We've all heard the handwringing and the teeth mashing over the tax compromise that preserves the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy (and everyone else by the way). Arianna, Keith and Rachel are calling the President a sell out and wimp for not fighting harder. The beltway pundits are claiming that the base is furious. And this all sounds way too familiar. But, the question is not whether the compromised tax plan is exactly what you hoped it would be. Just as the the real question with the health care bill was not, or should not have been, are you satisfied with a bill that doesn't include a public option. No, there is but one relevant question.
We can all list our grievances and detail everything that we're against, but the only relevant questions is what are your for...........THAT CAN PASS!
If I was a gambling man, and I am, I'd bet that I am as liberal as any KOS member. But, I'm not blind to reality.
I think the Second Amendment should be repealed. But, that ain't happenin.'
I think recreational drugs and prostitution should be legal. But, that ain't happenin.'
I think online gambling and domestically grown marijuana are huge potential sources for job creation and revenue growth. But that ain't happenin' either.
The point is my opinions may be interesting cocktail party banter. But, they don't have a shot in hell of becoming law and no serious politician would adopt them as part of his or her platform.
So, my question again, is what are you for that can survive a Republican filibuster.
We're are all entitled to our opinions and we should fully embrace our First Amendment right to express them. But, if your opinion is that the President should fight for a bill that can't pass, you're not a voice for change, you're just a voice. You might as well call into, and wait on hold, on your local sports radio talk show and hope that you get on the air for 30 seconds to share your wisdom with the world hoping in vein that the GM or coach of your favorite team might just be listening and might be so blown away by your brilliant insight that they reevaluate their clearly inadequate approach to their job.
The conventional wisdom being spun by beltway pundits is that the base is furious. Clearly, some of you are. But, as a member of the base I'm furious for a completely different reason. I'm furious that all of the sudden progressives are concerned with deficit spending. I'm furious that progressives all of the sudden can't support any bill if it contains any Republican ideas. Since when did our party adopt the Republican mantra, "if my adversaries like it, it must be bad." I'm furious that some in the base hold the President to such an unrealistic standard that he can never satisfy them. He isn't Ralph Nadar or even Dennis Kucinich for that matter and he never claimed to be. I'm furious that Michael Moore writes Op-eds and goes goes on Olbermann and rants about how horrible the bail outs were without ever acknowledging that the auto bailout probably saved the American auto industry and millions of jobs with it, an industry that should be near and dear to Moore's heart. I'm furious at Arianna, Keith and Rachel who wondered why the President couldn't motivate the base for the mid-terms after they questioned his every move for the past two years and suggesting he should have pushed for more progressive legislation at every turn knowing full well that they couldn't overcome a Republican filibuster. (As opposed to Lawrence O'Donnell, who seems to be the only progressive voice willing to accept the reality of the political situation these days)
I'm not suggesting that progressive pundits morph into Fox and become the D's PR wing. But, I would hope they would give credit where credit is due, and perhaps more importantly, WHEN it is due. Of the three Rachel is clearly the most thoughtful. That's why I'm still furious that the night AFTER the election she devoted an entire segment to praising the historic accomplishments of the Congress that had just been voted out of office. Let me repeat that, after two years of complaining that the legislative agenda was not progressive enough for her, which undoubtedly contributed to the base feeling snubbed, she goes on to praise that very same agenda AFTER the election. A little too little, a whole lot too late.
Look, we don't have to be happy that rich folks get to keep their tax breaks under the proposed compromise, but we have to recognize that if the President didn't reach a compromise, taxes would have gone up for the middle class and lower class and unemployment benefits would have expired. The people that progressives are supposed to care about most would have been hit the hardest. Don't be blind to that.
And please let's not wait until after the 2012 election to praise the positive progressive achievements of this President. If we do, he'll be history and just as it was with W, our country will be taken backwards by who ever wins the Republican nomination.
UPDATED
Tonight, Lawrence O'Donnell did a great job confronting Alan Grayson with the fact that if we let the tax cuts expire to prove a political point, the people hit hardest will be those in the lowest income tax bracket who's taxes will go up 50%. As Lawrence points out, if the Bush tax cuts expire, the lowest income tax bracket will go from 10% to 15%. These are the people progressives are supposed to be fighting for. Are you willing to leave the least off in our society out in the cold, in some cases literally, to prove your political point? Are you willing to tell those folks sorry, we know you have next to nothing and you couldn't afford a 50% tax hike, but we just couldn't let the richest folks in the country get a 3% tax break. I hope you understand. Bravo Lawrence! Grayson didn't have an answer to that question.