Satisfying the left (but not just the left)

[babylonsister]

Posted with permission.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_09/satisfying_the_left_but_not_ju032304.php

September 20, 2011 8:00 AM
Satisfying the left (but not just the left)

By Steve Benen


When the White House announced a few weeks ago that President Obama would present a new economic agenda — featuring both a jobs plan and a deficit — few were as nervous about the details as the left. Through a likely combination of satisfaction and relief, liberals seem to be feeling a lot better now.

As Dana Milbank put it, Obama “has given his side a reason to fight.”

Let us begin by stipulating that President Obama’s new budget plan is unrealistic, highly partisan and a non-starter on Capitol Hill.

That’s what’s so good about it.

At last, the president hasn’t conceded the race before the starter’s gun, hasn’t opened the bidding with his bottom line, hasn’t begun a game of strip poker in his boxer shorts. Whichever metaphor you choose, it was refreshing to see the president in the Rose Garden on Monday morning delivering a speech that, for once, appealed to the heart rather than the cerebrum.

It’d be a stretch to say support from the left has been universal, but as the Huffington Post noted, the new agenda has, for now, “managed to placate a community of progressive activists, Democratic operatives and congressional offices.” Among those praising the president yesterday were Howard Dean and James Carville, neither of whom are steadfast Obama allies. For that matter, when both MoveOn.org and Third Way are responding positively, it’s safe to assume much of the Democratic mainstream is on board.

Politico added that Obama has “finally gave his liberal critics exactly what they wanted,” by making a pivot “from appeasement to partisanship.”

His tough opening bid on deficit reduction and his feisty, defiant speech from the White House Monday were greeted with almost incredulous joy by progressives who have urged Obama to take this kind of hard line with Republicans since the day he was elected. <…>

He called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes on the wealthy. He protected Social Security. And he declined to include a conciliatory offer to raise the Medicare eligibility age — a decision that thrilled “the professional left,” as his aides have long derided them, whose advice on policy and strategy was often ignored by a White House deeply committed to the legislative middle road.

I think this analysis is accurate, and when it comes to both policy and politics, I think the White House has made a smart move. I’d add just two other angles to keep in mind.

First, if the president and his team are looking at this as an opening bid for talks with congressional Republicans, it’s likely that a completed deal — in the unlikely event a completed deal ever comes together — would include measures the left will find disappointing. (Of course, if there is no agreement, the president will run throughout 2012 on the GOP’s failure to do the right thing.)

Second, while the fact that much of the left is feeling satisfied with the White House for a change, it’s important to realize that Obama isn’t just “playing to his base” with this economic agenda. National polls show the American mainstream — including plenty of moderates and independents — support the ideas in the American Jobs Act and support higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a debt-reduction plan. Indeed, it’s not even close.

I mention this because these “Obama makes liberals happy” stories are accurate, but incomplete. It’s true that progressives feel good about the president’s direction, but as Greg Sargent explained very well yesterday, if the media misses the fact that the White House’s approach enjoys broad national support, it’s missing the context that matters. The agenda that Obama has proposed, Andrew Sullivan added, “is simply where the American people are at.”

[dkf]

1. People here are crazy to be celebrating Obama's new tact.

We've now got a fighting but completely ineffectual President and Government. It really beats me why showing this to the public will sell people on 4 more years.

[babylonsister]

3. So what would you suggest? Vote for _______??

Do you have any novel suggestions v. your constant negativeness? I'm listening...

:fistbump:

[dkf]

4. I think Obama just set up a loss of the Presidency. I'm depressed.

This is how I felt when I was trying to figure out how Gore should beat Bush.

[ProSense]

5. What

"I think Obama just set up a loss of the Presidency."

...does that mean? What specifically did the President just do that "set up a loss."

[dkf]

7. He is giving us a preview of the next 6 years of non cooperation

While the economy sputters and stalls.

Bernanke has thrown this at the politicians as he sees his own tools shrink in effectiveness.

[babylonsister]

9. But who is not cooperating and who are you blaming? nt

[dkf]

12. Say what you will...Obama wasn't getting things as favorably as we may have liked but he got what

He needed to.

We are on the verge of another recession and we need him to do what he can to get us through this.

If he doesn't we are going to have President Romney anyway. That pisses me off.

[ProSense]

10. That

"He is giving us a preview of the next 6 years of non cooperation

While the economy sputters and stalls. "

...not a specific action. I asked what specifically did he just do to "set up a loss."

You're complaining about non cooperation and attributing this to a President who has gone out of his way to cooperate with Republicans.

The Republican Party needs to cooperate.

