I was writing a decent-sized post on my disappointment with the new tax deal and how that figures into my disappointment with Obama in general, but I realized that I just don’t understand enough of the policy end of it to make a measured critique… and I’d rather admit ignorance then come up with potentially misguided opinions for the sake of having opinions. I will add that the more I read about it the less intemperate I become. 

What I will say about that subject is this: It’s not disappointing that Obama compromised on extending the Bush tax cuts in the end, it’s that he didn’t take more of a risk/make more of a fight than he did to make the Bush tax cuts seem like the illogical policy option that they are. I see the political logic on compromising* and agree with what Obama says in this video on the importance of compromising and the nature of how it works.  

But this is where I get to my point — and explain why I started this post with that video: It’s not about compromise, though, — in some ways, there will always be compromise — it’s about fighting (maybe a poor word choice) to drag the debate far enough to your side that you are able to get the most possible from the compromise. That’s what Obama isn’t doing and that’s the big issue here. 

I think this video is pretty notable because I think it’s clear that Obama is being disingenuous in it. He employs the strawman that far-left liberals or progressives or whatever would rather have nothing than a public option-less healthcare plan. That’s unbelievably ridiculous: that view may have been espoused by one or two people, of which no one really cares about. The actual debate about the public option — among progressives — was why Obama abandoned it so early, and why a clearer and bigger case wasn’t made for its legitimacy as good policy. 

There have been few other areas where through a mixture of failure in communicating his policy, a desire to look centrist and reasonable, a fear of conservative backlash, a underestimation of Republican spinelessness and maybe an honest desire to work with all involved, Obama has let Republicans drag the debate in their direction and eventually win more concessions in the eventual compromise.

The public option is probably the best option. Obama put it on the chopping block early, probably due to naive good will — and did a poor job in communicating to the public why it was a good and important thing. He then let Republicans demonize it to death without pushing back so in the end it looked like an extremist crazy-liberal proposition which then made it something that the Blue Dogs were unwilling to stand up for. It was dropped from the legislation, and as a “thank-you” exactly zero Republicans voted for healthcare legislation in the House or the Senate**. So, yeah bravo Mr. President: way to follow through on a campaign promise*** that polled with a majority of support and was even endorsed by the ever-sensible Bill O’Reilly. 

In my view, these critiques — which extend on many issues far past the public option — have all been fair and pointed critiques and they are critiques that seem to be… drum roll please… shared by Obama himself.

These are some excerpts of an interview he did with the New York Times Magazine. Here he is on offering compromise too early on the process and being caught off guard by Republican intransigence — in regards to the tax cuts in the stimulus bill: 

… Now in retrospect, I could have told Barack Obama in December of 2009 that if you already have a third of the package as tax cuts, then the Republicans, who traditionally are more comfortable with tax cuts, may just pocket that and attack the other components of the program. And it might have been better for us not to include tax cuts in the original package, let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts, and then say, O.K., you know, we’ll compromise and give you your tax cuts, even though we had already proposed them. 

And if you recall, when we initially unveiled what the Recovery Act would look like — in fact, that a third of it was tax cuts — Mitch McConnell actually was, as he phrased it, pleasantly surprised that sort of traditional Republican idea had been included. But very quickly that pleasant surprise turned into attacks on the infrastructure or the aid to the states or what have you.

Here he is on the communication problems of the first two years:

… I think that, when I reflect back on the last two years, I do think that given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. 

There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. 

And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics, and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion. And so there are probably areas where we could have been more effective than we’ve been. 

Re-reading those excerpts makes me re-believe in this guy’s ability to make a case for his ideas and his actions, but then I realized that this interview was the only time I really heard Obama really drive his points. So maybe I’m not taking into account the complexities of getting your message out in today’s insane media landscape or the molasses-like speed all legislation is — by design of the legislative institutions — subject to. 

But would it really hurt for him to threaten a veto or really go out and attack the Republicans for pandering to the super-super-super-rich? When will we have concrete proof that the federal workforce pay-freeze accomplished anything? Would it hurt to call out Republican cynicism or unseriousness on more than a handful of occasions?*** Would it hurt him to defend his record vigorously and support those who do? Would it hurt to come up with alternatives that force Republicans to make the hard choices and reveal that they all failed ideology aren’t making any sense these days? Would it really be that bad if he was labelled leftist for these policy suggestions seeing as no matter what he does the right always paints him as being an extremist? Do progressives really need to get thrown under the bus by making dishonest portrayals of us as stubborn irrealists loonies — see above video — in order to protect this notion of a compromise-friendly centrist? 

Every politician in a democracy is a pragmatist — there’s no way you can get anywhere without concessions or compromise. The real issue is the strength. The strength to get the most you can from a compromise. And, for whatever reason, Obama is not oozing/exerting that in any discernible way. 

To clarify, this is not strength just to win some political Politico points, but to improve the lives of everyday Americans. This is the point that Obama always makes, which is why it’s odd he’s not sticking up more for his preferred policies.  

There are some us who are trying to help him push the debate in the way that Obama, assumedly, wants it to go. One smart step would be to embrace progressives instead of using them as ungrateful hanger-ons to beat around when it’s politically expedient. 

UPDATE: This post by Megan McCardle serves as a good counterpoint to my post and gives an insight to areas that I didn’t/don’t understand or have a good feel for. I will say that, from what I’ve read, threatening a veto or coming up with an alternative stimulus that could have been considered as a replacement for the extending the Bush tax cuts seem like fair plays. But McCardle’s post shows areas of political negotiations and how they work out in practice that I think are insightful.