Deal maker in chief…
Lifted by Dan from Robert’s Stochastic thoughts
Robert writes:
I was reasonably sure that the latest Ruth Marcus column would cause me to have to revise and update my earlier post declaring her a heroine of Ballance. She comments on the fact that Republican representatives live-tweeted snark during the question and answer session with Republican representatives (which was closed to the public because they looked like fools) when it was on TV ((until Fox News cut away to something else, which tells you all you need to know)).
It is very hard to draw ballanced conclusions from a discussion of such an event. To my amazement Marcus managed. This column has it all. 1) Bipartisanthink, 2) the cult of the Presidency, 3) a dumb metaphor, 4) recognition that the conclusion is false part way through 5) disrespect for public opinion 6) above all, love of a grand bargain.
1) “But failure would not only tarnish Republicans; it would also stain Obama’s legacy. ”
2) “Great presidential leadership entails figuring out how to deal with even those who do not like you.”
(note that Ruth Marcus has just asserted that Lincoln wasn’t a great President).
3) “The president portrayed himself as a sort of maitre d’ for budget negotiations, setting the table for others to forge an agreement. ”
4) “It’s true that there are times when presidential intervention in delicate congressional negotiations can be counterproductive. It’s certainly true that there are times when congressional Democrats have advised the White House to butt out. “
“Perhaps he’s posturing; if the president is seen as coveting a deal too much, he won’t be able to get the kind he wants. Perhaps it’s simple realism; Republicans’ refusal to consider revenue raised by curtailing loopholes is unacceptable, and the president shouldn’t accept a cuts-only deal.”
5) “he is the one who is going to have to sell the notion of unpopular changes — curbing Medicare spending, reducing Social Security benefits or curtailing popular tax breaks — to a nation that says it wants a balanced bargain but may balk when that bargain is translated into painful specifics.”
Notice that the proper response to such a “balk” is presidential leadership not doing what the public wants. Marcus is assuming her readers assume the public is more ignorant than it is and will be shocked to find out about the painful specifics. But the public has spoken (to pollsters). Huge majorities oppose cutting Medicare or Social Security to reduce the deficit. Marcus has lost confidence in the public and a new public will have to be elected. She just assumes that Obama must find a way to reach agreement with Republicans (which is impossible) in order to widen the tax base and cut social security and Medicare although the public supports at most one of those actions (solid majorities support higher taxes on high incomes and support reducing tax expenditures in the abstract but that doesn’t mean a majority would support say eliminating the mortgage interest deduction).
It is very clear what the public wishes to be left undone. This public view is unacceptable to Marcus, so she asserts that Obama must find some way to give the public what it doesn’t want by working with Republicans who hate him.
6) “the president sounded distinctly pessimistic about the prospects for such a bargain and disturbingly unconcerned about failing to reach one. That, he said, would be more missed opportunity than “crisis.””
heh indeed. So Marcus is disturbed by the claim that a failure to reach a grand bargain wouldnìt be a crisis. Does this mean she thinks it would be a crisis ? She doesn’t say. The fact that no level of conern about the risk of failint to reach one is eccessive is too obvious for there to be any need for Marcus to argue the point.
The math, by the way, does not demand it.
“Great presidential leadership entails figuring out how to deal with even those who do not like you.”
Oh for the love of God. Politicians do not, in theory, get elected to “play nice.” They get elected to implement ‘good’ policy for the well-being of the country and the citizens. And, quite frankly, I am sick and [bleeping] tired of pundits cheerleading on this ‘middle of the road’ policy. Yes, I get it. Communication in Washington could be a lot better, with the rhetoric turned down. But let’s not conflate rhetoric with substantive ideas, and start asking our elected officials to propose and vote for bastardized policies.
For instance: the two main economic camps in this debate are, more or else, Monetarists and Keynesians (with Austrians still on the fringe but moving towards the center ever so slowly). You cannot come to some “compromise” and take a slice of Monetary theory and a slice of Keynsianism, blend it up and think . . . voila, we have economic policy. It makes no sense because the theories are mutually exclusive in a lot of ways–how do you implement anti-cyclical and pro-cyclical policies at the same time? Well, that’s what many in the media are telling us, and some in the electorate are buying into.
If you are Keynesian, then argue for it. If you are a supply sider, then argue for it. If you are a ABCTer, then argue for it. If you are an MMTer, then argue for it. Yes, rhetoric turned down, but not the substantive debate . . . which is in effect what some, like Marcus, are cheerleading for. Awesome.
irrational
more or less what i would have said if i knew all the words.
but even more, the whole “debate” is phony.
i don’t know that i quite get the con, but it’s a matter of appealing to the electorate and the people with the money.
i suppose i am a keynesian because it is “obvious” to me that using the power of government to create real jobs at real wages will answer all problems.. whether you get the money from taxes, borrowing, or printing (up to a point).
but keep in mind that the deficit, and the recession were caused by unregulated banking… banking by the rules written by the bankers. and the last two recessions or three were created by Fed policy “fighting inflation” by restricting lending, slowing the economy, and driving down wages
maybe i am just as blind as everyone else… or more. but I can’t see how anyone can not see that what is “causing” these problems is exactly the “moderate” economic wisdom.
the insane right is only insane in order to get the votes of the people easily fooled by simple ideas.. their economics is essentially the economics of the so called “center,” as is Obama’s.. or at least his advisors.
if not in rhetoric, in actual policies.
i suppose i should add that the insane left seems to reliably play into the hands of the “moderate” hard right.
after all, that’s what they are for.
@coberly – I don’t know who you think are “the insane left.” The people who don’t want Social Security benefits cut? Obama has certainly been doing everything he can to implement his Republican agenda, but he still has to be careful not to let too many of his cultists understand what he’s doing. So there are many millions of people whom the MSM describe as “progressive” who are better described as minsless Obamabots, who will support whatever their Dear Leader wants. Then there are those of us who think the New Deal is worth preserving. It’s too bad Obama got reelected, but Romney would probably have been even worse. If that’s possible.
Roger
no, no, no, no.
i need to remember that not everyone knows the whole story.
I am one of those who does not want my Social Security cut. We are the sane left, and the sane right, and the sane “don’t give a damn about politics.”
The insane left are those who are going to get everyone’s Social Security cut by “demanding” “the rich” pay for it.
We, the sane, know we can pay for our own social security by raising our own “tax” eighty cents per week each year until the demographics/income-growth stabilizes. We know that it will cost us a little more as a percent of income, because we are going to be living a little longer as a percent of our working lifetime, but that we will in fact have MORE money at the end of the day than we do today because wages are rising… however slowly. A longer, more secure, retirement with more benefits is a great IMPROVEMENT in our standard of living. One we can and should expect to pay for.
as for Obama v Romney. probably a Romney victory would have told our rulers how much more they can get away with lying to us and impoverishing us. But Obama was their fall back guy… he can continue lying to us and impoverishing us at the established rate.