The debate within the Democratic Party over President Obama's incipient economic relief program is being conducted between two sides that totally misunderstand its purpose. On the one side, you have administration centrists who support a sufficiently narrow plan that can pass Congress:
And on the other side, you have liberals who demand boldness:
Here's what everybody is missing: Nothing of significance can pass Congress. Maybe -- maaaybe -- an extended pressure campaign could force Republicans to agree to extend the payroll tax cut. But even that would have modest stimulative benefit. Anything larger has no chance of enactment. Republicans have strong ideological and partisan motives to block any further economic stimulus. Obama can try to design a strategy to exact a political toll for Republican obstruction, but he can't design a strategy to result in passing any significant new stimulus.
The moderates who think Obama can whittle his proposals down to the point where Congress will let them sail through simply haven't been paying attention to the GOP's strategic decision to deny Obama bipartisan cover. And the liberals who insist on a big plan seem to be in denial:
It's true -- complaining about a weak proposal that didn't pass won't create jobs. At the same time, complaining about a strong proposal that didn't pass won't create jobs. Congress is not going to pass anything that will create jobs.
This does not mean there is nothing Obama can do. But his plan needs to be understood as a political strategy, not as a legislative strategy. The point of it is to propose something that is popular and which Obama can blame Republicans for blocking. There is no upside in blaming the opposition for blocking a bill that voters don't want to pass.
That means the plan does need to be somewhat big -- anything that's too small will transparently be seen as insufficient to the scale of the disaster. On the other hand, it needs to grapple with the reality that most Americans don't support the kinds of economic stimulus that economists think we need. Now, if Obama potentially had the votes in Congress to pass another stimulus, it would be worth taking an unpopular vote in order to rescue the economy. Since Obama does not and will not have those votes, he needs to conceive of his plan as a political message. There is no point in holding a message vote when the message is unpopular.
This seems to be a reality liberals have trouble acknowledging. There are a lot of issues where the public agrees with the left. Economic stimulus does not appear to be one of them. Now, public opinion is fairly hazy and ill-informed about this, and certain elements of economic stimulus can command majorities. But the passage of the first stimulus, at the height of Obama's popularity, shows pretty clearly that people instinctively think that, when the economy is terrible, having the government spend a lot of new money is not going to help. That they're wrong doesn't really matter for the purposes of this question.
The liberal dialogue about stimulus is almost a perfect parallel to the way conservatives talked about Social Security privatization in 2005. The idea was unpopular, and Democrats in the Senate were determined to block it. Conservatives, though, couldn't acknowledge this. They kept insisting that President Bush push harder, give more speeches, pressure Senate Democrats to give in. Conservatives kept saying this was vital -- we had to privatize Social Security or all would be lost, defeat was not an option.
This is not an argument for -- to use the popular epithet -- "fatalism." Obama has options. He can do his best to frame the debate so as to clarify that Republicans are blocking popular economic recovery measures, like the payroll tax cut and perhaps some infrastructure projects. Conceivably if he wins reelection, and the democrats make huge gains in the House, republicans will rethink their approach and open themselves up to some kind of compromise in 2013. In the meantime, I see no point in blinding oneself to reality.
Some good points here, but one needs to keep the endgame in mind. Congress being what it is, this is a purely political strategy, yes. Big or little, an Obama jobs plan is not going to get through the 112th Congress. Not even if it consists of nothing but tax cuts on billionaires financed by selling poor people's kidneys to Israel.
But the 112th Congress won't last forever. In the best-case scenario, Obama campaigns on a big new jobs plan, and is rewarded with re-election and substantial Democratic gains in Congress. He will then have a chance (not a guarantee, but a chance) to pass that big new jobs plan. It would be very good if the plan were one that would actually produce jobs. The politi ... view full comment
Some good points here, but one needs to keep the endgame in mind. Congress being what it is, this is a purely political strategy, yes. Big or little, an Obama jobs plan is not going to get through the 112th Congress. Not even if it consists of nothing but tax cuts on billionaires financed by selling poor people's kidneys to Israel.
