CT Blue

Obama’s more extreme supporters often claim (or are alleged to claim) that he is a little like a chessmaster, thinking 20 moves ahead while his opponents can only see the board in its current state. Thus, we are asked to believe that he somehow mapped out his strategy for health care reform, anticipated all major developments and emerged with a victory.

The problem with that analysis is that he appears to have emerged with far less of a victory than he could have gotten, had he not tried so hard to be “bi-partisan”, for despite his fabled ability to see so many moves down the road, he felt it necessary to make fruitless concessions in order to gain zero Republican votes in the Senate.

I would suggest that chess is not a good metaphor for the game of politics. Chess is an open game; each side starts out from a position of equality and each knows where the other stands at each point in the game. Poker might be a better choice. I don’t claim to be even a good poker player, but I know one thing you should never do: show the other guy your hand. That’s what Obama did on health care, and that’s why he came away with a bill just slightly better than no bill. If we must stick with chess, then it makes no sense to sacrifice even a pawn with no clear reason for doing so.

Now we come to energy legislation, and in order to gain the support of the slimeball from South Carolina, Obama has allowed drilling along large sections of the American coast. (Why one man should have that much power is another question). For this, which he surely knows is both environmentally dangerous and bad energy policy, he has gotten exactly nothing, exactly what he got when he pre-emptively compromised health care policy.

Here we must depart from metaphor and go for the real thing: if you are negotiating with someone you don’t give away your bargaining chips. Obama has done that yet again, and the result will be the same. Does he really expect the Republicans to behave different, particularly on energy policy?

Now, it can be argued that this time he really needs 60 votes all the way, because you can’t achieve good energy/climate legislation via reconciliation. That may be true. So, here’s what you do. You have Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer announce that the rules are going to change come January, and the extent of the change is going to depend on how Republicans behave between now and then. I’m betting the Democrats will have a reduced majority, but still a majority, in January. At that point, the rules are up for grabs, with only 50 votes needed and no filibuster. The Democrats can only succeed by effecting change; Republicans succeed by blocking change. The filibuster favors the forces of reaction. If the Democrats want to both survive and thrive, they need to restore majority rule in this country. The mere threat will likely bring the Republicans around now. If not, then you simply say you will wait until January and then follow through. It’s what they would do, were it in their interest. It’s what they almost did, when it was in their very short term interest.

In the meantime, and if they really do come to the table, if you want to give them a sop wait until they have given you something.