We're up to 10 comments on my prior post ("I wish I knew why Obama won't fight back") -- largely a discussion between Richard and me about Obama's governing tactics -- Richard arguing that Obama could have gotten a lot more achieved if he were willing to fight for it, and my arguing for looking at the larger picture of what Obama has to consider in deciding when to fight and when to compromise.
I'm going to shift this to a new post today, continuing it with Richard's last comment and my response:
Richard, 07-26-10, 11:03 am:
He could've easily passed healthcare by reconciliation. He needed a simple majority and all the Dems admitted he had that. This was back when 77% of those polled favored the Public Option. He could've passed almost anything he wanted through reconciliation, which was used by Bush 3 times to ram through tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush also used it in a number of other ways.
Many progressive Dems did beg Obama to use reconciliation. In every instance he kow-towed to the right and refused. He watered down his bills to appease Republicans who still did not join him.
richard
---------------
Ralph, 07-26-10, 12:00 noon
OK -- he probably could have passed a lot of things by the reconciliation process. And maybe he should have.
There is another side to that argument, however. Using the reconciliation process, like recess appointments, can get you a short term goal at the expense of even more long-term resistance from the other side. They should be used very sparingly. You yourself use Bush's doing it as a weapon, don't you?
Besides, there are some parliamentary limitations: it somehow has to be linked to an appropriattions bill. You can't just decide to pass anything you want via reconciliation.
Now, having made that argument, I will also say that I wish Obama had used it to pass health care reform with a public option. And I hope he makes a recess appointment of Elizabeth Warren just so we don't have to go through the confirmation fight.
But I also agree with Barney Frank that I wish Obama would fight for her confirmation and make the Repubs officially oppose it -- force them to openly support the financial industry over the middle class consumer -- because I think he could get the votes, given the amount of groundswell public support for it, which is encouraging more and more senators to come out in support of her as well. It would also electrify his liberal base -- because she epitomizes someone who will stand up and fight the establishment, or the opposition, for her principles. And arguably that's what he needs politically right now more than anything else. I hope they're smart enough to see that. It's the right thing to do, and it's also politically smart.
Richard, often you and I come down to disagreeing only on the tactics, not the goals. You are often right about any one individual decision. I tend to look more at the overall picture of gains and losses and tradeoffs. You want the glass to be full. I do too, but I'm more willing to accept that a half-glass may be as good as we can get at this time, with this congress; and at least it is a start in the right direction. You dismiss that argument as conciliation and appeasement. Sometimes you turn out to be right.
Another difference between us: you're always sure of your arguments, because that's who you are. I'm almost always somewhat doubtful of mine, because that's who I am. We've had this discussion before.
I am coming around to the position that it has been of almost no use to try to work with the Repubs. They are content with their position of just saying no to everything, because they are almost totally in control of the message -- and they can distort anything to suit their purposes. This has been a hard lesson for some of us to learn, Obama included. Perhaps the Shirley Sherrod thing will finally convince us. It seems to have convinced E. J. Dionne. (See his editorial in today's AJC. And, by the way, kudos and thanks to the AJC for giving Dionne a weekly space. It helps a little to offset the odious Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer.)
We have to change the message. They had done such a good job of tapping into people's frustrations and fear and turning it to their advantage. We have to counter that. This morning I was driving behind a pickup truck with a bumper sticker on one side that said "This president lies;"and on the other side, "McCain/Palin." If they can sell "this president lies" to mean Obama rather than George W. Bush who lied us into an unnecessary and illegal war -- then we have to really be afraid of what's coming between now and the November elections.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So long as the Republican Congressmen remain in their fixed oppositional stance, Richard is right - the only way to pass the full strength Progressive legislation is to strong-arm it through using things like reconciliation. Were he to do that, I doubt that the bumper stickers would change or the noise level would diminish. It would probably get even louder.
ReplyDeleteMy difficulty with this discussion is that it's framed as if there's something right to do. I'm not sure there is anything right to do except exit from the Middle Eastern wars with as little damage as possible. It's hard to be the President of a politically divided country losing two wars in the midst of an economic depression with the national debt soaring and the Gulf of Mexico full of oil.