But the 112th Congress won't last forever. In the best-case scenario, Obama campaigns on a big new jobs plan, and is rewarded with re-election and substantial Democratic gains in Congress. He will then have a chance (not a guarantee, but a chance) to pass that big new jobs plan. It would be very good if the plan were one that would actually produce jobs. The political strategy becomes an economic one at that point.
Even in a middling scenario, where Republicans keep control of Congress but Obama wins re-election, the jobs plan Obama runs on will be his starting point for negotiations. Better a big one that can be whittled down to a small one than a small one that can be whittled down to nothing.
I would also add that liberals seem to have a clearer view on the subject than centrists. Most of us acknowledge that this is about messaging and positioning rather than economics per se; so we're arguing for a strong message and a clear position. The centrists are the ones trying to come up with something that will get through the present Congress.
At this point, I lean towards the liberals who call for boldness. Is it time for a new chief-of-staff? Daley has been in that role since January, and I don't think he's helping Obama handle Congress.
At this point, I lean towards the liberals who call for boldness. Is it time for a new chief-of-staff? Daley has been in that role since January, and I don't think he's helping Obama handle Congress.
Well, this a more realistic description of the unemployment situation than we've seen in most other TNR posts. In short, doing anything about the problem is a hopeless fantasy because of relentless Republican opposition to any measures that might improve the economy and bring down the unemployment rate.
Obama needs to propose something really big that would be hugely popular with the American people and then let the Republicans reject it. He then needs to tell Americans, over and over, that they can thank the Republicans for the shortage of jobs and for our deteriorating roads, bridges, water mains, and schools. Maybe we'll get another bridge collapse to help him make his point.
The Republica ... view full comment
Well, this a more realistic description of the unemployment situation than we've seen in most other TNR posts. In short, doing anything about the problem is a hopeless fantasy because of relentless Republican opposition to any measures that might improve the economy and bring down the unemployment rate.
Obama needs to propose something really big that would be hugely popular with the American people and then let the Republicans reject it. He then needs to tell Americans, over and over, that they can thank the Republicans for the shortage of jobs and for our deteriorating roads, bridges, water mains, and schools. Maybe we'll get another bridge collapse to help him make his point.
The Republicans have to be hammered relentlessly for their opposition to measures that would obviously help people and invest in the nation's future. They can't be allowed to get away with the lie that this would be just more wasteful spending that wouldn't create jobs. It's such an obvious lie that it shouldn't be hard to refute, but the Republicans will do their damnedest to make people believe it.
Jonathan,
Clearly you are correct in saying that the President cannot score points by selling an unpopular economic program, but what has ever been done to improve the public estimation of the kind of stimulus spending that economists think we need? All I have ever seen from this President is an embrace of the Republican ideology. What chance do voters have of forming an intelligent opinion of economic policy when the President himself is an advocate for the misguided prescriptions of the right wing voodoo economics crowd?
What happens if a large number of Americans get smart about macroeconomics and realize that he has not put forward anything close to adequate for our current circumstances ... view full comment
Jonathan,
Clearly you are correct in saying that the President cannot score points by selling an unpopular economic program, but what has ever been done to improve the public estimation of the kind of stimulus spending that economists think we need? All I have ever seen from this President is an embrace of the Republican ideology. What chance do voters have of forming an intelligent opinion of economic policy when the President himself is an advocate for the misguided prescriptions of the right wing voodoo economics crowd?
What happens if a large number of Americans get smart about macroeconomics and realize that he has not put forward anything close to adequate for our current circumstances? I know that seems a remote possibility, and perhaps those voters will see his opponent as a worse choice, but doesn't this risk carry any weight - perhaps enough to induce the President to try to make the case for a policy based on competent economics advice?
I think the President must make proposals that are popular, but if it is woefully inadequate and incompetent, it will be one more reason that his base of educated Americans will see him as a joke and a failure.
I simply do not believe that Bill Clinton would be losing this argument to these ignorant Republicans, and I despise Obama for not even trying.
Neil
@aboufade: I don't think any chief of staff could "handle" this Congress. I think what Obama needs is a mix of political advisors and folks who know how to push the limits of executive power, to accomplish what he can without Congress.
