Newsflash: Obama’s gambit isn’t just about appeasing Dems

[ProSense]

Newsflash: Obama’s gambit isn’t just about appeasing Dems

By Greg Sargent

<...>

Politico today is a case in point, insisting that his plan reads “like a blueprint for shoring up his restless Democratic base.” There’s been tons of other chatter along these lines today.

The unstated assumption here is that Obama’s policies — in particular hiking taxes on the wealthy and corporations — couldn’t possibly have any appeal to the middle of the country.

Why are folks so reluctant to embrace the obvious truth that a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to reduce the deficit is the mainstream American position? Bruce Bartlett recently compiled a list of some two dozen polls all showing support for a combo of cuts and tax increases.

<...>

What’s more, as many of these commentators and reporters know from their own reporting, the White House is also explicitly betting that the new approach is the best way to win back not just Democrats, but independents, too. As it happens, independents strongly back tax increases on the wealthy. CNN recently found that 62 percent of independents think the supercommittee should help close the deficit by hiking taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Gallup recently found that 64 percent of independents favor increasing taxes on the rich as a way to reduce Federal debt.

more

CBS News/NYT Poll: 9/16/11

q75 Do you think any plan to reduce the federal budget deficit should include only tax increases, or only spending cuts, or a combination of both tax increases and spending cuts?

Both - Total 71
...Rep 57
...Dem 82
...Ind 70

q76 In order to lower the nation's budget deficit, do you think taxes should be increased on households earning $250,000 a year or more or should the government address the budget deficit without increasing taxes on those households?

Increase - Total 56
...Rep 39
...Dem 70
...Ind 55

[gateley]

1. Maybe, just maybe, he wants to do something that actually is

BENEFICIAL for the country and its citizens. Can't these people view anything without peering through the Political lens? Sheesh.

[frazzled]

7. BIngo (or, Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar)

I can't stand how everything is analyzed as if it were a political move, part of a horse race, or in response to polling.

If you take Obama at his word at all (and I know many here don't), his one strongest belief is that this kind of politics is what has to change before anything else can. I believe he hews to that as best he can in this atmosphere, and that there is a very good chance that at each step of the process, he weighs what will be the best way to proceed to help the nation, whether it's been compromise or hardlining.

[Whisp]

10. I know! I keep hearing that all over

that if Obama is trying to get something decent and practical done, it's got to be about politics and him campaigning - something that sounds selfish on his part.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. At least you admit it's a "gambit."

:think:

[ProSense]

3. Here's

"At least you admit it's a "gambit."

...a clue: I'm not Greg Sargent.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. And another one:

Pretty close, though.

[Inuca]

5. 57% of REPUBLICANS

say BOTH! Maybe they are not all them a lost cause + politically for the Boehners and Ryans and McConnells out there, it's quite stunning.

[Andy823]

6. Yes,

Most republicans are NOT millionaires and many of them are hurting also. They are part of the middle class that republicans in congress seem to want to make a extinct! If republicans continue to support only the rich instead of doing what the "real" majority of this country wants, they are going to find themselves looking for a new job after next years election, and it couldn't happen to a better bunch of idiots if you as ask me!

The argument for the rich paying their fair share is not going to be the rally cry next year from the vast majority of americans no matter what their party loyalty may be.

[patrice]

8. At the risk of a DU stoning, I'm going to say something positive about "3rd way" cognitive processes

It's a fairly well established axiom that lots (most?) people never develop the highest levels of reasoning. Use whatever model you wish, but the most common one is Piaget, and progress from primitive forms of rationalism to wider/deeper thought processes is commonly said to plateau for most people well below the maximum level of conceptual development.

Practically speaking, this can be seen in all of the false dichotomies and false equivalencies, stereotypes, and other either-this-or-that generalizations that are presented as understanding between us in our own relationships and in M$M.

Some recognize the implications of the difference between quantitative analysis, the most common form of understanding, and qualitative analysis a more rare and more expensive form of understanding. For example, people know now that you can CONSTRUCT polls to do CERTAIN rather SPECIFIC things with quantitative analysis and, then, find that the very same subjects will reverse themselves completely when the analysis is qualitative, e.g. interviews. This human trait has profound consequences in all kinds of management, but most notably lately in business.

What does this mean? Simply, people are naturally full of contradictions and significant differences between attitudes and behavior is normative. BUT, our political machines and standard "communication" processes, because of the confluence of historic, social, cultural, economic and technological factors, HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR RELEVANCE.

Our dichotomous processes in general and politics and M$M in particular are obsolete. There's a reason why so many people don't vote. There's a reason why there's an "independent" impulse. The real world has ALWAYS been much more complex than we have been pretending; we have just had the bad-good luck to pretend otherwise. That's over now. We NEED a "new" (actually old to some of us) way, what is known in some circles as a "turning".