You seem to believe that the best thing for the country is to cave to Republicans. If that is not what you believe, why the sudden depression when the President takes bold action to try to get Americans back to work and the country moving in the right direction?

What in his proposals do you specifically oppose?

[polmaven]

15. So maybe we need to

work harder to get a Congress that will allow the president and government to be more effective.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Sullivan's correct ,we finally know where we and he stand ,since 2000

we're spectators to experts and advisor's ruining the world ,this is refreshing to see a Democratic solution as opposed to pragmatic.

[Blasphemer]

6. Common sense satisfies most Americans

I mention this because these “Obama makes liberals happy” stories are accurate, but incomplete. It’s true that progressives feel good about the president’s direction, but as Greg Sargent explained very well yesterday, if the media misses the fact that the White House’s approach enjoys broad national support, it’s missing the context that matters. The agenda that Obama has proposed, Andrew Sullivan added, “is simply where the American people are at.”

I think this is what has gotten lost in all of the contentious debate of the past few years. The majority of Americans support common sense solutions. For 8 years, Bushco ran the country into the ground making nonsensical decisions. The GOP continues to support nonsensical positions. Traditional Democratic positions are far more sensible. It is not easy but it's simple. Let the GOP take the hit for not getting it.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. The President's rhetoric is moving in the right direction

Which is a relief, because I was starting to worry about having a candidate in a partisan race who seemed to be ideologically opposed to partisanship.
The author is also correct when he points out that the policies and tone that are pleasing liberals are pleasing to the vast majority of Americans, the 'left' is not the outlier, it is the bellwether. This has been the case all through the long months of being told 'the center and the moderates' want more right wing, Eric Cantor style government. Apparently, as we knew, the 'independents' are not extreme right wingers, they do not adore the Tea, and they do not want to see capitulation to radicalism from the right anymore than we do.
For years now, the 'supporters' have insisted that the President can not please liberals because he is 'The President of All Americans' they like to say. But of course, no one can please all the people all the time, and clearly the way to please most Americans is to follow the principles of our own Party.

[ClassWarrior]

11. What did Colbert say? "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

This gives the lie to the idea that there's such a thing as "centrism." As George Lakoff would say, progressive values are simply America's best values.

"The very idea that there is a 'center' marginalizes progressives, and sees them as extremists, when they simply share fundamental American values. The term 'center' suggests there is a 'mainstream' where most people are and that there is a single set of views held by that mainstream. That is false.

"The fallacy matters in terms of Democratic electoral strategy. The Democratic base consists of people who are mostly or totally progressive, just as the Republican base consists of people who are mostly or totally conservative. How does the Democratic Party as a whole, and how do Democratic candidates in particular, speak to those who are biconceptual?

"I am a cognitive scientist and believe that people's brains play a significant role in elections. From the perspective of brain science, the answer is a no-brainer. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) You speak to biconceptuals the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values, and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals...

"The losing strategy is to move to the right, to assume with Republicans that American values are mainly conservative and that the Democratic party has to move away from its base and adopt conservative values. When you do that, you help activate conservative values in people's brains (thus helping the other side), you offend your base (thus hurting yourself), and you give the impression that you are expressing no consistent set of values, which is true! Why should the American people trust somebody who does not have clear values, and who may be trying to deceive them about the values he and his party's base hold?..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

13. .

[ClassWarrior]

17. .

[saras]

14. +(10^100)^10^100)

Awesome. Someone who gets why "my way or the highway" fails EVERY TIME in the LONG RUN.

It's not worth, never has been worth, and never will be worth, giving up your values for a particular person - if they were worth it, they wouldn't require that you give up your values for them.

[zipplewrath]

16. It's not really particularly progressive

It's way too small.
It doesn't do much in the way of direct job creation.
There's too much in the way of tax cuts.
There's still too much talk of spending cuts.

That it contains a few truly progressive concepts, and doesn't particularly contain much in the way of GOP capitulation hardly makes it some sort of progressive panacia. It's triangulation all over again. He's trying to corner the GOP and hope the left doesn't notice.

So many are so glad to see him actually come out solidly OUT of the GOP side of the aisle, without pre-negotiating with himself that there are alot of "pleasantly surprised" progressives. But that hardly means that the specifics of the proposal are particularly progressive. As Benen points out, this is mostly a hard core "middle of the road" proposal devoid of any real FDR/Progressive solutions.

And the more jaded of us suspect he doesn't really expect to pass much, and that this is mostly an attempt to protect himself in the next election. Which might be great for maintaining control of the White House, but not much for actually fixing the economy. Although at this point there is probably little he can do in that sense. He blew his chances to do that a couple of years ago and he's stuck where he is.