I don't think people here understand the Republican hand here.

[BzaDem]

The main argument I keep reading as to how Obama could have possibly gotten a better deal goes something like this.

We tell the Republicans to stuff it, and all the tax cuts expire in January. Then Obama goes around the country demanding that Republicans allow the middle class tax cuts to remain, and pass unemployment extensions. Eventually, pressure mounts and Republicans cave.

But Republicans have absolutely no incentive to respond to pressure OR cave? Why? Because Obama is President, and HE will be blamed for ALL the collateral damage. As study after study in political science has shown, the people blame the President for the economy. As poll after poll shows, the public generally doesn't know ANYTHING about Congress. They don't know who controls it, they don't know anything about the filibuster, they don't know anything about what party stops what bill, they don't know what bills are open for discussion, and many generally don't watch Presidential speeches and couldn't care less about them.

They don't care, because they are not interested in politics. They have their own lives to live, and there could be nothing more boring to them than politics.

The Republicans would be completely fine with the economy absolutely tanking the economy before 2012. They would accomplish this by not passing any tax cut for the middle class (minus 2-3% of consumer demand and minus thousands from most families), not passing one dime of unemployment extension (resulting in people living in the streets, and minus tens of billions of consumer demand), not passing a doc fix (causing a 25% cut in pay to doctors for Medicare patients, causing many to simply no longer accept Medicare patients), etc. And the public would blame it all on Obama, because they generally do not follow politics and have no idea what's going on in Congress.

It wouldn't matter that Obama tried to point out that the Republicans are responsible. They will elect a Republican, because the economy would be much worse than it is today (not to mention massive suffering independent of economic metrics). That Republican would then pass tax cuts that made Bush's tax cuts look tame.

To argue against this hypothetical, you basically have to argue that Obama can succeed in convincing an apathetic public to blame Republicans when most don't even know they control Congress. Do you REALLY have that much faith in the population to understand what's going on, even when they couldn't care less about politics? The evidence primarily supports the rationally politically ignorant public, not the smart informed politically discerning public.

[OKNancy]

1. Pragmatism and realism don't fly around here

I rec'd but I'm sure it will be voided.

[CakeGrrl]

4. Agreed. It's ironic that

some who in the past derided "cheerleaders" for thinking Obama had a "magic wand" seem to have the most unrealistic expectations of how Republicans will be handed defeat by displaying some Progressive-style swagger.

And will the MSM help educate the public? Hell no.

[Cosmocat]

35. I am THE pragmatic democrat ...

I TOTALLY got how HCR broke down and can't see how others don't see it ... I also see all of the VERY good things BO has done and that get absolutely no attention ...

I like him plenty, and have been a very strong supporter ...

But, this was a battle that had to be fought ... It is what seperates us from them, it is the THE issue that separates us from them, and it was the RIGHT thing to do on so many levels ...

BO is not going to get a break from the Rs or the MSM regardless of what he does ... It isn't good enough to say he had to make a horrible inequal compromise for political reasons when the the second the ink dries on the bill the Rs and the MSM in hand will ravage him on some other BS ...

Fact is, this deal is HORRIBLE for him poltically if you were to go by that alone ... It does NOTHING to help the economy AND it ENSURES massive deficits on the books and projected going into the 2012 elections which ... The republicans and MSM will RAVAGE him for ...

I love him, but this is a DEEPLY disappointing compromise ...

There comes a point when it is clear as day it is time to draw a line in the sand and have the great battle, and let the chips fall where they fall ... This was it ...

[BzaDem]

51. The deal may not be incredibly stimulative relative to today, but the economy would be MUCH worse if

over 600 billion were taken from middle class spending power in the middle of a recession. That would have been a disaster, not just for the poor and middle class, but for consumer demand and the economy.

[Cosmocat]

64. Ah, please ...

No, it would not have ...

What the last 10 years has proven without a friggen doubt is that these tax rates do VERY little for the economy at large ...

IN FACT, letting ALL the rates go up, and having the people with money be more inclined to actually spend it or invest in tax deductable business expenses would do more for the economy than the bread crumbs that are the middle tax cuts here ...

No disaster for the middle class - it is only friggen crumbs ...

NO positive way to spin this, again, from someone who likes this president a lot ...

[BzaDem]

65. 2k for a family of 4 making 20k, or 2.5k for a family of 4 making 40k, is not crumbs.