This does not mean that TPB, that which oppresses, in this case by means of semantic bullshit that is served to us as rational thought, will cease trying to divide and conquer the people with all manner of false cognitions. It does not mean that we can just substitute our own bullshit for their bullshit, for SOME dichotomies are in fact not false, SOME equivalencies are in fact equivalent, SOME stereotypical cognitions CAN function as hypotheses to be validated or not empirically and that process of validation is a worth -y thing.

The difference now is that we no longer have that buffer that allowed us to accept other people's ponies or monsters as our own. It's time to meet the real world the way it is in all of its complexity and that begins with individuals identifying and evaluating artificial constructs, either : or placebos, that have been used to oppress us, and starting to engage the real world im- mediate -ly, individually, and honestly as the living verb that it is, not just which-whatever we are told it is.

I'm not certain and it looks as though things have not worked quite as well as he had hoped, but I think this is the kind of CHANGE that Mr. Obama has been moving toward for some time. I think Dr. Martin Luther King would have recognized it and I think he would have called it Freedom.


:rant:

[Number23]

11. I have no idea how long the Third Way has been around

But I'd only heard about them in the last month or so. Seeing some of DU's most unhinged constantly rail about them piqued my interest.

In a contest between the Third Way and "liberals" who scream that the Dem president who has passed more progressive legislation than the last three Dem presidents combined is a Republican, and that the reason independents are flocking to the Repubs is because the "Dem party is moving too far to the right," I'll take the Third Way every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

This shows a lack of logic that would be frightening if enough people actually thought this way.

The real world has ALWAYS been much more complex than we have been pretending

Exactly. The most applicable definition of the fringe is someone who despises moderates. Anyone who thinks in absolutes doesn't seem to realize that in doing so, they only show the limitations of their own ability to process and understand information.

[patrice]

12. People get a physical buzz off of absolutes & I guess that's all well & fine as long as they don't

try to overtly or covertly force them on others.

That doesn't mean that anyone has to give up their principles, just that they need to learn how to live them more purely in every breath they themselves take, if they matter soooooooooooo much, rather than trying to make them real by forcing or tricking others into living by them.

[Number23]

13. This is probably the weirdest analogy you are ever going to read here

but there was a movie that came out last year or the year before called The Prince of Persia.

It was some fantasy movie. I think it's based on a video game. And while my issues with the movie are great (for one, why the hell were NONE of the main characters Persian or of any type of Middle Eastern ancestry?? The "princess" in the movie was obviously a white girl with a spray tan and a dark wig. And she wasn't even a particularly CUTE white girl with a spray tan!) but one thing that stood out to me was after the King died, his eldest son became King.

Every single time the new king came on the screen, he just looked SOO confused. My first thought was "I wouldn't want anyone this confused being the leader of my country" but then I thought about it. The reason he looked confused was because he was always listening. He had the good prince and the bad prince (Ben freaking Kingsley!) constantly tugging at him, giving him conflicting advice and pulling him in different directions. Only a fool (or the fringe) would make a snap decision with little or no information or from only one perspective.

People who think in absolutes are obviously people who have never had any responsibility for others or don't give the first damn what happens to those in their care. I'd rather have someone look confused as hell before coming to a conclusion than takes everything into account than someone barking out orders without the first damn clue what's going on or how it impacts those around them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Wow ...

People who think in absolutes are obviously people who have never had any responsibility for others or don't give the first damn what happens to those in their care.

Wow, that's quite an indictment! Though I can understand the frustration that leads you to that conclusion, I have to disagree. I would say most people that venture to stake a position are responsible and caring people. But I think people that think in absolutes are merely trying to make sense out of a very complex world ... and are ignorant (not in the pejorative sense) of any other way to see the world.

[Number23]

19. It's not about staking a position

Thinking in black and white and in absolutes are the markers of an extremist. People who believe that there can be no additional information that could/will/should change their positions about certain things.

And I honestly believe that there are some issues that it's okay to be an extremist about. How would things have been different if there had been more European extremists opposed to Hitler?

But that doesn't change that there are very few effective leaders in this world that have not compromised, negotiated and welcomed information and/or discourse from all sides of an issue. However, there are a slew of dictators and authoritarians who have convinced themselves that only they understand the issues and that only they understand what is right. And they will enforce their view on everyone within range, whether they share them or not. There is a reason that people like this have been castigated and shunned throughout history.

[patrice]

16. We should at least ask ourselves what untold wonders are lost to absolutes that are

really only relativities, relativities enforced as absolutes by inertia and power, despite what that charade may more or less immediately cost.

I used to like to tell my high school students "There are no absolutes and that statement is so true that not even it is an absolute."

I'm fascinated by the nature of proof, since I taught Psychology as science I had to lay down the processes and logic of basic research in order to establish how it is even remotely possible to say something that could be referred to as knowledge about human behavior and mental processes. Lots of people do not understand that science does not produce absolutes. It can produce statements/knowledge of very high probability, but not 100%, because at least from the perspective of its basic logic (the philosophy of science), the elements of the scientific results would have to be tested in every permutation and combination and in every relationship with every permutation and combination of everything else, an impossibility, in order to arrive at knowledge that is an absolute certainty, 100% probable.

