There has been a lot of conjecture and more in these parts as to whether Obama really means what he said about cutting Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid in exchange for Republican concessions on revenues. I don’t want to get too much into the fray about how Jane Hamsher expressed her frustration, except to note two things: (1) while it was not too far from the way Rahm Emanuel expressed his opinion of the “professional left,” it was unnecessary and misdirected, and (2) while the debate could use less of Hamsher's language, it could use a lot more of her skepticism. That being said, I think she is spot in her analysis that Obama is mad because his “Grand Bargain” is being undermined by the Tea Party, which at this point seemingly is refusing to go along with anything. A commenter in Hamsher’s piece, econobuzz, repeatedly hit the nail right on the head - a couple examples of his or her wisdom:
Comment 33:
He’s freaking out because it robs him of the “Grand Bargain” and his precious Medicare and SS cuts that show he’s “serious.” IMHO.
Comment 48:
In response to oldgold @ 40 [who said]: I think the McConnell deal presents Obama with fewer political problems than the “grand bargain.”
To Obama, the “Grand Bargain” is a key to winning in 2012. You may (correctly) see it as risky, but he doesn’t. That’s what all this has been about, for god’s sake. He’s the one who tied raising the debt ceiling to the “Grand Bargain.” It’s HIS strategy, no one else’s.
What makes me so certain about Obama’s intentions to cut Social Security and Medicare programs? The answer below the fold:
By far the strongest evidence is Obama’s continued pursuit of a long-term solution, or a “Grand Bargain.” One of my first thoughts after hearing Obama’s proposals - was that these program cuts will be forever while tax increases (as well as most other tax law and budget changes) can be easily reversed by the next year’s Congress. Does Obama not see this imbalance? Obama’s insistence on a long-term deal means that he does see this discrepancy and wants to “lock in” these tax and budget measures so they will be on more equal footing with the inevitably long-lasting weakening of our social safety net.
Obama was angry at Cantor because in leaning towards McConnell’s new proposal, Cantor was undermining Obama's long-term plan. I’m not as sure of this as I am of Obama’s intentions, but we very well may have the Tea Party’s antics to thank for the cuts to Social Security and Medicare not already being a done deal.
I truly believe that Obama wants these tax increases on the rich, but unfortunately, I also truly believe that he is more than willing to surrender bedrock, generational Democratic Party values to make this happen. The fundamental damage to the political identity of his own party is an imbalance Obama cannot overcome with his long-term solution.
Another imbalance that Obama cannot overcome is the relative damage that such changes to the safety will inflict on seniors and the disabled vis a vis a three percent tax increase on the rich.
I have come to view Obama as suffering many of the same maladies in his approach to his job that we have time and again noted in the establishment media’s approach to its job, as follows (feel free to add your own examples in comments):
- He values the consensus of elites (clearly buying into the Bowles-Simpson conclusions, a manifestation of High Broderism)
- He overvalues and defers to the opinion of elites (deferring to Jamie Dimon, et al - see practically any TV or cable newscast for similar behavior)
- He sees himself as pragmatic and a “getting the deal done” kind of guy, telling all to leave their biases at the door (the view from nowhere and its inherent problems as discussed by Jay Rosen)
- Somewhat related to the “view from nowhere,” he sees most issues as two-sided and takes great pains to ensure both “sides” are treated equally, regardless of the relative validity and legitimacy of the positions (Obama’s has arguably treated the Tea Party better than liberals in his own party - see The Daily Show's funny riff on CNN’s We’ll leave it there!)
- Perhaps most importantly, Obama has limited the sphere of acceptable debate (surrounding himself with Goldman Sachs personnel and largely excluding the Paul’s, Volcker and Krugman, from the internal financial and economic debates, and immediately taking the run-up to the Iraq War and torture off the table with practically no discussion - see Jay Rosen again.)
Obama’s approach will likely share another characteristic with the establishment media's - its adverse effect on our country. The Democratic Party would do well to find a different approach.