From the Senate Republicans declaring that they would block everything in the lame duck session if they didn't get tax cut extentions for the uberwealthy, to the tax cut compromise with Minority Leader McConnell, to "sanctamonious", to the House Democrats saying "Just Say No", to Bernie Sanders, to Bill Clinton - this has been quite a week.
I thought I'd try to write a diary that tries to tie together thoughts about all of this as a big picture. I, like many others, have a tendency to look at the pieces individually and not see a big picture.
Senate Republicans take the entire lame duck hostage
Lets face it, the Republicans were not just emboldened by their victory in November - they were emboldened before that. They realized early on, perhaps during the Health Care Reform Debates, that if they stayed united they could count on at least on Blue Dog to join them and it became a very powerful bargaining tool.
This lead to a record setting use of the filibuster, effectively creating a majority out of the minority. This wasn't just hardball politics that have the potential to change the Senate political landscape for years and decades to come, because now the precedent has been set. And as anyone that has watched DC can tell you, whether its the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch, precenence becomes the status quo.
On this point, I put a lot of the blame on Senator Reid and a weak leadership style. At some point early on, it was important that he - if you'll pardon the overused expression - "take hostages" of his own. By not taking a stand at a point where Republicans would have been forced to pull back, much like the Clinton Administration did in the 90's with the Government shutdown. The other option open to him, as Majority Leader, was to force his own caucus into line, at least on cloture votes. As Majority Leader, he and his leadership set the tone. Somewhere early on he needed to set the precedent that Democrats voting against cloture of bills favored by the leadership wasn't allowed, and whether it meant threatening committees or pet bills or earmarks, he had the tools available to do this.
By not doing it, the super majority became no such thing, and the initiative was taken from the leadership and the majority party and given to a very small group of Blue Dogs, Joe Lieberman, and the Maine twins.
So, coming out of the elections, the Republicans used the precedent that was set not to take control of the Senate, but to continue their control of the Senate.
The Obama/McConnell Plan
I won't pretend to know what the White House was thinking in terms of their decision to go directly to McConnell to negotiate. To me, for a President of one party to go to the other party without including or even informing the leadership of your own party is not only a politically weak move, but one that continued to harden the precedent that I spoke of above of allowing any group of 41 in the US Senate to take control at any time - not just now but in the future.
The other problem this caused is, by coming out on his own, without McConnell or other Republican leaders or without the knowledge of his parties Congressional leaders, this became his plan to defend. The downside to this politically is that it freed up those that he negotiated with to not be completely tied to the end result, which leaves them open to continue to make further demands. Unknowingly or not, the terms of future negotiations changed from middle class tax relief vs. wealthy tax relief to wealthy tax relief vs. unemployment insurance.
Therefore the plan and the way it was rolled out had three problems. It became his plan to defend, it changed, in football parlance, the field position drastically, and it continued to solidify the precedent of Minority rule in the US Senate.
Sanctimonious
When President Obama called the press conference the next day, it was obvious, at least to me, that it was to try to quell some of the initial outrage from his own party, especially among the progressives.
What went wrong? Plenty. First, he should have met privately with leadership and progressives to hear them out before the press conference. In this way, not only is he reaching out to those most upset, but he also would have had an opportunity to hear what had the progressive base so angered, not only about this deal but about the way things had been going for the last two years. The point wasn't necessarily to change their minds or his mind, but to know how to communicate to those that he was trying to reach.
By not doing that, he remained in a bubble, and the result was a lashing out at the progressives - about "purity", and inexplicably opening a scabbed over wound over the public option. Instead of and explanation, which he might have given had he taken the time to get the perspective of those he was speaking to, he ended up lecturing them. In effect, he didn't tell anyone why he felt he had to do what he did, but he also came across as a college professor that was out of touch with what his class was saying, which is "we don't understand what you're saying." And by doing that, he ended up putting blame on the class for not understanding his lecture. Not the greatest analogy, but the end result is a group of people that realize they are not only not being heard, but can't get their leader to understand their complaint.
Just Say No
The House Caucus is upset about more than just the substance of the bill, although they are plenty mad about that, too. Partly because they felt that they carried the water for what he had outlined in the first place.
Now I've heard a number of people say that they should have done this before the elections, and that has some validity. I think this is a part of a much larger problem, mainly that the Democrats in the Senate and the House need to look at their worldview of politics and stop being so tied to the next election and more focused on what they are there for, and how to communicate their message. The fear of losing an individual election has brought on a timidity that is one of the root causes of the overall problem, which in itself is allowing their opponents to control not just the agenda, but the messaging.
But back to the House Caucus' point of view earlier this week, rightly or wrongly the house felt they had done what had been asked of them, and not only did the new precedent in the Senate stop any chance of it continuing, there was an immediate capitulation to the reality by the Senate and the President. To add insult to injury, they were cut out of negotiations on how to move forward.
Add that to the press conference, and you have a caucus that is struggling to find a way to take a stand. From this perspective the thinking is, if the President and the Senate Majority aren't going to draw a line in the sand, we are the last hope to change the dynamics of how governing in DC is going to work. And importantly, to set a precedent for the next two years, when they (as they are well aware) will not have the leverage because of the change in control of the House.
The Average American
Add to this a vocal progressive base that is feeling much like the House Caucus, as well as less active people that have lost faith that their government is working for them, or has any intention in doing so.
