Over the past 24 hours I have put up a number of non-supportive items about the debt-ceiling "compromise," the least upbeat being this and this. A number of readers have written in to sound the note that over the years I have often sounded myself: things are not that bad, let's take the long view, we've been here before, and so on. I turn the floor over to them.
Giving up a pawn, not being a pawn:
>>Could we not shift the imagery a bit here and observe that rather than being a pawn, he gave up a pawn, a gambit common to winning chess strategies? That is, the president is thinking several moves down the table. (I'm not a cargo cultist, by the way, on the subject of our president.)
In a hostage situation, first goal is to get the hostage out alive. Deal with the bad guys later.
You can tell I'm making the best explanation of a terrible situation. Time will tell how it all works out. Already the Romney, the Republican frontrunner, has blithely announced he would rather blow up the economy than govern.<<
Lancing the boil:
>>I continue to respectfully disagree with the "Obama is a pawn" line of reasoning. I'm as sick of this whole mess as everyone else, but I think the basis of my difference of opinion from what appears to be the general consensus is that I believe the now exposed pathologies in our political system have been festering for decades. I see the process we've just gone through as analogous to a massive boil being lanced -- at first a bunch of really ugly stuff comes out, but it's a necessary first step towards healing.
It was clear at a certain point that, in order to get a deal to avoid default under the current political circumstances, something would have to be kicked down the road. It absolutely plays to Obama's and the Democratic Party's favor to have that be the Bush tax cuts. Almost everyone seems to be throwing tantrums about the present point in time, and I've seen very little discussion of strategy extending that far ahead.
One of the things this circus has exposed, for anyone who has been paying attention, is the degree to which individual politicians are motivated more by their personal political fortunes than by working for the public interest. Also, I caught a CSPAN clip yesterday of John McCain exchanging banter with Dick Durbin, and had the impression that McCain may finally understand what he introduced onto the national scene in elevating Sarah Palin. If this mess promotes broader awareness amongst people of good faith of the distinction between advocacy and legislating, that will be progress right there.<<
Now you know how to hurt a guy:
>>I have to disagree that the question of pawn or chess master has been answered regarding Obama. Respectfully, I think you're getting dangerously close to the line you discussed in your article about why people don't like news, namely viewing it through the optics of "win" vs. "lose". I've always felt that Obama's MO is to focus on the policy and ignore the politics of it. Most times this works, as strong policy results usually equals better politics. Especially when working against a group who is really only focused on politics. (The modern GOP really doest have a coherent policy agenda, just slogans.)
From a policy perspective, the president had one overarching goal: avoid a default. He had some lines in the sand, no revisiting the debt ceiling until after the 2012 election, and a balanced approach of cuts and taxes. Through months of negotiations a solution was sought that would stick to these goals. At some point it became clear that the republicans weren't negotiating in good faith (or at least a significant wing of the GOP wasn't). This means that the traditional political negotiation process is no longer useful. The test then becomes, can we keep the plane from crashing into a mountain? In the end he moved the process away from a group that seemed perfectly ok with crashing into a mountain, with no interest in honorable compromise to a process less subject to the whims of a bunch of fanatics. This may not be a "win" in the Washington game but it seems like a reasonable shift from the policy perspective. I've had some experience trying to negotiate with people acting in bad faith, and I can say that the best option usually is to get them away from the negotiating table.
Now I'm not ready to say this proves he's a chess master, there are fair criticisms to make about the way he handled this whole thing. But I think it's premature to say that he's a captured pawn. He walked away from the negotiations with (a) no default, (b) back loaded cuts and (c) a plan that has at least a modicum of hope for producing a somewhat realistic plan without getting hijacked by a fanatical subset of the GOP. The plain truth is there are enough republicans in the House that would vote against any bill that had been negotiated honestly. If the Speaker of the House can't get his plan passed, what hope is there the President could have? To reprise the analogy above, if you've got a crazy pilot willing to fly the plane into a mountain, the thing to do is get them away from the controls and make sure they don't have control of a plane in the future.<<
I'll respond to this one. (a) My disappointment in the outcome is not about the resulting political up-or-down. It's because of the substantive effect on the economy in the short run and on the political system in the longer term. (b) I am well aware that it's a million times easier to give "Oh, you shouldda..." advice from the sideline than to be in the middle of these deals. But it does seem that it would have been smarter, as many people were saying at the time, to call "this is bullshit" on the Tea Party attempt to make the debt ceiling into a hostage for their demands.