I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.
President Obama's press conference
December 7, 2010
With those words, the president explained his deal with Republicans to give tax cuts to the rich by raising taxes on the poor. That's not how he put it, of course, though it is the result of the president's negotiations. He had no choice, though; that he made clear. The American people were taken hostage by the Republican Party, and the president had to save the hostages, even at the expense of endorsing the very policies against which he ran as a candidate for the office he now holds.
He assured the country, though, that this fight is not over. He is "itching for a fight on a whole range of issues," he said. He is "happy to have that battle." He is "happy to be tested over the next several months about our ability to negotiate with Republicans." He's "looking forward to seeing them on the field of competition over the next two years."
Those are strong words for a president who admitted, in the same speech, to surrendering to the demands of hostage-takers.
Even following that admission, the White House was quick to claim that it was, in fact, the Republicans who had lost the negotiations. Colored charts were released to prove that Obama got more from the deal than Republicans did. The White House Press Office released dozens of names of various politicians -- and the mayor of St. Louis, whose name apparently did not merit mention -- who supported the deal. Even though the president had already said he had agreed to concessions he believed were not in the best interest of the country, the message nonetheless was that somehow, he had won this round, and Republicans had lost.
That's been pretty hard to sell, though, even to Democrats who support the deal. And the president's support from Democrats and liberals has dropped; the independents, who supported him in 2008, are long gone. The president says he looks forward to being judged for his negotiations; perhaps he does not realize that the judgment has already begun.
With his first piece of major legislation, the stimulus bill, Americans watched the president negotiate with Republicans. Many concessions were made, all so the new president could demonstrate for the nation how his lofty ideals of bipartisanship and cooperation would function in today's hyperpartisan environment.
And the Republicans still voted no.
Infuriating though it was to watch so much traded away for absolutely nothing, a valuable lesson was learned -- or should have been learned. The Republicans' strategy was clear: oppose everything to ensure, as their de facto leader, Rush Limbaugh, hoped, that the president would fail.
It seemed, then, that the president had done his due diligence to extend a cooperative hand to Republicans. And Republicans had answered with a resounding "Hell no!" Next time, perhaps the president would be less generous, less patient. The president had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. He would be justified, now, in aggressively pursuing the progressive agenda for which he had been elected, without making such an effort to win the support of the Republicans. In truth, he didn't need it.
But the health care negotiations were no different. Even as they accused him of wanting to kill grandmothers across America, the president reached out his hand to those who publicly and proudly hoped this would be his Waterloo.
As with the stimulus bill, the president's concessions to Republicans bought him nothing. Not a single vote.
For two years, the president has steadily built the case that despite his efforts at bipartisanship, Republicans have consistently operated in bad faith. The president need not call any more witnesses, offer any more evidence; Americans know Republicans will not cooperate. It is time, at last, for the president to stop building his case and deliver his closing argument.
Instead, the president delivered yet more concessions to a party devoted to his failure. He had no choice, he said, because Republicans are "unwilling to budge." They have been unwilling to budge since Obama took office. They have promised further unwillingness in the next session of Congress.
For Republicans, the president said, tax cuts for the rich is "the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party." That isn't true, though, and the president knows it. The whole country knows it. Their number one priority, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said, is to make Obama a one-term president. (Apparently, further restricting women's reproductive rights runs a close second, though.)
What if, instead of conceding to the demands of the hostage-takers, the president had taken a different tactic? What if he had instead turned to the American people before he had cut a deal to save the hostages?
"The Republicans are taking you hostage," the president could have said to the American people. "They have put the livelihood of millions, and our chances of economic recovery, at risk, all so they can give tax cuts to the rich. But I will not let them do it. This is my line in the sand, and I will not surrender to the demands of hostage takers."
He could have said that. He acknowledged, on Tuesday, that the American people are with him. That's what the polls say. Had they known that the president was dealing with such a dire hostage situation, perhaps they could have been moved to put greater pressure on Republicans to cooperate with the president. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not. We'll never know. The president surrendered to the hostage-takers before we had a chance to find out.