...wait, did I just advocate re-hiring the Bush Administration? Possibly I need to rethink my goals here.
@aboufade: I don't think any chief of staff could "handle" this Congress. I think what Obama needs is a mix of political advisors and folks who know how to push the limits of executive power, to accomplish what he can without Congress.
...wait, did I just advocate re-hiring the Bush Administration? Possibly I need to rethink my goals here.
Correct that this is now about politics, not policy. (Actually it always was first about politics. Welcome to the party, Chait.) Incorrect in its prescription, as usual.
If the Democrats cannot distinguish and sell a frame distinct from that of the Republicans, they end up reinforcing the Republican frame, and he who owns the frame wins. It is indeed rather late to win the framing battle since Obama has been witlessly doing everything possible to reinforce the Republican frame that deficits are our most urgent problem and deficit-reduction the key to recovery (justified by economic determinists such as Chait for reasons I cannot fathom-- perhaps on the theory that policy is futile so mi ... view full comment
Correct that this is now about politics, not policy. (Actually it always was first about politics. Welcome to the party, Chait.) Incorrect in its prescription, as usual.
If the Democrats cannot distinguish and sell a frame distinct from that of the Republicans, they end up reinforcing the Republican frame, and he who owns the frame wins. It is indeed rather late to win the framing battle since Obama has been witlessly doing everything possible to reinforce the Republican frame that deficits are our most urgent problem and deficit-reduction the key to recovery (justified by economic determinists such as Chait for reasons I cannot fathom-- perhaps on the theory that policy is futile so might as well "be the only grownup in the room"). But, if the choice is between Republicans to implement the Republican frame or Democrats to implement the Republican frame, the Democrats lose.
Because Obama and the Democrats would not even stir themselves to contest the Republican frame over the past 2 1/2 years, a great deal of strategic political territory has been ceded. Even making contrary noise would have helped. But no, Obama was too busy with his post-partisan narcissism and unable to take account of the Republican strategy absolutely to deny any Republican "cover" for anything. Still even starting now to deal with Republicans as they are would be better than nothing.
So, the way to start is with every conceivable proposal that would be popular with the public and therefore certain to be obstructed by the Republicans. It does not matter whether it is really good or bad for jobs and the economy. EVERYTHING should be sold as a job creating proposal, whether it is or is not, just as the Republican claim that every single aspect of Democratic policy of the last 80 years is "job-destroying." Make the Republicans shoot down one popular measure after another and point to it as killing jobs.
Best that can be done now, and not really so terrible as a political gambit. But forget sakes get over the idea that any policy progress is possible.
In case that wasn't clear, think up any and every proposal bold enough to capture the public imagination and be popular, no matter what the heck it is. Push if forward aggressively with claims about how it is job-creating. Let the Republicans kill it. Blast them for obstructing progress and damaging the economy.
In case that wasn't clear, think up any and every proposal bold enough to capture the public imagination and be popular, no matter what the heck it is. Push if forward aggressively with claims about how it is job-creating. Let the Republicans kill it. Blast them for obstructing progress and damaging the economy.
might want to wait for the House GOP proposal on repealing a few job-killing regulations - could be some merit in what they propose. Lest we forget that Pelosi's Democrats are also viewed as intransigent ideologues...
might want to wait for the House GOP proposal on repealing a few job-killing regulations - could be some merit in what they propose. Lest we forget that Pelosi's Democrats are also viewed as intransigent ideologues...
@Roi, I mostly agree with you, but I do think the end goal should be better policy. The key is to recognize that better policy requires a change of Congress, so the focus should be on proposals that a) give Democrats a strong chance of retaking Congress in 2012, b) could reasonably get through a reasonably likely 113th Congress, and c) would be good policy if they did. If we completely ignore the policy angle, we risk ending up in January 2013 with a big mandate to do a lot of stuff we don't in fact want to do.
Moreover, policy is the whole point of politics. If better policy is flat impossible, why should any of us waste time campaigning and volunteering and donating?
Read Full Article »