Don't Call it Triangulation

[Babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/12/9/11218/1036

Don't Call it Triangulation

by BooMan
Thu Dec 9th, 2010 at 11:02:18 AM EST


I agree with Greg Sargent and I'll go one further. I don't even find the president's effort to get a little political advantage out of his brushback of the 'purist left' to be an annoyance. If you had to read my email you'd be pretty ready to throw some beanballs at some lefties, too. How else do you respond to otherwise smart and principled people who think it's a good idea to run Alan Grayson or Donna Edwards as serious alternatives to the president in the 2012 election? For every email I read about Republican obstruction, I read thirty about what a sell-out or disappointment or closet-Republican the president turned out to be. Everyone fancies themselves an economist these days, too. It's kind of a viral thing. So, for example, it used to be that progressives thought a payroll tax holiday was an awesome idea, provided that the holiday only applied to the employee-contribution. But now that the president has won that stimulative concession from the Republicans, it is a secret plot to defund Social Security. Trust me, you can find this allegation anywhere you look in the blogosphere. Who came up with it first? I don't know, but it wasn't someone who is used to giving the president the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, we have to have this conversation because it is going to keep coming up. Triangulation isn't merely positioning yourself between the two parties, although that is part of it. Triangulation is adopting your opponents' goals as your own, passing versions of their priorities that are maybe a little less egregious than they could be, and then going out and taking credit for passing your opponents' agenda. So, Bill Clinton was happy to tell everyone that he reformed welfare, ended big government, and balanced the budget. None of those things were why Clinton won the nomination or the presidency. Clinton basically passed Ross Perot's agenda and then called it his own. That is not what President Obama is doing. He's dissing the left for the reason that Sargent says he's dissing the left.

The reason Obama's attacks on the left smack of triangulation is that he persists on painting the left and the right with the same brush: He presents himself as the last reasonable man trapped between two sides blinded to reason by ideology. Hence his insistence yesterday that he won't be held to any unreasonable "ideal." But as irksom as this is, it isn't really the same as positioning oneself ideologically by arguing that the left is wrong on policy substance, as Bill Clinton did.

Obama's argument with the left, at bottom, is more a dispute over what's achievable, and less an argument over what is desirable to achieve. Obama opposes extending the high end tax cuts, just as the left does. His disagreement with the left is over whether there's another way to achieve the goals Obama and the left agree on: Extending the middle class cuts and extending unemployment benefits. The left says a protracted fight would achieve those things. Obama and his advisers say a fight wouldn't achieve those things, or at least that a fight wouldn't achieve them in time to stave off a tax hike for the middle class. Hence his willingness to reach a deal.

Indeed, Obama's outburst yesterday was rooted in genuine frustration with the left for not agreeing with him about what's possible given today's political realities.

Yeah, pretty much.

[spazito]

Good read! Booman nails it.

"Indeed, Obama's outburst yesterday was rooted in genuine frustration with the left for not agreeing with him about what's possible given today's political realities. "

The inability of the President's critics to acknowledge this or, imo, the deliberate intention to ignore it, has greatly frustrated many of us as well.

[Julie]

Whiners are a pain in the ass. How did we end up with so many whiney crybabies?

Julie

[Kindness of Blue]

(12-10-2010 07:16 AM)Babylonsister Wrote:  http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/12/9/11218/1036
The reason Obama's attacks on the left smack of triangulation is that he persists on painting the left and the right with the same brush: He presents himself as the last reasonable man trapped between two sides blinded to reason by ideology.

Now, that is the best summary of what's going on now in one sentence I've ever seen. Moved me to tears. Our side has picked up some bad habits.

Thanks for posting this, Babylonsister. I love getting something powerful out of an article. and noteworthy!

[There Is No Spoon]

Besides, in Obama's case, it's pyramidation, bein' that he's all 3D in everything he does.

[Willinois]

That pretty well covers it.

[Treestar]

And the left never does say how a better deal could be reached; only platitudes about strength and arm twisting and courage.

[Cha]

(12-10-2010 05:10 PM)Treestar Wrote:  And the left never does say how a better deal could be reached; only platitudes about strength and arm twisting and courage.

