A few days ago I quoted several reader messages to the effect that President Obama -- even as he backs off rather than appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the agency she helped design, even as he lets Sen. Richard Shelby veto the appointment of an impeccably able economist as a governor of the Fed -- knows exactly what he is doing and is playing a long game of outwitting the GOP.
Here are messages from a few of the readers who see it another way. I'm not going to try to sort out all these argument; I just think it's interesting to see the range of hopes and fears, suspicions and trust, Obama has educed.
First, from reader AR, "playing chess -- against his base":
>>I was going to write a long essay in reply to your correspondents, touching on Molly Ivins's counsel to always look at a politician's record and not at what he says or what you project on to him, Ryan Lizza's New Yorker essay in 2011 on Obama's record in Illinois and as a senator, and on George W. Bush's astute political instinct reflected in his insistence on spending his political capital on things that mattered to his constituency and his refusal to negotiate with himself.
But instead, let me attempt a reduction-ad-absurdum proof. Let us assume that Obama is indeed playing multi-dimensional chess that we mere mortals cannot understand.
Remember when late last year, Obama did a huge tax-cut deal with the Republicans and gave a lot of ground for a tax-cut that did not even have his name on it? Suppose he had at the time, negotiated an increase in the debt limit as well. I would argue that he would have gotten it quite easily, his party still had a (lame-duck) majority in Congress, Boehner wasn't yet hostage to the newly-elected tea partiers. And except for a few wonks nobody even knew there was a debt ceiling raise that would come due in 6 months. If he had raised the debt-ceiling then, he could now be enacting all the cuts he wanted...with no need for this hostage drama....
Given that we're here, and the last 3 years appear to have been a series of unforced errors and political miscalculations, I have to assume that Obama is either incompetent or naive or that his goals and those of most liberals aren't quite the same. If there is multi-dimensional chess being played here, I would submit that Obama is playing it against his base.<<
From reader JS in Vermont, "earning chits from the Republicans":
>>I'm a lot less interested in Obama's negotiating tactics than I am in his goals. Sure, reducing the deficit over the long term is a good goal, but you can do that in more or less destructive ways.
We don't actually know very much about how he's proposing to get there... But we have heard a few snippets from Obama himself and from leaks from the negotiations that give us some clue about what direction his priorities seem to be going in.
So perhaps your Obama-bedazzled correspondents who apparently believe the "11-dimensional chess" theory could explain to me what I am to think of a Democratic president who thinks one way to cut the deficit is the actuarially insane, not to mention cruel, idea of postponing the age of eligibility for Medicare?
What am I to think of a Democratic president who volunteers to cut already puny SS benefits, when it's utterly unnecessary to do so and doesn't have anything to do with the deficit in any case?
We haven't even heard his ideas about Medicaid, but based on the above, I ain't exactly optimistic.
So what's the plan here? I'm becoming increasingly concerned that Obama has perhaps decided to cut the poor, the elderly and the now long-term unemployed working class off at the knees as a lost cause in order to earn chits from the Republicans and save money he can throw at the middle class and his much grander goals of green energy, education, etc., while leaving the entirely out of control financial sector largely alone to ensure a good supply of campaign cash.
Perhaps that's too cynical, but I honestly don't know any other way to interpret what he's doing. I'm coming to suspect he's intoxicated with the idea of being hailed as a visionary in the history books 50 years hence, with the suffering created along the way being brushed off as unfortunate but necessary collateral damage....<<
From reader WH, in Capricornia, Australia, the "hypermodern presidency":
>>The president may not be 'strategic 18-dimension chess-game genius' but I'd be surprised if he'd never played 2. .. b6.
In chess, this is a hypermodern response to the classical centre. Allow your opponent to dominate the space and build an impressive looking position which you then undermine and bring crashing to the ground.
The key is that whilst your opponent may have all the early space and initiative, they become static. In contrast the hyper-modern player's position is fluid and can be adapted to take advantage of the inevitable weaknesses of your opponent's over-extension.
Or if you prefer, picture a sweaty, half naked Obama against the ropes in Zaire, ducking and weaving whilst the republican establishment proceeds to punch itself out.<<
Two more, including one from a Republican, after the jump.