It comes right out of their spending.

[Cosmocat]

66. 2K for a family of 4 making 20k?

On what friggen planet does the Bush tax cut make a 2,000 difference for a familiy of four making 20k ...

[BzaDem]

67. Additional refundable child tax credit (1400) + earned income tax credit extension (600).

[Cosmocat]

74. That doesn't net a total of 2000 ...

give me a friggen break ...

Any family making a total of 20,000 with two kids is not going to have 2000 in additional credits to pick up ...

[Mimosa]

54. "BO is not going to get a break from the Rs or the MSM regardless of what he does"

Which is exactly why he should risk doing the right things.

[Cosmocat]

62. Yep ...

Again, I thought HCR played out the only way it could ...

Like it or not, Reid let the Rs skull screw him from day one, and there was no better bill that could have cleared than what we got, and not getting HCR at all would have been disasterous, NEVER would happen down the road ...

I see his thinking in a lot of things and think he gets too much of a bad rap from our left ...

But, this was a clear as day, no ifs, ands or butts, draw a line in the sand and let the chips fall where they fall kind of moment ...

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Tell me, what does the word 'sanctified' mean in Pragmatism?

It is just a tired old joke to shout 'pragmatist' about a man who openly declares he is faith based, and sees secular politics in terms of belief in invisible beings. So what you are saying is that on some days, he follows the Christian moral code strictly, and demands that GLBT people be treated according to those rules, but on other days, he's a means justifies the ends pragmatist. So you are saying he is, on any given day, that which serves him on that day. This is not pragmatism, this is simply situational ethics.
Once he told me I was not 'sanctified' by his Goddy God, the 'pragmatist' argument became laughable. In Christianity, Pragmatism is a heresy. But he is both. The Devout and the Heretic!
Too funny, anything to rationalize prejudiced views, anything. He's a tall short guy, he's hairy and bald, he's both left and right! The Faith Based Pragmatist!
Oh god, the lengths some will go to.....

[jpgray]

2. The problem is, Obama won't get a "good" economy out of this or any deal

He might get a better economy, but how well did the "better than it might have been" argument work in the midterms? The stimulus was great, even too small, even larded with tax cuts. But it couldn't fix this economy, and therefore the public never felt any gratitude, let alone realized taxes had been cut. If the economy remains overall crappy in '12, just slightly less crappy than it might have been, voters will never remember Obama's efforts. The cost of this deal's marginal improvements may affect more serious fights in the future, and '12 may arrive with a cut to Medicare or Social Security, and then we're looking at serious electoral trouble.

The positive side of this is that Obama is a great politician on the campaign trail, and the GOP stable of candidates is a miserable bunch. But we aren't negotiating away massive chunks of revenue for a great economy--we're compromising for a maybe-slightly-better economy. UI is necessary, raising taxes on the middle class isn't wonderful, but we can't keep bleeding revenue forever while keeping the social safety net alive forever. Depending on events, "better than it might have been" might not be anywhere near good enough.

[BzaDem]

3. But even a slightly better economy is better than an economy MUCH worse than today.

So you are correct that this package will only help slightly (relative to the current baseline), but you should compare it to "no deal," not simply the current baseline. With "no deal," we are talking about 600 fewer billion dollars in the pockets of the poor and middle class (just over the next 2 years) and the unemployed on the streets. 600 billion is a shit ton of money -- about 300 billion/year, or 2-3% of GDP.

Eventually, the middle class tax cuts will have to expire (along with the higher end ones), but that needs to wait until the economy is actually growing again.

[jpgray]

6. If we can't defend a marginal compromise, we probably can't defend a decisive fight

To make either deal or fight work down the road, however, we need better messaging. I don't know who they have in charge of coordinating this out at the DNC or the white house, and I know the media aren't exactly sympathetic, but Obama's better statements and explanations of what is actually -happening- are not sticking anywhere. The average voter can't make sense of what happened with the tax cut for the rich--Obama vowed not to extend it, and then he did. That's all that appears to some--none of Congress' role is getting through. What does and will get through is a sense that either Obama can't stand for anything, or what he stood for must have been wrong.

I agree with you that none of our options are great, but what is really killing us here is apparent confusion of purpose and lack of will. Some of that's there of course, but we're actually better than our press on that score, and we can't afford not to make up the difference.

