I posted two comments in the past couple of days and some people asked me to post them as a diary. So here it is.
Today Mitch McConnell made it clear that the intentions of the Republican party had no interest in Obama's olive branch. Their intentions were known even before the President was sworn in, when Judd Gregg sent out the much publicized memo urging the minority senators do get familiar with Senate rules, so that they can grind the Senate proceeding to a stop. In face of such destructive nihilism, the continuous pursuit of bipartisanship by this President seems not just weak, but silly. That was the central thesis of Cenk Uygur's diary yesterday. Many people did not like it, but let's just step back and examine what happened over the past two years.
We now know that a much larger stimulus was needed. The congressional committees knew it then, the Presidential advisers (Christina Romer) knew it then, independent economists knew it then. What we got was a stimulus of considerably smaller size, a third of which were tax cuts. Why? Because the bill HAD TO BE bipartisan, or at least that's what senior WH staff convinced themselves.
Then of course there was the entire fiasco of the HCR fight when the President basically relinquished authority to President Snowe, Collins and Lieberman.
At every juncture when the need was to go big (strengthening the Volcker rule), the administration went small to gain that one or two elusive votes that would give the bill a veneer of bipartisanship. This transactional process is what killed the Congress. None of the Republicans wanted to cooperate, but the Democrats/WH were unwilling to put them on the spot. Let them go on the record on the Senate floor and opening filibuster banking reform, or middle class tax cuts. That did not happen because of the incessant pursuit of bipartisanship with a passive-aggressive and openly hostile opposition. The exit polls show that a vast majority of people who blamed banks and Wall Street for our current economic crisis voted Republican. Why? Because no one forced the Republicans to filibuster a reform bill, no one called their bluff. Bipartisanship became a synonym for preemptive capitulation.
Unfortunately, this President is a prisoner of his own lofty bipartisan rhetoric. In his press conference yesterday, and even with a meeting with liberal bloggers just before the election, the President said that he is a stubborn person when it comes to pursuing civility and bipartisanship, and that he would keep at it until he reaches some common ground with the Republicans.
What does that mean? We already saw that multiple bills got diluted and some even ditched because he did not get bipartisan support. We have seen empty seats in important government posts that he refuses to fill by recess appointments because it is against his bipartsanship ethos. In other words, bipartisanship to him is the most important political and administrative goal. It led to this disastrous midterm that is bringing an incoming Republican house filled with uncivil people, and a Senate opposition that has made its intentions clear.
The Republicans want to control all three branches of the government and they are daring the President to fight them, to demonize them. Unfortunately for us, they know that this President is not the kind of fighter who will take the fight to them. Instead we have the much touted bipartisan deficit commission. I would not be surprised if with the next two years we see sweeping changes to Social Security and retirement age. As far as those Bush Tax Cuts, get used to them, they are here to stay.
The other problem is that the Republicans have taken on the populist mantle. Rather, the Democrats, specially the White House, let them take on that mantle. Thus we have this rather brazen statement from McConell, that they are the ones who want to end bailouts. The bank bailouts have been the singularly most unpopular piece of legislation among all voters of all stripes. Yet, instead of letting the Republicans take ownership of a program started by George W. Bush and Hank Paulson, the White House let the Republicans hang the bailout as a dead-weight around their necks, by extending the bailout, keeping people like Ben Bernanke in the same position, and appointing the punch and judy team of Geithner and Summers to the Treasury. When the need was to break up the big banks, the WH decided to give them money and tax rebates. When the need was to implement punitive measures during the massive AIG bonuses, the WH decided to back off citing legal issues.
I don't how many people here work with blue-collared workers, but I live in Central PA and I work closely with the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union. I have met many union workers, working three different jobs to stay afloat, who were furious at the AIG bailout. While I can say that they did not understand the implications of letting AIG fail, I do sympathize with their anger. No one bails them out when they are in debt, when they lose their jobs, or when they can't make a mortgage payment. Moreover, there weren't any mass scale firings, or any form of accountability. Not one CEO got fired, not one trader got prosecuted, not one bank got broken up. That inaction perpetuated the myth that Democrats are cozy with Wall Street. Republicans are now portraying themselves as brave men storming the Bastille, while the President and his wife have been effectively portrayed at Louis XVI and Mary Antoinette, good people but callously out of touch with everyday lives of the middle class.
Where will all this go? A centrist President will now move further to the right, because that is the beltway narrative. That is the inevitability that we have to deal with. The beltway mavens are the very serious people, while we here are the "fucking retarded" "professional left". But if this election showed anything, its that when you despise your base, they will stop turning out for you. If you respect your base, however, they will fight for you. This administration has repeatedly shown its disdain for the base except to use it as a cash cow. The Republicans on the other hand, not only respect their base, but with the advent of the tea-party, they fear it too.
What we now need in the Democratic party are rogue leaders, rabble-rousers, who will be thorns in the sides of the beltway Democrats, making it clear that no Democrat is safe unless they toe the progressive party line. If that means a purge of "centrists" and conserva-Dems, so be it. But partisan times like these, require bold partisan leaders. All this wishy-washy bipartisan stuff can be shelved for use on a later date.
I hope this President wakes up, shakes off his nice guy persona and gets tough. The times are such that the President has to maneuver with very little space, and very little margin for errors. Which also means he has to get a bunch of people who can not only push a more populist message, but also take the fight to the Republicans. That means Geithner has to go. His campaign insiders, who were more interested in maintaining the Obama brand, with bipartisanship and civility have to go as well. It is a tall order and wish list that we progressives hope for, but I fear will not happen. Already the WH has given signals that it is willing to capitulate on the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy. I just hope this is just a one-off thing rather a portend of things to come. So hope for the best, but expect the worst.