Skip to content

What’s good for Obama is not necessarily good for the Democrats

David Atkins, at Hullabaloo tries to make sense of Obama’s debt ceiling maneuvering, particularly his seeming eagerness, all of his own volition, unasked by the Republicans, to throw Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security under the bus. He notes speculation that Obama is intentionally ticking off his base so he can run as the reasonable centrist while counting on the fact that we have nowhere else to go, and concludes:

But I wouldn’t take that bet. As an activist on the ground, I can see firsthand how dispirited many of our core volunteers are at this stage. How long can the Democratic Party run headlong from its base even as Republicans eagerly rush to embrace theirs, before the liberal base gives up and goes home even if it means Michele Bachmann in the White House? It seems the President and his advisers are willing to test those limits. Time will tell if it blows up in their faces in 2012, or if they are vindicated.

It is always possible, of course, that the “centrists” Obama is reaching for might not be happy about the fact that he would like to doom them to an impoverished old age. It is also possible that a lot of them will, faced with two unpleasant alternatives, decide to sit the election out. The latter seems the most likely scenario to me, but I still think from Obama’s totally selfish point of view (which really appears to be his point of view) the strategy works, because, consistent with the fact he’s the luckiest guy on earth, his opponent bids fair to be someone so crazy that those who do show up will feel they have to vote against her or him. The real destruction occurs down ticket, because the mass in the middle cannot and, particularly given the nature of our media, never will understand that the Republican party is a monolithic structure, and a vote for the Republican candidate from their district is a vote for right wing extremism, no matter what he or she may say in order to get elected. In addition, the districts will be awash in third party money, so you will have a toxic mix of stupidity and propaganda that bodes no good for the hapless members of Congress that did not create this mess and did not propose, for example, cutting social security, but will be nonetheless attacked for being of the party whose president proposed doing just that. It is ironic, but irrelevant, that the attacks will come from people who will proceed to destroy social security should they win.

One conclusion we must be forced to draw: Obama considers being president more important than accomplishing anything, because he is rather deliberately setting the stage for another four years of paralyzed government. In fact, it will be worse than the last four, because the Republicans will have every reason to believe they’ll be able to walk into the White House in 2016, and they will resist handing Obama anything he wants, unless it would work to treat them like the children they are and he asks for the opposite of what he really wants. Regretfully, whoever wins the presidency in 2012, we can probably kiss any chance of getting the corporatist majority on the Supreme Court watered down a bit. There will be no openings until Obama’s next term (or Michelle’s), and when there is, the Republicans will either filibuster his every nomination, or he will nominate someone they have pre-approved. I speculate the latter. No more Sotomayors. Look for someone slightly to the left of Clarence Thomas, with Obama basking in the glow of bi-partisanship when his only slightly right wing nominee gets confirmed.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.