I'm going to go to some personal experience here. I live in rural Maine, in a conservative area filled with low wage working people and farmers. While instinctively they are "conservative", the real concern, like much of America, is that they are being left behind. We can talk all we want about explaining better positions and how they are often voting against their own interests, but that is hollow when they see our leader in the person of President Obama making the case for tax cuts for people they not only aren't, but have no contact with - the rich.
Now activists talk about informing them, and scream that they aren't paying attention - and we're right, but the reality for most people is that they are just trying to get through their day to day lives - feeding their kids, keeping their jobs, helping kids with school. In addition, they bring their own ingrained prejudices into play. People my age have heard through a masterful communication strategy by the right that anything that isn't Republican is socialism (which is bad by definition in the vernacular of our country), they are being taxed too much and that is why they are struggling, and the Democrats want to raise their taxes and give it to those that don't deserve it - the lazy, the welfare queens, the drug users, "the other". The last part is really important, because what it has done is split those in need. We really do need the help, but the "others" not only are useless, but they are taking some of my help away from me.
Now, when President Obama became the face of the compromise, it became the Democrat position, and to the average American, the position that the GOP - which stands up to the "others" in their mind - to negotiate further from. By becoming the face of the compromise, what it really did was moved the entire discussion to the right.
Goal Posts Are Moved
Now we are playing on a whole new field. The compromise in the mind of the average working person is the position of the Democrats. In addition to that, we now have Unemployment Insurance tied to it. This is seen as a compromise by the talking heads and some on the left as compromise on the Republican side.
In reality, it was a masterstroke by the Republicans, because it has set up an unwinnable argument for anyone that is going to fight against the deal from the left. Now, if you vote against the larger compromise package, you are voting against Unemployment Insurance - something that wasn't even tied to the original plan. By "compromising" on Unemployment Insurance, the Republicans have in effect forced opposition into being against the unemployed. And Unemployment Insurance is the one program that "The Average American" I spoke of earlier understands as going to those in need and not so much to "The Other", although we are hearing the beginnings of the communication strategy of the right splitting people into two groups in this area, as well.
So now you have not just the Republicans and President Obama making the case for something that just a week ago the President called a bad idea, but you also have very good people in the center and on the left looking at UI extentions and calling on the progressives not only to rally around the plan because of it - but progressives are now heartless if they do attempt to take a stand.
Bernie Sanders
Enter Bernie Sanders. Say what you will, but what he did yesterday was important for a number of reasons.
First, it was important for those that oppose the deal, in particular the tax cut extentions. Point by point, he made the argument that this was a giveaway to the rich - appealing to the sense of right and wrong of "The Average American", and bringing together the split between the have nots and the have nots.
Second, he set a precedent for future arguments about the use of the filibuster in the Senate. Although this wasn't technically a filibuster as nothing was pending on the floor, some of the media see it that way and are using the word in reporting and headlines. And something that we sometimes don't remember is, rightly or wrongly, definitions are formed this way. If we were smart, we would use this to our advantage and rather than getting lost in the weeds about the technicallity (lets face it, we are really good at getting into arguments amongst ourselves about things like this), we now have a communications opening to question why the right is not doing what Senator Sanders did. And there are other communications opportunities. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, in the minds of some Americans, just happened in real life. We now have an opportunity to make the right look weak by not following this example.
Third, for 8.5 hours, a progressive was standing up on the floor of the Senate making the case for the Average American, and why what is happening isn't to their benefit and that they are being taken advantage of by a different "other" - the wealthy. However small, and yes I realize what he did yesterday did not reach the vast majority of Americans, this was a valiant attempt to move the debate leftward away from the "left" that President Obama created by becoming the face of the compromise. It is up to our communications apparatus (yes, I know how small and unorganized that is) and more importantly to progressives on the ground to talk about this - to our neighbors, friends and family who don't have the time to follow this in the way we do. I don't pretend to say that it will change things a great deal, nor do I pretend that the media is really going to cover it very much, but it is a beginning.
And finally, it gave voice to an entire class of progressive activists that have felt shut out and silenced up to this point. Progressives have been screaming about what is wrong with this, and have no echo chamber. And many have felt so discouraged as to think about just giving up on it. I know, I'm one of them. And while anger from the base is a problem, apathy of a base of support that is usually the same group that carries a large portion of the burden during elections is disasterous to the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders, whether or not in the end it moves anything, gave a voice to this group - and in extention hope.
Conclusion
While this has been a horrible week from a progressive perspective, it actually has its roots in the last two years, and this is the culmination of a whole series of decisions and weak leadership.
To those that want to back the President and have reasons to back the current deal - I hear what you are saying. I understand that, like it or not, UI is tied to this. And I ask you to look at the last two years and ask yourself, how are we going to change the reality we now find ourselves in? When are we going to take that stand - because the longer we wait, the more set in stone its going to become. Progressives aren't heartless, and I know you know this. No one wants to see our neighbors, or ourselves in some cases, lose the little lifeline that they (or we) have to get by. So I'll say, if you aren't going to make the stand now because of this, please look for the next earliest opportunity to do so, because if we don't this will only get worse, and it will continue to happen.
To my progressive friends that want to make a stand here, I stand with you for the reasons I outlined above. We have found ourselves in a new reality created by those we put our hope in. And I realize that there are many that will say that they saw it much earlier than now and will even say "I told you so." That's fine, tell us so. But then, let's dig in our heels and do whatever we can to fight - not amongst ourselves, but for ourselves. And realize that we may well lose this battle - there are a lot of things lined up against us right now - but by fighting and losing we may be setting up a better future.