[BzaDem]

22. I think you're on to something with the media, but I also think the problem is structural.

I have heard Obama share the middle class tax cut message, the healthcare message, the unemployment message, etc etc etc. I have heard each message at least 10 times, and each one has probably been given 50-100 times (especially healthcare). Yet the media does not report more than a few seconds of soundbytes if you don't watch CSpan, and they usually "report" it derisively (by saying "look how his message isn't getting through!").

You are correct that it is not sticking, but I think that's partly because of the media, and partly because voters are rationally ignorant of politics and don't care. (A voter does not have a huge incentive to care, since they individually just have one vote.)

So I think this is a structural problem that does not necessarily have a fix. The way other countries deal with this is they have parliamentary systems with one party (or a coalition) in total control of government. The other party has no power. That way, the opposition party can't sabotage the economy for political purposes, and the voters can clearly judge outcomes by knowing who to blame or who to credit. If the voters throw out one party, then the next party comes in and can repeal what the previous party did. That gives voters a real choice.

In this country, we have

a) divided government, with no mechanism other than brinksmanship/shutdowns/people suffering to deal with major differences between the two parties
b) a senate proportioned by land and not by population, giving ridiculous influence to tiny states, with a supermajority requirement
c) an obscene campaign finance system

I'm not saying the parliamentary system is perfect or that our system has no redeeming qualities. I'm just saying that in other countries, they figured out how to deal with this accountability problem LONG ago.

[jpgray]

28. Short of a parliamentary system, some structural changes I'd like to see:

1. Public financing of campaigns.

2. A return to strict media ownership rules.

3. Some form of runoff voting.

4. Some reform of anti-democratic elements of the Senate.

Access to money shouldn't equal access to speech, ~6 organizations are too few to report events in a vast nation, a monkey trained to pull a D lever shouldn't be able to replace me as a voter, and Wyoming shouldn't count for as much as California or New York in a democracy.

How did we wind up putting on our magic wishing hats in your hard-boiled strategy thread? :P

[BzaDem]

31. Agree with all 4.

Unfortunately, unbalanced systems like ours tend to perpetuate themselves and not allow change to occur very easily (to say the least).

Reminds me of the Articles of Confederation, that made the modern Senate look like the House of Commons. They needed 13 out of 13 votes to make any structural changes. The system was so resistant to change (and so completely incapable of dealing with actual challenges) that they just created a whole new Constitution outside of the process of the articles. While that obviously isn't going to happen today, it shows that these ridiculous disparities in our system are probably very hard to get rid of.

And while I'm totally against 3rd party voting in the current system (for obvious reasons), an instant runoff system would obviously change all that and provide real competition of ideas (without enabling the ideas people hate most).

[sweetapogee]

34. How?

How do you better "message" unemployment at almost 10% going on 3 years now? There is confusion and lack of will, that's for sure but in my opinion dems will rue the day that we spent almost 2 years on a flawed mandatory health insurance law that no one is going to like when instead we should have put all of our efforts into fixing the economy. We spent all kinds of money on bailouts of large banks and the auto industry and with a straight face criticize the large insurance carriers who are not asking for a dime of tax money. We think that somehow we are going to be happier paying health insurance premiums in the form of taxes instead of paying insurance premiums to an insurance company. We believe that we will be happier paying $35,000.00 for an electric car that has a 50 mile range instead of $16,000.00 for a car that we can drive coast to coast with occasional 15 minute fuel and bathroom breaks.

So now we have an agreement with the pukes on UI and the tax breaks. Do I have to remind you all that until January we have a majority in both houses and the Presidency? We, in theory could have had everything we wanted but no, we are getting everything we don't want. And with all of that going for us, the President has less than 50% in the polls and half of the congressional dems are starting to look like republicans in word and deed. The only question is why?

Here we are debating a possible primary challenge to Obama. Someone, anyone please explain to me how we win the WH in 2012 with someone other than Obama at the top of the ticket? Even with Obama at the top, who here can lay out a scenario where we hold the executive and keep the senate and regain the house? I'm an optimist by nature but I see a puke in the WH with R majorities in both houses in 2012 and additional R senate gains in 2014. Someone using other than bravado show me the errors in my thinking. Here is a fun fact: the administration and some congressional dems currently in chairmanship positions are parched on an anvil and the house pukes are getting ready to swing the hammer in the form of hearings on where the stimulus money was spent. And we are talking about "messaging".

