Where Is Obama Going?

by: E.J. Dionne Jr., Op-Ed

Washington - As I was passing through security at Boston's Logan Airport on Tuesday night, a TSA worker discovered a penny in one of the bins that had just gone through the screener.

He picked up the coin, turned to a colleague and said with a grim smile: "This is your Obama bonus."

Which made me wonder: Is President Obama's strategy of offering pre-emptive concessions destined to make enemies of his potential friends in the electorate without winning over any of his adversaries?

The idea of freezing the pay of federal workers could be a sensible part of a larger, long-term deal that would combine spending reductions with tax increases. It's an obvious element in any negotiation. But Obama simply threw in the federal workers in exchange for -- well, as best I can tell, nothing. And in the short term, shouldn't jobs and rising incomes be a higher priority than austerity?

Worse, every signal out of the White House is that it is prepared to cave in to Republican demands for a temporary extension of all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for millionaires who are in rather less need of additional income than security workers at Logan or nurses at government hospitals.

The dance toward a capitulation on the tax cuts was perfectly timed for the release of the fiscal plan put forward by the chairs of the deficit commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. Bowles and Simpson are having trouble rounding up votes for their plan, and in truth, how can anyone take a deficit-reduction proposal seriously when the main order of business in Congress is to make sure we widen the deficit by keeping all of the Bush tax cuts alive?

What we are witnessing here is the political power that comes from the Republican Party's single-minded focus on high-end tax cuts and the strategic incoherence of a Democratic Party that is confused and divided -- and not getting much help from its president.

Obama seems to have decided that showing how conciliatory he can be is more important than making clear where he stands. The administration's strategy is rooted in a fear of what the Republicans are willing to do, which only strengthens the GOP's bargaining position.

The president figures the Republicans would be quite happy to let taxes on the middle class rise on Jan. 1 if that's the price of continuing to fight for the tax cuts for the rich. In a game of chicken, Republicans are willing to gamble -- even if the economy would take a hit.

Lacking confidence that Senate Democrats would hold together and force the Republicans to vote to kill the middle-class tax cuts, Obama is trying to get what he can in exchange for the extension.

He's right to fight for a restoration of unemployment compensation for about 2 million Americans whose benefits have now expired, and for other stimulative measures. And, yes, the Senate should ratify the New START treaty with Russia before the end of the year -- though it doesn't make us look very serious as a country when it seems the president has to offer a tax cut payoff to get a key foreign policy initiative through.

As for Bowles and Simpson, they put some good ideas on the table (taxing capital gains at the same rate as other income, for example, and taking a run at cutting military expenditures) and some not-so-good ones (raising the Social Security retirement age, capping government expenditures at 21 percent of GDP at a time when the population is aging and government will inevitably have to pick up more of our health care costs).

But the commission now seems a sideshow in a Washington circus where Republicans set the agenda in the main ring. Obama's party is in this end-of-session fix because neither he nor congressional Democrats could agree on what to do about the Bush tax cuts when they held the initiative -- and now Democrats have no idea where Obama will go next.

The best gloss on all this is that the president is engaged in a holding action aimed at getting out of this lame-duck period with something to show for his efforts and a chance to regroup. But he will soon have to decide whether he wants to be a negotiator or a leader. You have to hope at least that he doesn't want to spend the rest of his term issuing apologies to Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.

(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group 

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



I think progressives must

I think progressives must face the fact that Obama is not the President we thought he would be. He has revealed himself to be exactly opposite of many of his more liberal stances he took on the campaign trail. President Obama has more in common with moderate Republicans and blue dog democrats than he does with his "base". He has littered his administration with wall street bandits and he appointed the member of his debt commission knowing full well what they would conclude.

We must stop holding out hope and start fighting for real progressive reforms, without which are plutocratic future is all but sealed. The best place to start? Primary Obama from the left.



"Obama seems to have decided

"Obama seems to have decided that showing how conciliatory he can be is more important than making clear where he stands. "

The reason the Vichy government were known as collaborators was that their behavior was broadly conciliatory to France's occupiers during the second world war. By this time we have all the evidence we need to take Obama's stands at face value; these attempts to gloss his concessions as other than decisions are sad attempts to rationalize what we can now quite legitimately consider betrayal.



Where is he going? Back to

Where is he going?
Back to Illinois in January of 2013.



Vichy in the long run,

Vichy in the long run, arguably, did succeed in preserving the French infrastructure from the destruction visited by the Germans on other occupied countries. I am not saying this because I approve of Vichy but because it's a historical fact. They got something for their capitulation.

Obama's capitulationism gains nothing but faint praise from a few Republicans who are relieved that he is willing to destroy himself in order to avoid a fight. When Obama is through with it, the progressive infrastructure built up over more than a century in this country will have been razed to the ground.

Leaving aside the nebulous issues of "morality" around which too many political discussions revolve--in other words, I am NOT saying that Obama is "worse than Petain," whatever that might mean--it seems clear that this is a fundamental difference and one that tells against Obama and his crew of appeasers.



Two possibilities

Two possibilities here:

Scenario No. 1:
Obama will, like all the other ex-Presidents and bigtime politicians before him, "celebratize" the Presidency and accept a fabulous advance to write a book; go on to charge a handsome fee for speech-making (a la Barbara Bush...lol) and make out like the bandit he is.

Scenario No. 2:

Unless...uh....our "elections" really ARE a farce and Obama "wins" the 2012 election.

Remember when Bush II got "RE-elected?" (heck, remember when he FIRST got "elected" for that matter ) and voting machines broke down, changed your vote right in front of your eyes, or merrily whirred backwards as they "counted" votes that were cast.

(See www. blackboxvoting.org )

Remember? The voting exit polls for the first time ever were WAAAAY off the mark. Sometimes the incredulity was even discernible by the tone of voice of the announcers before they copped to what was going on and backed off to the Karl Rove election blitzkrieg. Remember Florida? and Ohio's governor promising to "deliver" for Bush?

We may see that again, this time in favor of a Democrat.

IF Obama continues to "go along to get along" ....look for him being "re-elected"

Just Like Bush.