I'm not sure that it's the right time to scramble for a progressive agenda. He passed a Stimulus, he passed a Health Care Bill, he passed a Financial Reform Bill, we're lolligagging our way out of the Middle East, the economy is limping along, and his approval ratings are better than Reagan's were at the same time even though we're in a worse situation. That's about all he can do right now.
We elected him because he is a reasonable man. We thought he was honest. He's still honest, and he's painfully reasonable. He seems to have an uncanny ability to tolerate not trying to fix things that just can't be fixed yet. And the only thing he's personally doing that polarizes the country is be black.
I expect he's looking for something right to do too - right governance, right political move - something. I don't know what it might be. But mixing it up with the yokels that are making so much noise isn't the place to look. And I'm not sure it's pressing the progressive agenda. It's something that the middle will respect him for. I hope he finds it. I still like him...
Thanks, Mickey.
ReplyDeleteIn your calm reasonableness, you have also hit on a point I have overlooked: Obama's attempt to avoid further polarizing the country.
If he had pushed through a better health reform bill via reconciliation, it couldn't have polarized congress any more than it already is; but might it have increased the polarization of the country? I don't know. But it is a further point to consider.
But thanks for your main point: there probably isn't a RIGHT answer to this discussion.
Someone's got to play the angry young man(well, I can pretend to the young part) to your reasoned sage advice.
ReplyDeleteMickey's right that the only thing he's doing to polarize the country is that he's black.
But he's polarizing Democrats for different reasons. And I think it's fair to say none of us who worked for his election anticipated that happening.
While you can rationalize some of his behavior, it's also hard to excuse his attacking the unions in Arkansas for backing a progressive, then failing to attack Fox News and Breitbart for the Sherrod fiasco, but blaming the media in general.
Those are the types of things that drive lefties nuts.
richard
Richard -- this is what I mean about your only looking at the one issue at the time. Yes, I hated it that Obama backed Blanche Lincoln and attacked the unions. But neither you nor I knows what kind of agreement they had made to support Lincoln in exchange for her introducing and pushing the amendment to make banks divest of their derivatives trading.
ReplyDeleteRobert Reich -- who has pretty good progressive credentials -- called it "the biggest issue" in bank reform, and said that the banks were "apoplectic" and determined to stop Lincoln's amendment. FireDogLake, a good progressive blog, called this "huge" and said it topped every other proposed amendment to the Dodd bill being considered.
Wouldn't you have wanted that to get passed if you were in Obama's position? Of course it didn't pass; the banks won and Lincoln won. So maybe he should have backed her opponent and we'd be in the same place and all feel good about a union candidate winning over Lincoln. But suppose her amendment had been included in the final bill , and that was now the law of the land?
Maybe, if you could lend your crystal ball to Obama, the country would be saved.
Michey, I just re-read your comment about Obama looking for some "right" to do.
ReplyDeleteHe could appoint Elizabeth Warren as the consumer's watchdog, whether Tim Geithner wants her or not.
He could direct Geitner to appoint her. He is the president, after all, and has some sway, allegedly, over Timmy. Doesn't he?
ReplyDeleteLincoln was never a 'friend-of-Obama' in terms of her beliefs, values, or legislation. I'm not sure why someone would need a crystal ball to see that. You could look at her record, and her statements.
Just picking out a couple of examples to support a statement isn't the same as 'looking at one issue at a time'. These were offered in the context of a discussion about Obama being afraid of the right. They were chosen to illustrate how he was fine had no problem attacking progressives(after he won, by the way, which is a bit ungracious?) but wouldn't attack Fox news in a much more serious situation.
The excuse-making for Obama strikes me as a little like enabling behavior in an alcoholic family. I think instead of coddling him we should be trying tough love, telling him he's not allowed back in the house until he signs up for Rehab to kick himself of his appeasement addiction and learn how to embrace his inner Progressive.
richard
Richard, I think we've beaten this horse long enough. You and I always wind up in the same place -- we could counter each other's arguments until next week; and we're always going to see from a different perspective because of our different temperaments, personalities, and backgrounds -- not because we differ in our basic liberal, progressive ideas of the kind of country we would like to live in.
ReplyDeleteWe keep trying to convince each other by citing facts and examples, when the real difference is in who we are. And I don't think either of us is going to change that.
You're right.
ReplyDeleteBut I still like the debate.
richard