Which brings me back to my point. And for the record, I care not a wit if anyone here disagrees with me or calls me names. Point is though, President Obama and congressional dems have spent and continues to spend all of their energies on social items that do nothing to improve the economic health of the country. We, the RAF continue to blame the "messaging" for our problems. We keep thinking that the pukes will make a mistake, a fatal error that will turn the country against them. We think that anyone who expresses support for anything proposed by the pukes are simply insane, certifiably F'ed up in the head.

What we need is a plan. We need a good plan, a simple plan that goes directly to the heart of the matter and does what: it gets the economy rolling. And we need that plan yesterday. <-----Key point of my message.

And this concludes my lecture for today. You all have a nice day.

[BzaDem]

42. Your remedy is premised on a 50-vote Senate, which doesn't actually exist. n/t

[sendero]

15. The only SANE response to our current..

... situation was to expire the tax cuts for the rich. Of course, Obama "doesn't have the votes". But as usual, he doesn't have rhetoric, he doesn't have influence, he doesn't have JACK SHIT.

He is useless. And the economy will NOT be substantially better in 2012 and Obama and the Dems will pay dearly for that. It won't necessarily be their fault but karma works in mysterious ways.

[BzaDem]

18. While it might not be substantially better in 2012, it would be substantially better than what would

have happened if we didn't agree to a deal.

I think there's a difference between "not being able to move intransigent votes with rhetoric" and being "useless." Just a slight difference. Such as the entire judiciary/Supreme Court, HCR, FinReg, the Stimulus, etc.

[Cosmocat]

36. the SECOND the pen hits this bill ...

the Rs and MSM will ravage him for the deficit he ensures with this horrific "deal."

Politics is not a good reason to excuse this deal, cause even with it, they are going to kill the guy over whatever nonsense they can come up with anyways ...

I love the guy a lot, but this was a holdum moment ...

He and the party are low on chips, and got dealt a pair of aces ... You get in that situation, you go all in ... Let the chips fall where they fall ...

He friggen took a pair of aces and folded them to an off suit 2 and 7 ...

[rawtribe]

5. Six inches forward

and five inches back.....

[RadiationTherapy]

9. Millions of angry inches around america simultaneously re-claim their power and identity.

Hedwig rides into the sunset.

[hfojvt]

7. well, when you put it that way ...

then I can hardly wait to see how you justify his next refusal to fight, and his next slap in the face to the left and gift to the rich. We already have Ruth Marcus praising the deficit commission, one that Obama created remember, and Ruth is praising it from the supposedly liberal chair on PBS.

It sure is amazing how quickly 'yes we can' gets tossed out in favor of 'you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game.'

Meanwhile there are millions of voters who ARE paying attention and are quite livid about having a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who will constantly cave to Republicans.

[catgirl]

8. Excellent post n/t

[bluestateguy]

10. While you make a lot of good points

Had this been done months ago, the Democrats would have had much more to work with and more cards to play. And don't forget about how the Blue Dogs in Congress have done their part to screw this up too.

One thing people are overlooking is the number of DLCers in Congress who were calling for full extensions before the elections. More and more of them kept signing that damn letter to a point where there was a majority for full extensions when you combine them with a unified GOP minority. So Pelosi spiked it until after the election.

If Obama had remained resolute and actively campaigned for only middle class tax cuts, as we all wanted him to, it seems very likely that the Blue Dogs would not follow his lead and would have just kept on doing what they are doing. Some Blue Dog Democrat in Arkansas or Mississippi is not going to change his vote because Obama gave a really swell speech about taxes in front of a crowd.

[pnwmom]

13. And the blue dogs who lost were replaced by even more

conservative Republicans, which was entirely predictable.

[pnwmom]

11. Sigh. You are correct. You can't go wrong

underestimating the political ignorance of most people.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. There was a NY Times article saying essentially the same thing...

about a week ago-- the simple fact is that the Republicans hold all the cards and can simply wait out Obama. They are united, and we are not. They are looking to gain more power, and we are barely holding on.

I remember LBJ, who was a master at making you an offer you couldn't refuse. And Reagan, who took every occasion to blame Tip O'Neill for everything from economic woes to aunt Agnes' ague. Obama just doesn't seem to have that killer instinct to go to the mat, but I'm not all that sure going to the mat would work this time. After all, LBJ and Reagan didn't get everything they wanted, either.

