There's an analogy I've made about Obama's method of negotiation here and elsewhere comparing it to a person buying a car. In my analogy I describe somebody going into a car dealership and yelling at the top of their lungs, "I AM NOT LEAVING HERE WITHOUT A CAR!" The sales people salivate and get right down to "negotiating". In the end the guy walks out with a car, sure, but he's ended up paying a hell of a lot more for it than he should have.
The reason why Obama never seems to get the change we want is because he has never made walking away an option. Republicans know full well when they negotiate with him that they need not give up a thing. They can sit there while Obama hands them everything they've ever wanted because they know he won't walk away from the table.
This is what drives me nuts, but it's also what drives me nuts about us.
Today in politics we are left with a pretty terrible choice. We have Obama, somebody who's policies bare far greater similarity to Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bob Dole than they do to any of the more notable Democrats in our history. Then our other options all seem to boil down to crazy, crazier, or craziest. But at some point if you want to win in a negotiation you have to be willing to walk away.
The Public Option, Tax Cuts, etc
The recurring theme in the legislative negotiations of Obama and the Democrats is that they come to the table with the presumed compromise position. This compromise position always throws progressive positions under the bus. It's not that I object to that on partisan grounds; I object to it on practical grounds. The public option would help. The tax cuts for the wealthy hurt. This isn't about us vs. them, it's about sound governance.
Inevitably from that position of pre-compromise, Republicans pull it apart, trying to delay and damage the initial proposal. They can do this with the full knowledge that Obama will never leave the table, but Obama sits there and does it because he knows we will never leave the table. That he can sacrifice countless sound policy proposals from the left as fodder in his negotiations because we will still show up and vote for him. It's either that or the crazies, right?
Short Term vs. Long Term thinking
So I would put it to the community here that supporting Obama just because he's the Democrat against the Republicans is ultimately to our detriment if we want to see our policy goals met. He has to know that if he crosses us, he will pay a price for it, much as the right knows they will pay a price from the tea partiers. That yes, this could hurt us in the short run and, yes, it might mean a Republican getting elected, but in the long run we need a Democrat who will make the case we need them to make.
I'm sick and tired of Obama selling us out and then attacking us for being too purist and idealistic. He's the one who was out there talking about change and "yes we can", so who's the idealist? Now he comes to us saying, "no I can't" and "you can suck it, progressives". So long as he can do this with impunity, without fear of losing our votes, he will do so. We need a Democrat who will actually fight for what's important instead of caving on a daily basis and undermining our policy arguments.
The Next Two Years
Obama now has two years of dealing with a Republican house and a weakened Senate to look forward to. I suppose it's possible he could suddenly figure out how to make a stand, but I find it doubtful. I think the odds are pretty good that at the end of two years he's got a deficit deal worked out with Republicans that undermines Social Security, cuts important government programs, and "simplifies" the tax system.
After those two years he'll run for reelection on the supposition that no matter what he does, we'll back him. He doesn't fear a primary. Though I would LOVE to see somebody give that a try. He doesn't fear us not showing up in 2012 because we loathe the Republican alternative. But truth be told, if it's any Republican short of Sarah Palin, I'm going to think about it REAL carefully. If Obama is still doing his best Ronald Reagan impersonation, where's the harm in a Republican winning? At least then we can draw a clear distinction between how we want the country to work and how Republicans do. Then four years hence we can have a real Democrat run for office and actually fight for that change we were lead to believe in.
Oh and one other thing...
For those of you who will inevitably make comments about noses, spite, and faces, let me reiterate my point here. You cannot do well in a negotiation unless you are willing to leave the table. You must be willing to get nothing in order to get what you really want. Too long Democrats have compromised for "something" and then tried to polish those turds and call them gold. It's only possible if the base permits it, and if you want real change, then you have to be willing to get nothing now in the hopes of getting better things later.