When the president speaks of fights and battles in the next two years, it's hard to believe that he means it. After all, he has already made it clear that Republicans need only prove their "unwillingness to budge" for him to concede to their demands.
On Tuesday, the president was asked if he had "telegraphed" to Republicans that in the future, they need only take the American people hostage in order to force him to give in to their demands, however reckless. No, the president said, this was a "very unique circumstance."
One wonders how many "very unique circumstances" Republicans will create in the next two years. One wonders what the president will be willing to sacrifice in those "very unique circumstances," in the belief that by making such concessions, he is saving the American people from a worse fate.
Will he fight, as he has promised? When is the time for fighting, if not now? Does the president truly believe that there will be any fight, in the next two years, in which Republicans will be willing to budge? Deficit reduction, Social Security, immigration reform, funding of the newly enacted health care reform, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- Republicans have already signaled their "unwillingness to budge" on these issues. Does that mean the president will acquiesce to their demands?
It seems absurdly superfluous to have to point out that Republicans need only take the American people hostage again in order to score further victories against this president. After all, they know his breaking point now.
Will it happen again? It certainly seems so. The burden of proof falls squarely on the president's shoulders, and now, half way into his first and perhaps only term, the evidence is mounting that the president, regardless of his assurances, has neither the stomach nor the will for a fight.
Except, perhaps, with the very people who fought so hard to elect him in the first place. He reserves his greatest moments of frustration for them, the people he and his administration have called the "sanctimonious" "purist" "fucking retarded" "professional left." For them, he has no patience, no interest in succumbing to their demands. As he said on Tuesday, if he were to engage in a principled fight, "then let’s face it, we will never get anything done."
Such an admission is a far, far cry from the idealism he invoked and inspired as a candidate.
We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember that, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. And they will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come.
We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.
Barack Obama’s New Hampshire Primary Speech
January 8, 2008
Do those words ring any less true? Do they seem, now, sanctimonious? Fucking retarded? Unrealistically pure?
Perhaps it is unfair to hold President Obama up to the words of Candidate Obama. Campaign rhetoric, no matter how beautiful, may be just that. Perhaps such lofty dreams of change have no place in the cold, harsh light of governing.
Except that Candidate Obama assured his supporters that they were not "just words." His campaign was about more than rhetoric; it was about a fundamental change, it was about having the courage of one's convictions, it was about a belief that anything is possible if enough people want it. There was no footnote to Candidate Obama's words that anything was possible -- unless Republicans were unwilling to budge.
Yes we can -- unless Republicans say we can't? It is hard to imagine that campaign slogan will lead to the president's re-election two years from now. Republicans know this; indeed, as they have said time and again, that is their whole point.
How will he sell himself to the American people two years from now? The accomplishments of his first two years were not enough to preserve the Democratic majority in the House in the midterm elections. No matter how many times he talks about the good legislation he has signed into law, no matter how many times he insists that he steered the country clear of the impending economic collapse, those talking points fell on deaf ears last November, and will no doubt have even less impact in the next two years.
And yet, even though the president has signaled that he will give in to Republicans if they are unwilling to budge, it is not too late. Two years is a long time in politics. The president could change his tactics. He could announce, in his State of the Union next month, that the time for giving in to the hostage-takers is over. The president has spent the first half of his term trying, again and again, to cooperate with Republicans in the interests of the American people, even at the expense of his own principles. No more. Enough.
The president could turn to his base, instead of the rapidly departing middle, for support. His base is eager for the fight, eager to support him, eager to do whatever he asks in order to pursue the vision he articulated as a candidate -- as long as it truly is about pursuing that vision. It is his base who will, in 2012, raise the money, make the calls, knock on the doors, and fight for his re-election. Independents likely will not; the Republicans never will.
He could do more of the same. He could continue to reach out to the party that has announced its official policy is to derail his presidency. He could continue to chastise those who elected him. He could continue to insist that now is not the time for a fight. That way, it seems, lies defeat.
Whom now will the president choose to fight? The left, who wants him to succeed, or the right, who wants him to fail?
It is a decision the president will have to make. And while it may not yet be too late, he doesn't have a minute to lose.