Hullabaloo

Friday, July 22, 2011

 
Go ahead and fight but you can't possibly win

by digby

I hope that everyone remembers the day the constitution changed to make the House majority the supreme ruling body of the United States of America:

So the proper way to see the current negotiations are in the context of watching both sides surrender. Republicans, as I’ve argued, are having to do most of the surrendering; what they’re going to get will be nothing remotely close to what they bid, and most of the drama of the past weeks has been trying to find a way to convince the House Crazy Caucus of that.

This is just funny. The House Republicans have gotten a Democratic president to agree to trillions of dollars in domestic spending cuts in the middle of an ongoing economic downturn featuring 9.2% unemployment. No, it appears they may not manage to privatize Social Security or invade Cuba, but it's a pretty good job of work they got accomplished considering that the debt limit vote has always passed before without any deals at all.

Meanwhile, learn to take your licks Democrats -- and thank them for the privilege of being allowed to voice your difference --- because regardless of whether you have a Senate majority and a Democratic president in the White House with legendary political gifts, this country is run by the House Republicans and there's nothing you can do about it:

But Democrats will have to surrender too. In that context, the question becomes what, exactly, they want to give up. Of course Democrats are upset about coming cuts to programs they believe are vital to the nation, and of course they’re upset about what they see as nonsense economic policy, and of course they’re upset, for that matter, about the possibility that they may make their best deal only to find that House Republicans who persist in believing things that are not true will still spike the who deal and send the economy into a tailspin anyway. And of course liberals should be pushing for the best deal they can get, and fighting for their priorities.

But the bottom line is that whether it’s associated with the debt limit or with FY 2012 spending bills, Republicans are going to get some of what they want, there’s no magic way — not the 14th amendment, not the McConnell plan, not brilliant negotiating or brilliant speeches by the man in the White House — to make that go away. What we’re seeing now, therefore, is Democrats coming to grips with that reality, and battling over what specific losses they should absorb.

Right. And next time, when Republicans ask for the total destruction of the Federal Government we must pray that they "surrender" again and agree to only destroy Medicare and Social Security. But the good news is that you have every right to fight your little hearts for what you believe in as long as you understand that it's inevitable you will lose.

The problem with all this is that we know that the president wanted to do a Big Transformational Deal To End All Deals since before he came into office and it is equally clear that he saw this as an opportunity not a roadblock to his agenda. So this idea that it was thrust upon the poor hapless president and his party is wrong. All negotiations have at least two parties or they aren't negotiations. And in our government system one of the parties holds the White House and one half of the congress. They are not powerless and they do have leverage over the Republicans. The idea that one faction in the House of Representatives trumps everything else is simply not true.

If that were true, Bill Clinton would never have survived impeachment. Indeed, plenty of Villagers insisted that he simply had to resign because it was all just so very awful. But he knew he had something on his side -- the power of the presidency itself and the backing of the American people. And until Barack Obama started pounding the drum for his Grand Bargain, a majority of the American people were indifferent to spending cuts and wanted him to focus like a laser beam on jobs. But he got on that bully pulpit and convinced them that he was elected to do Big Things and that a "balanced approach" to the horrors of deficits was imperative and they've come around quite smartly. They also came around on the fact that raising the debt ceiling was absolutely necessary --- just in time for the House Democrats to be tarred as the crazed obstructionists if they object to this massive, unnecessary slashing of government at the worst possible time. I suspect that was sheer luck, but I will give the President credit for his timing.

One can only wonder what might have happened if he had done the same thing to convince the public that a clean debt ceiling vote was imperative instead and never put these cuts on the table in the first place.

As I'm writing this, Boehner is said to be walking away from the White House's offer to give them the moon and the congress is going to try to hammer out a deal over the week-end. The deadline really is looming now.

If the President had offered nothing and held out for a clean bill, would we be closer to default than we are right now?

Update I: Keep in mind that everyone's posturing in public right now, trying to get their people on board for something. I wouldn't assume anything. For all we know, both Boehner and the President have agreed to a clean vote with a pinky swear to get back to work on that dratted debt the day after and Nancy and John are planning a full week-end of kabuki to show their troops that they fought until very end. With the president saying his bottom line is raising the debt ceiling, it could be that the GOP "reluctantly" agrees to Pelosi's plan for 2.4 without any cuts.

Or maybe the Republicans really are going to go over the cliff. It ain't over 'til it's over.

Update II: I will agree with one thing. Now that cuts to the "entitlements" have been put on the table by the President, it is out there and there is probably no going back. The good news is that once that's finally settled in the next negotiation (oh, Jesus) we'll be able to start winning the future so it's not like it's going to be a total loss.


.

digby 7/22/2011 03:11:00 PM |