One thing the "Obama failed" crowd likes to say is that he failed to negotiate hard enough in this debt ceiling thing, or that he didn't hold firm, or that he caved, or that he didn't make the progressive case strong enough, etc.. But what I've never heard explained is: what could he have actually done?
What I hear is:
- Obama gives some speeches to the public, and/or makes some unspecified threats to other politicians
- ???
- The House and Senate pass the perfect pure progressive pony bill
But what is the content of step 1 (what words does he use, what are the threats he makes) and, what happens at step 2? Presumably some number of Republican House members and Senators have to break with their party and vote for the PPPPB, but who are these people, and what makes them change their mind? And, not only do they have to break with their party, but the GOP itself has to agree to let the bill out of the House committee so it can be voted on at all; so it's not like you have to get X random GOP reps to vote for it, you need leadership votes. So, you need the big guns in the House GOP to break with their party. And, you need a sufficient number of GOP Senators to break the filibuster threat in the Senate.
So, how does that work?
What happens at step two to convince the GOP - who could barely be persuaded to vote for what the self-described liberal base is calling a huge GOP win - to vote for a bill that makes progressives happy ?
Can someone explain this to me? Please?
And, no I don't want to hear about the fucking 14th amendment. This question is about the "he should've negotiated harder!" complaint.
Quite simple really. The mechanics are demonstrated here.
I’m not sure people are arguing we would end up with a PPPPB, just that Obama seems too quick to be the “reasonable compromiser” and that seems to let the GOP nutjobs get much more than they could if Obama started with a more progressive position. E.g., if the GOP version of the PPPPB is 0 and the Dem version is 100, such that a reasonable compromise would be 50, Obama seems too eager to make his opening offer at 50, rather than 100. So the GOP then says “Gee, if you’re opening offer is 50, maybe we should push for 0.”
But who really knows?
i think the GOP, given the power the House gives them, will always start at -100, regardless of what Obama proposes.
he proposed the “clean” bill. they said no – and so did a large number of the Dems. it failed spectacularly (97-318). so, that was his +100 starting point, and the Dems wouldn’t even back him up.
All also think part of the frustration is that this sort of naked power grab never seems to happen in the reverse, i.e., if the GOP controlled the Senate and Presidency as Dems do now and the Dems controlled the House as the GOP does now, would we have seen a debt limit increase deal that was 100% revenues? I don’t think so.
I suppose part of this is that the GOP is willing to march in lockstep (off a cliff, if need be), whereas the Dems are easily splintered. But there seems to be a genuine lack of willingness on behalf of the Dems to play any sort of hardball, or even to threaten to.
That’s a matter of perception reinforced by our innate political prejudices. Ask a Republican if Democrats play hardball when they are in power. Republicans will crow that our party and tactics are so beyond the pale that they are illegitimate. Nancy Pelosi is seen as a combination of Mayor Daley, Boss Tweed and Mecha-Godzilla.
What I’d really like to know is what level of multi-dimensional chess O. is playing.
I think it’s usually 11-dimensional. But I’ve seen it go up as high as 18.
i’d say this was plain old 2D chess. and all he has left is a tired old horse and two pawns for defense.
Sorry, it’s just a dodge to suggest that you can’t criticize Obama, or have reservations about the compromise that was reached unless you can detail exactly what Obama should have done.
And it is also pointless to suggest that Obama is supposed to do what is necessary to make progressives happy, or that this is the primary source of disenchantment with the outcome of these negotiations. I know any number of people who absolutely love Obama, but who are frustrated and saddened by what went down with this ugly compromise.
It is entirely possible to accept the idea that this was the best deal possible, and to also recognize that it greatly gave more to the Republicans than is good for the country in the long term.
“Sorry, it’s just a dodge to suggest that you can’t criticize Obama, or have reservations about the compromise that was reached unless you can detail exactly what Obama should have done.”
if a person can’t even describe a plausible scenario where Obama could have secured something better, on what grounds can that person blame him for not securing something better?
if you can’t prove that X is possible in your own mind, how can you blame another person for not X ?
if Obama could have saved the day by flying to the moon, pulling the sword of Illymtim from the bottom of an enchanted crater, then flying back, but he didn’t, did he fail? yes. can we blame him?
sure, you can be upset that the result sucks. but you can’t blame him specifically, if you can’t posit a plausible path for him to have taken to something better.
not in my book anyway.
i totally agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, though. i think the result sucks. but i seriously have no idea how it could have been anything but suck, given the circumstances. and that’s what i’m asking for here. someone needs to tell me how it could have been better, so i can stop thinking that half the lib blogs have gone completely insane.