One would think President Obama’s new “populism” campaign for income equality and fiscal sanity would re-ignite the fire in the belly of all those volunteers, donors and supporters who stood in his corner and cheered while he delivered a technical knockout in 2008 against John “the Maverick” McCain and the election masterminds of the Republican Party.
And yet, all I’ve heard – particularly from self-proclaimed “liberals” – is that Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on millionaires and close loopholes for corporations is “too little too late,” that Obama missed the only opportunity he’ll ever get to pass a tax increase on the rich; and that it’s a political ploy that has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Admittedly, the die-hard liberals are partially correct: Even I have to admit that the “Buffett Rule” has about the same chance of passing through the Republican-controlled House as a “no tri-corner hats rule” has of being written into the Tea Party’s bylaws.
But that misses the point.
This is political warfare, and once again it appears the Left has no idea how the game is played, let alone how the war is won.
Preparation is Half of Battle
Over the course of three years, Obama has detached himself from the “socialist” label, quelled the “birther” conspiracies, reassured the American people that he’s much more moderate than ideological, and demonstrated – on an issue-by-issue, almost daily basis – that he’s the only sane politician in Washington.
He did this by agreeing to historic spending cuts, avoiding a government shutdown and almost single-handedly negotiating a deal to prevent what would have been an economically catastrophic federal default. In the process, he sacrificed very little. He did not negotiate with Republicans and to turn Medicare into a voucher program. He did not turn Social Security into a 401(k) retirement plan. And he did not allow for the most extreme austerity measures passed in Congress to be implemented now, during a still stagnant economic recovery. What he did do is save the only four-ace hand he’s been dealt over the past three years for the political fight that matters most.
I’m not talking about securing himself a second term. I’m talking about defending the future of America from a Rick Perry White House, a Mitt Romney White House or a Michele Bachmann White House.
“Too Little Too Late”?
Obama didn’t miss an opportunity to increase taxes on the rich. He passed on one. The all-too-common “too little too late” remark alludes to the December budget negotiations, during which Obama agreed to extend Bush’s tax cuts by two years. The left saw this move – at the time and since – as a capitulation, a surrender to Republican demands, and a broken promise.
As I did at the time of the deal, I will once again quote Republican apologist Charles Krauthammer, who’s record of rationally defending the conservative agenda is unmatched, in my opinion, by any other rightwing pundit. After the December negotiation, Krauthammer saw what pissed-off Democrats and ignorant Republicans alike failed to see: mainly, that “Obama is no fool.”
Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 – and House Democrats don’t have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package…While getting Republicans to boost his own re-election chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we’re-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility. And he gets all this in return for what? For a mere two-year postponement of a mere 4.6-point increase in marginal tax rates for upper incomes.
What, exactly, did Obama gain from this “capitulation”?
Mainly, he got a two-year extension of tax cuts for the middle class that wouldn’t have been possible without simultaneously extending tax cuts for the rich. (Remember, Republicans had promised to filibuster any tax bill that excluded millionaires.)
This “capitulation” also paved the way for Obama to negotiate extensions for unemployment benefits, the earned income tax credit, the American Opportunity tax credit, the child tax credit, the payroll tax credit, manufacturing tax credits and green energy tax credits.
What did all of this cost Obama? As I said after the negotiations, it cost him “a two-year extension of a tax policy that has been in place for nine years already.”
Whether or not this deal was fair is beside the point. It was smart.
Retrospection
Though not everyone – including at least one Republican thinker – needed a retrospective view to see the political genius of this alleged “capitulation” at the time, it should be clear now what Obama was doing.
Consider this:
After months of positive job growth, the unemployment rate suddenly spiked one year after the tax cuts deal was reached. Even with Obama’s second stimulus, the unemployment rate (the layman’s economic indicator) rose from 9.1 to 9.8 percent. Stagnant economic growth throughout 2011 kept the unemployment rate hovering around 9 percent. By all measures, it would have been worse without that second round of middle-class tax breaks. But more importantly, if Obama had followed through on his campaign promise to raise taxes on the rich rather than postponing it, Republicans would have had a culprit.
Imagine the media carnage when Republicans and their media arm, Fox News, started connecting the dots between the spikes in unemployment, anemic economic growth and Obama’s successful fight to raise taxes on the rich.
Needless to say, we’d by now be desensitized to headlines like, “BREAKING: Obama’s tax increase on job creators causes spike in unemployment.”
It would have been the mother of all “I told you so” moments for the GOP, and Obama would have been slaughtered because of it.
In retrospect, Obama’s “capitulation” was a wise move. There were few signs that the economy would be mounting a full comeback by the summer of 2011. Taxing the rich wouldn’t have helped, nor would it have made but a dent in the national debt (in the short term). Worse, the media would have spun it as an attack on job creators and a hindrance to recovery.
Instead, he did what was necessary at the time and kept his eye on the overall goal.
This is long-term political strategizing at its best: Win the small battles while beefing up your arsenal for the ultimate showdown.
The Power of Illusions
There are obvious reasons to be disenchanted with the president. For the die-hard liberals, Obama was the electable Ralph Nader, the presentable Michael Moore. His campaign slogan, “Change We Can Believe In,” was, to them, a promise to govern from the extreme left.
In their eyes, Obama didn’t succeed in passing universal health care reform where every other president failed, he gave up the public option. He didn’t prevent a government shutdown and avoid default, he surrendered to Republican demands for massive spending cuts. To them, the bitter partisanship in Washington and the Republican Party’s obstructionist agenda were irrelevant. Obama’s Wall Street regulations weren’t as tough as they could have been, his stimulus bill wasn’t as big as it should have been, and on and on and on with the left’s laundry list of coulds and shoulds and shortcomings and submissions.
Now that he’s finally striking that populist tone, now that he’s finally fighting for the campaign promise he “broke” (I would say “postponed”) in 2010 to increase taxes on millionaires, some feel it is, indeed, too little too late.
There may be a handful of mind-bogglingly brilliant liberals out there who are capable of envisioning a more ideal first term. I am not mind-bogglingly brilliant, and so I always try to interpret Obama’s political moves from his perspective. In short, I assume I’m not smarter than the president. My default mode of political analysis is to assume there is always a plan, because, in reality, in a high-stakes game like this, there always is a plan. As I’ve written before, “Behind every policy proposal there’s a political power play, and only rarely is such a move made publicly that is not endlessly brainstormed, vetted and analyzed.”
It would behoove the Left to accept what Krauthammer accepted in 2010: that “Obama is no fool.” Furthermore, if I were given the options Obama had in 2010, I can only hope I would have had that same foresight to see the big picture, and the fortitude to continue fighting for it. I wonder also, what would the Ralph Naders and Michael Moores have done?
The liberal elite?
We’re all armchair pundits these days, but if we can’t see the long-term political strategy that this administration has been building upon since Inauguration Day 2009, then we’re misunderstanding the candidate we elected in 2008. This is a perfectly timed and perfectly executed plan that was brainstormed, vetted and analyzed long before the tax cut negotiations even began; it was not a last-ditch effort to regain the support of his once loyal liberal base.
Liberals are supposed to be the intellectuals – the deep, outside-the-box, big-picture and long-term thinkers. Perhaps the main criticism the Left should be throwing at Obama is that he expected too much when he thought the leftwing base would appreciate, or at least comprehend, his big-picture, long-term strategy.
One individual cannot rebuild a crumbling nation. Change does not come overnight. Without the Left in his corner, understanding the big-picture strategy and backing him once again as he fights for a little “equality” in this debate over income equality, he will lose not only the battle of 2011, but also the war of 2012.
[Crossposted at MuddyPolitics and ABLC]