I would have liked to have seen a "The Republicans want YOU to pay Rush Limbaugh's taxes" meme before the election, but that didn't happen.

So here we are.

[sendero]

14. We understand..

... exactly how they GOT that hand, and all fingers point to Obama.

You can't piss all over the floor and then whine about the mess.

[BzaDem]

16. And how do "all fingers point to Obama?"

[sendero]

21. His lackluster..

.. .milquetoast "leadership" cost us the house, that is how.

[BzaDem]

23. But to justify that, you have to explain how he could have acutally achieved better policy outcomes

with a different style of "leadership."

[malaise]

17. Excellent post but

the first thing on Obama's agenda in 2009 should have been paying for the wars and that is how he should have approached ending the Bush tax cuts. Had he done it then we would not have reached here at this time.
All the ReTHUGS did last night was shout checkmate and pop the champagne corks.

Democratic cowardice prevented him from removing those tax cuts and we still lost the House of Representatives. Democrats put themselves in the proverbial corner by not dealing with this up front and early.

[sweetapogee]

38. No

The first thing that should have been on Obama's agenda in 2009 should have been fixing the economy. And the other thing on his agenda should have been fixing the economy. And yet today, almost 2011, where is fixing the economy on the agenda?

[BzaDem]

40. The way you fix the economy is with a stimulus. He passed a stimulus, and the Republicans would not

allow any more. Until this deal.

The idea that the President can just wave a magic wand and "fix the economy" is ludicrous. There are well known ways to fix the economy, and the President has done the ones he could have.

[sweetapogee]

59. you say

If i understand you correctly that the President has "done what he could" with respect to fixing the economy? My reading of this statement, no offense intended is that the President has run out of options and now the economy is on it's own. That can't be your thinking because if it is he would be doing the country a big favor by stepping down. So what do you mean by this?

Where have you read any kind of critical in depth analysis of the stimulus, how the money was spent, who got it and it's effect on the overall economy?

I get a magazine at work, NJ Biz. There was a news article not too long ago where it explained that a PR firm got almost $900,000.00 of stimulus money to advertise the benefits of the new health insurance law to new jerseyites. We know of university grants to study academic things and we know that cities got operating cash and institutions like public schools received funds used for operating expenses. And yet cities, states and public institutions are all on the brink, right now of financial disaster.

Some of the states and cities are in the financial pickle because they used the cigarette industry settlement money (many even borrowed against future disbursements) to meet (then) current operating costs (during better economic times mind you). Now that money is gone, replaced by the stimulus. The trick for dems going forward in a house of puke is going to be able to illustrate how the stimulus saved the economy. If it did, then couldn't the same be said for the cigarette settlement? It saved the economy while getting people to quit smoking? Point: if the total amount of stimulus spent would be equal to giving every man, women and child in the country $30,000.00 to spend it's going to be very difficult for the dems to defend an unemployment rate at 10%.

But I'm not trying to defend or detract from the stimulus. My only concern with it is how will the dem's defend it. My main concern is a lack of a plan from dems to fix the economy. Most americans are not willing to have another stimulus thrown at them. So this is what we have to work with. We have to craft something that makes sense, using the tools at our disposal and we need to do it now.

In the meantime BzaDem, I will give some consideration to what you are saying. Take care.

[BzaDem]

69. The power to affect the economy is primarily that of Congress. There is little any President can do

without the consent of Congress to get us out of such a recession.

"Most americans are not willing to have another stimulus thrown at them."

Then most Americans are going to have to wait longer than they should have to wait. You assume we have tools at our disposal to deal with the problem outside another stimulus -- which ones?

[sweetapogee]

71. This

is the reason why I'm not running for President, i don't know how to fix the problem. All I do is observe and comment based on those observations. Not a cop-out, just a statement of fact.

You are of course correct that congress has to consent to the Presidents policy. The problem for dems looking ahead to 2012 is that since 2006 we had the house and 2008 the senate so the President will have to explain why he cannot get even his own party to cooperate with him. Do you see this as a problem or is it just me?

[Marr]

49. Oh, he "fixed it", alright.

He grafted one industry that was about to collapse beneath it's own corruption on to government by way of mandated purchases and subsidies (the insurance industry), and gave another the keys to the treasury (the big banks). He's very good at "fixing" things.

[malaise]

70. How do you fix an economy if you have two wars off the books

That is stimulus money - you tax the fucking rich as has always been done. The rich profit from war - they should fucking pay for it.

