 10 years but included no revenue increases of any kind. "Lawmakers from across the political spectrum—from moderate Democrats to the more liberal members of the party to dyed-in-the-wool progressives—reached within the aisle and showed the nation that compromise requires real sacrifice from everyone." Obama added that while it may look ugly at times, politics is about Democrats giving up what they want, as well as Democrats giving up what they want, until an agreement can ultimately be reached

Edited August 3, 2011 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

Remember when Obama was lambasted for restating the long-standing US position on a two-state solution and bringing up the 1967 borders? Remember when Netanyahu was loudly cheered by the US Congress for attacking the US President over that position?

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to base talks for a Palestinian state on the 1967 truce lines in what appears to be a major policy retreat, an Israeli television channel has claimed.

 

And the Palestinian response was to label it as "a joke".

[StrangeSox]

That's irrelevant to the issue of the US Congress cheering on a foreign official's condemnation of the US President for merely restating long-standing US policy, and then having the ironic outcome of the same foreign official taking the same position as the US President.

[Balta1701]

Political consultant Mike Lux with his take on these negotiations.

As to the President, what is important to understand is that he wanted this negotiation. He had opportunities to avoid it last year, getting this deal done as part of the lame duck budget deal, or at the beginning of this year by making clear that he would only sign a clean debt ceiling increase. But he waded into these negotiations willingly and eagerly, hoping that reason and Wall Street lobbyists would help him craft the grand compromise he was willing to make if the Republicans agreed to raise taxes. It was part of his long-term strategy for getting the deficit issue off his back — Ezra Klein’s piece here (which I have been assured by people at the White House that it very much reflected Obama’s thinking) lays out the thinking: cut a big dramatic budget deal, get the deficit issue off his back, look like a centrist going into the next election. And through most of this showdown, he did look far more reasonable than the Republicans and was doing better than them in the short-term polling. The problem is that if Republicans don’t ever compromise, if they don’t care about being reasonable or not blowing up the economy, the President is the one who would have to fold, and that is exactly what happened. It made him look weak, and it tore a gaping hole in his relationship with his base. D.C. centrists loved his reasonableness, his willingness to reach out, and all those other things praised in the editorial pages of the Washington Post, but even the pundits who were praising him — in fact, especially the pundits that were praising him — turned on him when he lost. Such is the nature of this town.