Hail and farewell, penguins, my lovely swiped-from-I-forget-whom animated GIF! You have been my avatar since DK4 began almost five months ago. Now you're gone. Let's view you one more time:
In your place is a much less energetic and much harder to read replacement:
I got this YouGov.com graphic through Dante Atkins on Facebook. It is one of the saddest things I've ever seen. The full-sized version is below:
What this graph shows is that Democrats want to cooperate and Republicans want to play chicken. In your first week in a class on Game Theory, you learn that, in this sort of situation, Democrats are going to lose. We'll cave. We'll have to -- for the greater good. But allowing this reality to stand does not serve the greater good.
In general, I believe in compromise. I love doing mediation; I love tossing out ideas for "plus-sum" solutions to problems. I believe in my principles, but one of my principles is pragmatism -- in the old sense of the term used by Charles Peirce and James Dewey and William James. You have to do what works.
Sometimes, the only pragmatic thing to do is to take an uncompromising position. That poll result up there shows that we've reached one of those times.
We have to become more unreasonable.
It's hard for many of us progressives to do, but: it's the pragmatic choice.
There are lots of reasonable compromises we could reach on Social Security and Medicare. To hell with them. To hell with them until Republicans and Democrats score roughly the same on that poll. Then I will once again be relatively nicely behaved.
We Democrats are compromise-valuing adults arguing with mewling, screaming, selfish children. They way things work, they will get their lollipops -- and we will get played for suckers. You give me any negotiation and show me that the two sides hold these discrepant opinions shown in that chart and I will tell you who is going to win the fight. Hint: not the adults.
So, while I will continue talk compromise sometimes here on Daily Kos -- because I think it's useful to bat around creative ideas to see whether they can improve things -- when the rubber meets the road now I am cultivating my inner unreasonable brat.
President Obama wants to compromise, compromise, compromise because he is an adult, adult, adult. He thinks that the public will reward him for this. I think that they won't.
Thinking that the public rewards mature intelligent compromises is the Democratic Party's signature disease. Democratic consultants spew this sorts of thing all the time -- and they have no idea what they are talking about. It is as much wish-fulfillment as climate change denial.
So: President Obama wants compromise? He wants to take the Big Entitlement Issues off the table, the way that Clinton took Welfare and Immigration off the table with a couple of horrible 1996 compromises and then caved in to a few more in 1999.
NO.
He says this:
With respect to Social Security and Medicare, my core principle is anything that strengthens Social Security and Medicare and makes sure that it's there for the next generation, I'm for.
Anything that dismantles it, weakens it, hurts current beneficiaries, in ways that are fundamentally unfair, that's not something I will accept. But what we do have to make sure of is as the population's getting older and more people are going into Social Security and Medicare, that those programs are preserved and intact and that they're fully paid for.
"Anything" that strengthens it -- including capitulation. "Anything" that weakens it -- including the failure to capitulate in the face of intransigent opposition.
This statement is code for capitulation. You "strengthen" Social Security and Medicare, per the President's failed Debt Commission report, by making sure that they pay people less. That's what deficit peacocks think "keeps it around for the next generation." (See, by the way, 2laneIA's wonderful post making much of these same points, but better.
You avoid "hurting current beneficiaries" at least "in ways that are fundamentally unfair," by cutting the benefits for them somewhat (unfair, but not enough to be "fundamentally" so) and shifting most of the pain to the next half-generation, the smaller demographic born around 1957 and later.
NO.
If you want to accomplish these goals, raise the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes. No more compromise on this.
The President wants to cater to Democratic tastes for a pragmatic leader who can compromise.
NO.
NO! -- because under present circumstances that willingness to compromise IS NOT PRAGMATIC! Under present circumstances, it is a RECIPE FOR CAPITULATION! That's where it leads: Republicans get their prize and Democrats get a "Miss Congeniality" banner. Well -- to hell with that!