[JoePhilly]

19. And the corporate run media willreinforce the message.

So that the low information folks never hear a positive word.

[rucky]

20. I see the point.

I'm not "done" by any means, but I really feel let down by Obama's eagerness to compromise before negotiations really even begin.

Maybe he stands tough behind closed doors and we don't see things until they've already reached a deal. If you do it that way, instead of trying to sell the best plan to the people & gain support before negotiations even start, then you wouldn't see this anger here so much because at least he showed us he had a plan he was willing to fight for. Without that communication, we can't trust what goes on behind closed doors. So as it stands, I'm not surprised at all by the sentiment around here & I share some of it myself.

It's not just about ignoring the left, either. I also think he's misreading independent voters, who tend to support someone with a clear path - good or bad - but at least definitive.

He needs to be a little less about product and more about process, and people will be more willing to follow him to the inevitable compromise if he tries harder to bring HIS ideas to the table first.

Bush went on a road show to support his plan for tax cuts. A road show!

[BzaDem]

25. It's hard to come up with a clear path when you do not have the power to execute on it.

"Bush went on a road show to support his plan for tax cuts. A road show!"

Obama went all over the country explaining HIS tax plan, and shaming the Republicans for holding his tax cuts hostage. This went on and on and on during September and October. The media might not have reported it outside of soundbytes, but he did. He had townhalls, speeches, visits with employees, etc.

Yet the voters didn't care. They voted against Obama because the economy sucked, because Republicans blocked a larger stimulus. Nothing else matters.

Obama absolutely brought his ideas to the table. He barnstormed the country campaigning for them. Then he lost 60 seats in the House, and was facing the prospect of a MUCH worse deal after January.

[rucky]

29. I went to one of those events.

The message was in there, sandwiched inside 40 other messages - all with the purpose of getting people to vote Dem. The big picture is fuzzy. I know there are a ton of challenges to face, but messaging should be more focused on 1 or 2 of our strongest arguments.

[leveymg]

24. You sound like you have a future ahead of you as a political pollster, no matter which Party

is in control. Your premise is, the American people are a stupid mass of politically ignoramuses who will always vote against the incumbent President when times are hard, so just cave to the Republican opposition and maybe the people will be grateful that the world hasn't come to an end, and reelect you.

That reasoning has a dumb baseline and gets dumber. It ends with a President Palin or a President Mittens in 2012.

[BzaDem]

30. While you overstate my point slightly, I absolutely agree that the economy is by FAR the dominant

variable that determines election results.

Can there be other variables in unusual circumstances (especially when the economy is not in horrible shape)? Sure. Watergate, Vietnam, etc. And could the Republicans nominate Palin and lose when they really should win given the economy? Sure.

But in general, tanking economies result in taking presidencies, regardless of who caused what. Some people mention FDR as a counterexample, but if one looks deeper, the economy was in such a huge hole BEFORE FDR took office that it kept growing and growing (still in a depression, but getting better and better) till about 1937-1938ish, when FDR tried to cut the deficit and the economy went back into a recession-with-a-depression.

What happened then? In the 1938 midterms, Republicans gained 81 seats.

I'm not saying voters are stupid. I'm saying that many of them rationally choose to ignore politics. Rationally because they know that individually, their vote doesn't matter (even though as a group, it obviously matters). It's a collective action problem, and we don't have a system of government that produces strong accountability like parliamentary systems do.

[leveymg]

33. I think the better analogy and working model for Obama is Truman.

Ideologically, both are centrist Democrats with conservative instincts whose policy was one of accommodation with resurgent Republicans (the GOP picked up huge numbers of seats in '46 taking Control of Congress), while throwing enough traditional Democratic rhetoric to placate most of the Democratic machine, which got him reelected by the narrowest of margins two years later. Truman came into office as the war was ending and faced enormous transitional problems of post-war economic adjustment, but his economic program generally succeeded.

The advantage that Truman had was an optimistic post-war outlook and some true progressives in the 79th Congress and in the federal agencies who passed and implemented the GI Bill and other generous social programs that paid to send returning GIs back to school and to work in an economy with huge pent-up demand and savings for new housing and consumer goods.