Science produces results with different degrees of probability relative to the contexts of its methods and processes. We call that knowledge. As strong as a given probability might be, it's still a probability and it's still contextual, which raises the question of what changes in context will affect the probability of the knowledge. Within a certain context, X is 99.99999999999...% probable, but unless we know absolutely everything about everything that can affect the context of that statement, we don't actually know for sure that the next instance of X is going to be X or Y. All that we really know is that it's probably going to be X.

And, yet, we assume definitions, limit contexts, talk in absolutes and make predictions all of the time. And almost never even ask, like that new king in The Prince of Persia would, what it was that we lost before we even knew what it was (which is one of my critiques of the so-called "free market", btw). Yes, for practicality's sake at some point a line must be drawn and summations/knowledge made and acted upon. But like you, I just think we should be a little more aware of what it is that we are doing when we do that and perhaps make more of an effort to at least acknowledge valuable potentialities, which were ASSUMED to be irrelevant.

[Number23]

20. Great post

Lots of people do not understand that science does not produce absolutes. It can produce statements/knowledge of very high probability, but not 100%, because at least from the perspective of its basic logic (the philosophy of science), the elements of the scientific results would have to be tested in every permutation and combination and in every relationship with every permutation and combination of everything else, an impossibility, in order to arrive at knowledge that is an absolute certainty, 100% probable.

Absolutely. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge or absolute truth. And people who pretend otherwise are dangerous and have been called out for centuries as "fanatics," "extremists," and to a lesser extent the "fringe."

I just think we should be a little more aware of what it is that we are doing when we do that and perhaps make more of an effort to at least acknowledge valuable potentialities, which were ASSUMED to be irrelevant.

We owe this to ourselves, really. Even within the context of America, there are many things that shape our experiences as Americans. Race. Gender. Where we were born. Wealth (or lack of it). Sexual orientation. All of these are factors that influence the way we see ourselves and the way that we see our country. What some may take as the gospel truth, others may find incredibly short-sighted, stupid, dishonest etc. That is why it is critically important to take into account a wide spectrum of sources and perspectives, particularly when creating policy/making decisions that will affect large swaths of people.

Diversity, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, is truly one of our greatest strengths. And we need to make a genuine effort to ensure that the least of us are heard and represented.

[patrice]

21. I know it's been a long time coming, but Diversity is like a whole new frontier. It's exciting!!

Necessity apparently IS the mother of invention.

Picked up this article here somewhere earlier today. I believe the sorts of things you and I have been talking about are alluded to under Denning's heading "What's To Be Done?" http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

It's been a pleasure!

See you around.

Good night.


:hi:

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. Wow, I love this exchange ...

"The real world has ALWAYS been much more complex than we have been pretending

Exactly. The most applicable definition of the fringe is someone who despises moderates. Anyone who thinks in absolutes doesn't seem to realize that in doing so, they only show the limitations of their own ability to process and understand information."

I agree. But would reserve the "most applicable" label for those screaming "If he would just fight harder", (as if that actually might something in the real world) but when pressed to describe how this "fighting harder" would change the dynamic they rely on the FDR/LBJ scenarios, ignoring that these examples are in no way similar to today.

[patrice]

17. Yes! And I always want to ask those saying "If he would just fight harder", supposing he did and

supposing he got something that is what people think they want (as much as I might really enjoy that fight and as much as I might really dislike his/our opposition and distrust their ideas and plans) what in the holy sam hell is he, or we, to do with the "vanquished" enemy? Are they going to just go away? Will they stop mitigating against and trying to damage our "victorious" policies and programs? Can't they affect our "victory" in the fight in such a manner as to make successful change LESS likely? Isn't that possible? or will they just disappear and stop doing whatever it is that they do in order to achieve ascendency again? I mean, the whole thing, especially, as you point out, at this particular point in our development as a nation, is an especially vicious circle! Are we going to do something about that or not?????

I don't mean that he should never fight harder, but just that he can't listen to people who want him to fight every damn little thing and then some. He should fight hard to push the opposition at points when it gets something that we want - AND - something that the opposition wants, so they have less interest in trying to destroy everything. Those two things, what we want and what the opposition wants, don't HAVE TO cancel each other out either. They can be complementary if we are honest up front about our principles and strong about our values and stop trying to hurt everyone who disagrees with us. Opposed forces can live and work together if they stop buying into the brainwashing that says they can't. PO, who he is as a person, how he acts, interferes with those brainwashed comfortable habits of thought, that's why all sides are angry at him.

[patrice]

18. Welcome to DU, btw!! I hope you enjoy the conversation AND this is one of the most

information rich environments on the internet. I have picked up many many interesting and useful articles here and I share them in Twitter and on FaceBook.

See you around and . . .

Enjoy!

:hi:

[hulka38]

9. But it is the primary reason why he did it.

Campaign 2012!