That would take work and they're not here to work but to dream up new ways to whine..I have seen no better from the so-called "left" than the rw.

[sandnsea]

That nails it.

And down in the reponses someone says Obama's problem is that "If you are a bipartisan, you are not a partisan." Apparently only a partisan can promote the Democratic position. He then says Howard Dean does that, but Dean usually supports Obama. Another says they're looking forward to a fight. I don't know what they use for brains because these "thoughts" didn't come from thinking.

[Cha]

Steve Benen's take is similar and titled a "Model of Consistency"

December 10, 2010
A MODEL OF CONSISTENCY.... President Obama talked with NPR's Steve Inskeep this morning, and the host passed along a question from a listener. The audience member told Inskeep, "Please ask him how keeping the tax rate for the richest the same as it has been for a decade creates one single job." The president replied:

"It doesn't, which is why I was opposed to it -- and I'm still opposed to it.

"The issue here is not whether I think that the tax cuts for the wealthy are a good or smart thing to do. I've said repeatedly that I think they're not a smart thing to do, particularly because we've got to borrow money, essentially, to pay for them.

"The problem is, is that this is the single issue that the Republicans are willing to scotch the entire deal for. And in that circumstances -- in that circumstance, we've got, basically, a very simple choice: Either I allow 2 million people who are currently getting unemployment insurance not to get it, either I allow the recovery that we're on to be endangered, or we make a compromise now."

I've seen some suggestions in recent days that the president is somehow "flip-flopping" or abandoning the position he held before. One can consider the tax deal a disaster or a worthwhile agreement, but in either case, Obama's position really hasn't changed.

Dave Weigel put together an interesting item the other day, noting Obama's rhetoric on taxes during the presidential campaign. He highlighted four examples: a CNN interview in June 2007, a primary debate in April 2008, a campaign speech in May 2008, and a general election debate in October 2008.

In each case, the position was the same: then-candidate Obama intended to keep Bush-era rates in place for families making up to $250,000. For those who make more, they'd still get a cut on their first quarter-million in income, but would return to Clinton-era top rates.

But that's still his position. The president gave a speech in September, as the midterm election season started to heat up in earnest, and he talked up his approach to tax policy. There was no difference from the line he took back in June 2007.

There was no reversal and no "preemptive concession." If Congress had sent him the tax-cut compromise he designed, he'd have signed it in a heartbeat.

So why strike the deal? Because congressional Democrats balked at voting before the midterms; the party lost its leverage; the president got stuck in a box with limited options; and he negotiated the best deal he could against shameless adversaries while looking out for the middle class and the unemployed. The result is an agreement that credible liberal economists believe will have a positive impact on the economy.****

Love, hate, or tolerate the agreement, this isn't a "flip-flop."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive...hp#1868164

Darn Dems balking before the Midterms and now they they're complaining about the deal that does help the famous Middle class!

[SeattleGirl]

(12-10-2010 07:12 PM)Cha Wrote:  Steve Benen's take is similar and titled a "Model of Consistency"

December 10, 2010

So why strike the deal? Because congressional Democrats balked at voting before the midterms; the party lost its leverage; the president got stuck in a box with limited options; and he negotiated the best deal he could against shameless adversaries while looking out for the middle class and the unemployed. The result is an agreement that credible liberal economists believe will have a positive impact on the economy.****

Love, hate, or tolerate the agreement, this isn't a "flip-flop."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive...hp#1868164

Darn Dems balking before the Midterms and now they they're complaining about the deal that does help the famous Middle class!

The forkin' Dems are blaming Obama for picking up their slack! Well boo-freakin'-hoo! They should buck up and accept some responsibility here!

[jaxx]

Good, old fashioned, common sense. The President seems to be the only one in town who has any.

[NJMaverick]

Another good article on the subject

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive...027039.php

[Cha]

(12-12-2010 08:58 AM)NJMaverick Wrote:  Another good article on the subject

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive...027039.php

Thanks Mav..Steve Benen again explaining it. Of course what Pres Obama is doing is not "triangulation"..that's for lazy people/reporters.