Truman was reviled from the Left, having been picked to replace Henry Wallace. Internationally, Truman was in the anti-communist camp and generally allowed the Cold War hawks to push toward confrontation with the Soviet Union, resulting in the division of Germany and the Korean War. The Cold War is Truman's global political legacy, while McCarthyism grew out of Truman's Loyalty Oaths and purge of the Left. He set the pattern for the divided world and centrist alliance that ran American politics for forty years, until the fall of the Soviet Union removed the main raison d'etre for foreign policy unity and bi-partisan political accommodation at home.

Obama evoked the hope among some Americans for another era of national purpose and unified government, but that has faded, largely as a result of a lack of jobs-creation and middle-class stimulus in his economic programs. I think we're in for some truly difficult times ahead without a compass or a working model of Presidential leadership.

[Tatiana]

46. [phone] I think you are absolutely correct.

But where Truman triumphed, in my opinion, was that in spite of his conservative and hawkish war policies, he realized that part of his coalition was the progressive "New Dealers" left from Roosevelt's administration. Truman realized that he had to give his base something, and consequently got the "Fair Deal" passed which provided a host of social benefits to veterans like the GI Bill and the VA hospitals.

He gave the base something, which the current President out of a host of potential issues (DADT, tax cuts, rendition/civil liberties, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, low-cost health care for all, etc.) has failed to do.

[BzaDem]

50. Truman was operating with a Democratic majority resulting from the alliance of real Democrats

and Southern racists. That's how they dominated Congress throughout the century until 1994. Furthermore, he was operating in an era where Republicans voluntarily used the filibuster very sparingly, so it was much closer to a 50 vote Senate on many issues.

We currently live in a hyper-polarized 60 vote Senate with the geographic map completely changed. The two legislative situations are not remotely comparable.

[leveymg]

56. In that case, what historical parallels and model would you offer?

Or, are we really sailing in uncharted waters with the sound of a giant waterfall fast getting louder through the night mists?

[BzaDem]

57. In terms of the link between voting for Presidency and the economy, there are a huge number of

examples (FDR, GHWB, Carter, LBJ, etc.)

In terms of the legislative reality, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post, we are absolutely in uncharted waters.

[leveymg]

60. There are exceptions to your main thesis. Unfortunately, they are GOP "wartime"

Presidents: Nixon '72; Reagan '84*; GWB '04. The economy was significantly worse than when each of these was initially elected, yet they all managed to leverage war-time (or Cold War) hysteria back into office.

My biggest concern about Obama is not the economy -- although, that is as bad as it has been at any time since the Great Depression -- it is that he may repeat that "wartime President" pattern in Iran.

(*Inflation came down, but unemployment surged during the middle years of Reagan's first term - they timed that recession perfectly, see, http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec13.pdf )

[leveymg]

55. That's right - Harry delivered the goods, Barack, not as well.

That doesn't make Truman smarter than Obama, just more effective. Thus, more likely to get reelected.

[Demeter]

61. I Think Benedict Arnold, Myself

[cate94]

26. The economy will not get the slightest bit better now.

It may be true that people will blame the President, but now he owns the tax cuts that are destroying the middle class. The Bush tax cuts have been shown to be more harmful to the middle class than any tax breaks they received. How does this help anyone other than the top 1%? It really doesn't. It hasn't.

If Obama were at all interested in correcting the deficit, this would have been the correct place to start. Why are we spending all this money on tax cuts the well off don't need? So we can have an excuse to gut Social Security.

Cue Durbin.

[get the red out]

27. All true

The deck is stacked against Democrats in every way. With the majority they still couldn't do a damn thing, now the big corporations can pump so much money into campaigns that it will never again be possible to not be destroyed by the skewed republican "message". As I see it, we are hanging onto the threads of democracy and there's not much hope for anyone BUT the rich. We have a fairly ignorant population easily manipulated by Republican spin. I live in a "red" state and there is no breaking through the spin, it would be unholy for many (since Reps own the Churches) to not accept it as truth. We have totally lost this country, I don't know any way for things to change in any way but for the worst. Not many people would really protest anything, and if they did the media wouldn't cover it unless Glenn Beck was leading tea baggers supported by Fox News.

There's not much more that can be done but hold onto what few threads of decency possible.

[Quezacoatl]

32. Obama is stuck in mediocrity

President Obama once said he would rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two term president. Unfortunately it's looking more and more like he will at best be the latter.

[mmonk]

37. Depends on if you believe Republican economic dogma or not. I don't.

Also depends if you put politics over right vs wrong.

