Here we go again.
Cue: The left commentariet decrying the sell-out Democratic President and Congress for negotiating and supporting legislation that no good progressive would get near.
Cue: The right commentariet bewails the Republican Congressional leadership for giving in to Pres Obama, the Keyser Soze of American politics.
It is probably of little value to those on the left that those on the right are unhappy with the legislation that ends the debt ceiling crisis. But before closely judging the resolution to this crisis, it is worth remembering how artificial the whole thing was. By artificial, I don’t mean fake, but that it was fabricated, created by human machination. There was no reason to end up at this point except the ability and willingness of Republicans to use the threat of fundamental damage to the American economy as well as the world economy to achieve policy goals of cutting the budget. They took the economy hostage, and were just wild-eyed enough that Pres. Obama could not be sure whether or not the hostage taker would or wouldn’t blow up the hostage and himself too. Why, Democrats seem to wonder, couldn’t the President demand a clean bill raising the debt ceiling? Well he did. Why couldn’t he insist on tax increases as well as budget cuts? Well, he did. But in the end, with the crazy grin on the hostage taker and a twitchy finger on the detonator, there was little leverage the President had—except whatever wiles he could use in passing the bag of dough over. This resolution of a hostage crisis is going to be bad, less bad than a dead hostage, but unless Jack Bauer could have popped out from behind Obama and shot the hostage taker before pressing the detonator button, this is how it ends. And that is the real crisis: that institutions are being pushed to the edge of their limits by a party that has lost much of its’ mooring as a responsible governing party, creating an economic crisis in the guise of a hostage crisis.
It is likely too early to determine the substance of this deal and its’ political implications. Pres. Obama has decided that it is effective in negotiations and politically to be seen as reasonable, open to compromise, willing to take on some sacred cows of his party. Of course it would be welcome if the other side had some of the same qualities, but even in their absence Obama feels he prevails. Is this deal awful? Given it is the resolution of a hostage crisis, expectations should be low. Could it have been better? Maybe, but I am unclear how. Ask yourself, would President Clinton (Mr. or Mrs.) or (gulp) Edwards have done better in the same situation?
Perhaps it won’t be so bad, and to listen to the right wind, it all but secures Obamas policy desires. To cheer a bit, there might be some salve in the fine print.
And maybe some good things tucked away in plain sight.
So why such a nasty response to Obama from the left? I have been wondering in private and out loud occasionally here about that, and I will continue to do so in the future. But Jonathan Bernstein provides and interesting view here on liberal bitterness about the deal. The best quote in the piece comes from a blogpost addressing the question Did Obama Cave?, where
he cites Matthew Dickinson, a scholar of the American presidency:
“Meanwhile, maybe some of you can tell me why so many very smart people have, since the day Obama was inaugurated, deluded themselves into thinking that this admittedly very smart man, albeit one with limited political experience at the national level, was somehow going to step into office and proceed to rewrite the political laws that have governed presidential politics for the last two centuries?”
.