Being "pragmatic" means being willing to use ALL of the tools in one's toolbox -- metaphorically including, when necessary, the sword and the bludgeon. Yes, it means a willingness to compromise -- where compromise will maximize one's expected ability to meet one's goals. Where it isn't likely to have that effect -- when it just guarantees that one is going to be rolled -- then compromise ISN'T pragmatic!
So, as much as I would like to be in the blue category on this poll, simple pragmatic self-preservation now pushes me into the green one. I now say: NO!
If the Republicans want to let the markets tank, interest rates rise, we can't stop them. We will not negotiate with hostage-takers. Anytime they want a reasonable compromise, it's open to them -- and the most reasonable compromise is this:
DON'T NEGOTIATE UNDER ARTIFICIAL AND UNNECESSARY DEADLINES!
We'll take an up-or-down vote on raising the debt ceiling because we've already committed to spending certain monies, thanks -- just like it has happened many times in the past. Up Or Down Vote.
All we need by August 2 -- if we even really need it at all -- is an increase in the debt limit. Straight up, without strings. Then we can take the rest of the year, if we wish, to work out a reasonable and deliberate plan -- one that will either contain raising the cap on income subject to Social Security or that won't come into being. (In fact, I'd favor creating a positive donut hole where income between $120,000 and $250,000 was exempt, then the tax kicked in again afterwards.)
Wait a moment -- time for an interlude. I hear something.
Some of you are muttering something.
"Disloyal."
I'm sorry, but I couldn't make it out. What was that?
"Disloyal."
You're kidding me.
"Disloyal!"
All right: at this point, I think I should say something important:
I plan to vote for Barack Obama in 2012.
This is not about my thinking that the President is a bad man. This is about him thinking that he is out of touch, badly advised, reconciled to progressive decline, and stuck thinking that the Republican Party is still like it was in 1996 -- which is isn't.
David Plouffe says that liberal Democrats have nowhere else to go. Well, Mr. Plouffe, here is where I will go if need be:
I will tell people that the President is seriously out of touch when it comes to these issues, deluded by bad advisors and the belief that he is up against reasonable opponents. I will tell people that he is harming the country by compromising and that we have to stop his foolish choices, if he makes them, even if it means staring him down or pulling him down.
I don't threaten to vote against the President. I threaten to tell the truth about the President.
"Disloyal!"
Nope. Am I hurting his re-election chances by doing so? Nowhere near as much as he is.
Here's the problem for the President: outside of his bubble -- and yes, he's in a bubble on these issues -- he appears to be intent on sacrificing core values of the Democratic Party at a time when the public is rallying behind us.
So what I am doing something else: I'm showing friends and observers that you can think that the President -- unless he changes his evident Simpson-Bowlesian course -- is really wrong on these issues and yet you can still support him as a better alternative to the "no compromise" Republicans.
That is, frankly, the re-election argument that the President's proposed policies will reduce us to in 2012. I'm willing to embrace it right now and make the best of it.
I expect that much of the population agrees with me on this and will be more likely to vote for Obama is they recognize that doing so need not suggest that one believes all of his bullshit -- and these harmful positions, if he takes them, WOULD be bullshit.
So that, David Plouffe, is where I have to go. I can call you an idiot and call the President your dupe -- while I tell people that they still gotta vote for him. It's a hard sell, but you don't leave me a lot of choice.
Get used to it, Mr. President. You respond well to threats. Here comes ours:
Be a President who won't be rolled or be ready to have lots of your supporters say "vote for the weakling who gets rolled because at least he isn't completely nuts."
I'll make that "vote for the weakling" case for the next 16 months, if need be -- because it's easier than trying to make the case that accepting reduced benefits in these programs is inevitable because we're trying to be adults and we have to give into Republican tantrums. It at least gives us something to fight for.
So you can have my vote, Mr. President -- but I will design my own campaign for you. That is "where I can go" as a progressive, Mr. Plouffe:
"VOTE OBAMA DESPITE OBAMA."
It's not a catchy slogan -- so please don't make it an accurate one.