[BzaDem]

43. The idea that extending tax credits for the poor and middle class stimulates the economy

is not Republican dogma. It is Keynesian economics.

People need to stop pretending that all changes to tax policy are "supply side economics." Supply side economics has a well defined meaning, and it is not giving money to the poor and middle class to spend in a recession.

[mmonk]

44. Minimally at best when countered with cuts in domestic programs

and spending. There is no increase in job creation because of the offset.

[BzaDem]

48. It is not being countered with cuts in domestic programs or spending.

And even if it were (which it is not), 0 is better than negative. There's nothing magic about 0.

[alcibiades_mystery]

39. At the very least, some left commentators were happy enough to *gamble* with the lives of 2 million

people and their families, and millions more as the clock ticks.

It's perfectly legitimate to make the calculation that the Republicans would eventually fold on unemployment extensions. But to not recognize that as a calculation that has horrendous consequences should your gamble not cash out, that's irresponsibility writ large. Moreover, if you asked people to lay out their evidence or basis for that belief, you usually get crickets, or some very blathery grumbling about "political pressure," or some version of "it should have never gotten to this point," or a rendition of Offspring's "Keep 'em Separated." In other words, the position requires a huge gamble with real people's lives, and nothing supports it but some thin wishes and half-baked analysis. As it stands, the Republicans seemed perfectly willing to leave 2 million people and their families without any income at all. That's a calculation, too.

The difference between people who insisted we get nothing, and they get nothing, and the people who saw the necessity of a deal rests on those two calculations: they will fold, or they won't fold. I think we made the correct calculation. They don't. That's fine. But anybody who represents the "they'll fold" position as anything other than a risky gamble is playing a very dangerous game with people's lives. Yes, it may have been a gamble that paid off. But on the other hand, it may not have, and the consequences for that would have been unthinkable.

[Orsino]

41. An electorate that allows this many right-wingers (of both parties) to be installed in office...

...doesn't deserve to complain about the inevitable results.

It sucks that our just deserts consist of so much misery, but until we wise up, this is what we get.

[Tatiana]

45. As the President himself stated, he really doesn't want to do "politics."

I think the political aspect of governing (and there is one) is pretty distasteful to him. He desires to be above the fray and wants to avoid conflict.

I feel many thought that if there was ever a moment of "bring it on" it was this one. The President had public opinion on his side. He had many options at his disposal. He could have called a televised evening conference to discuss the issue and explain his position of only extending tax cuts for middle class. He also could have reiterated how we've tried the tax cut thing for the wealthy, and oh, by the way... WHERE ARE THE F-CKING JOBS????

The galling thing is that he didn't even TRY. We would have better accepted this distasteful "compromise" if he had at least tried the aforementioned idea (or others) and failed.

Not trying leads many of the public who VOTED FOR HIM feeling like a) this was the President's goal all along or b) he caved and is a weak executive.

[TBF]

52. Give it up - we're not buying this BS. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

53. This OP is so cynical that it really does make an Obama style

case. But in the end, such cynicism reduces to 'what difference, then, does it make'? I love the word 'apathetic' applied to the public right now. Talk about a poorly chosen word, that is a frame that will make loss flow like river. Sure, they don't care. Losing homes, no jobs, but they are apathetic.
This is the sort of argument made by those who have just failed, to explain why failure was the only option. Of course, someone won. Winning was an option-for the winner.
Pitiful moments in history. Brought to you by Barack Obama, Defending Marriage since 1998!

[BzaDem]

58. They are apathetic politically. That doesn't mean they don't care about their own situations.

They rationally do not pay much attention to politics, because they know that their one vote is negligible in the grand scheme of things (even though together voting is everything).

Just because something is cynical does not mean it's wrong. It also does not mean there is no difference. There's the entire judicial branch for one. Furthermore, considering the legislative reality, the stimulus/FinReg/HCR were monumental pieces of progressive legislation.

[JamesA1102]

63. Thanks

Glad to see some here are dealing in reality.

[ScreamingMeemie]

68. Is this the part where we all get to play checkers again because

we can't understand chess?

Sorry, but bullshit.

[RobinA]

72. How Do You Explain

the FICA part of this mess? The REALLY scary part.

[bigtree]

73. recced for a very courageous effort

. . . to lay out the politics and economics as pragmatically as one can on a message board.