In the wake of the tax deal cut between Barack Obama and the Republicans, there has been a lot of debate - sometimes heated - between the factions pro- and con-.
In my anger over the deal, I typed up a pair of diaries - one of which I regrettably deleted where I compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain, and another titled "Where I apologize for comparing Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain," where my take was that Chamberlain was wrongly vilified for attempting to be pragmatic and avoid a war, where Obama was dealing with a political party whose stated goal is nothing short of his political destruction.
I don't think I was wrong about that comparison, because Chamberlain was in fact trying to avoid war, and Obama took a deal.
I still don't like the deal. For the sake of full disclosure, I am a financial advisor and I fully understand the economic implications of tax law, and more than likely at a higher level than those who are actually legislating the tax law.
I view the deal as nothing more than kicking the can down the road to our children (and their children). Our deficit is unsustainable. These tax cuts (coupled with some inflated spending) may lead to a decrease in our nation's sovereign credit rating. (Yes, deficits DO matter.)
Some weakening of our currency would be a good thing, I believe, for the simple reason that it will allow us to pay down our national debt with devalued dollars. The problem is managing a gradual and not-too-deep decline in the currency and not having hyperinflation.
Interest rates are going to need to go up sooner or later, and so are the taxes.
We have a national debt of nearly $14 trillon (13.892215 trillion as of the moment I type this sentence) and no mechanism in place to address it. And now, through this tax "deal", we have a revitalized group of supply-siders who are preaching the tax cut gospel, saying that they are the way to prosperity once again (completely ignoring 30 years of empirical evidence). (These are topics for an upcoming diary that I've been writing called "The Economic Consequences of the New Peace" in a nod to John Maynard Keynes. We can debate them then)
Now, let's look at some more unassailable facts. The Republicans do not negotiate in good faith.
Let that one sink in, because it bears repeating.
The Republicans do not negotiate in good faith.
The Republicans do not negotiate in good faith.
The Republicans do not negotiate in good faith.
Got it yet?
If you have a chance to cut this deal with an opposition that DOES negotiate in good faith, it is a significantly better deal. But we do not have an opposition that negotiates in good faith. We have an opposition that demands we take a step to meet them in the middle, and then takes two steps to further to the right and demands that once again, we meet them in the middle.
So yes, I stand by my belief that the deal was ill-advised, because we know that in two years' time that the Republicans will use this as an election issue.
Part of my previous discontent came from the apparent lack of spine by this President when it comes to the Republicans, and I still feel that is the case. After all, he and his staffers have bent over backwards to make this deal with the Republicans while lashing out at what they call the "professional left."
So, getting back to the title of this diary, am I wrong? I believe in many respects I AM wrong about this President.
I think that along with many progressive who were incredibly disheartened by the national disaster that was eight years of the Bush-Cheney cabal, I felt that the national distaste for Republicans would mean that for once, we could give real progressive ideas a try in Washington. I felt that liberalism might get a fair hearing, but I realize now that I was naive in that assessment.
The Republicans made one very correct point about Barack Obama during his candidacy for the Presidency - we didn't really know a whole lot about him. Actually, maybe we did, and just didn't give him a proper vetting because after eight years of the Bush-Cheney cabal, we were horrified at the prospects of another Republican occupying the oval office.
Maybe I even bought into a little bit of Republican hype too. Maybe I actually believed ater listening to all their histrionics that Barack Obama was in fact a liberal. But he's not.
That's not a bad thing, but I think I was wrong when I assumed that Barack Obama was a liberal, or progressive depending on how you want to term it.
What he is is a centrist. And if you look at his presidency through that prism, it's a lot easier to deem it a success than it would be if you hoped for a more wide-ranging implementation of the progressive agenda, as I did.
These last few days in the lame duck session, this congress and President have really thrown the left a bone with some meat on it. The repeal of DADT and the ratification of the new START treaty are huge wins - not just for the left, but for the world. And it was nice to get some wins, but I feel like we're setting ourselves up for a huge fight in two years.
So I think I was wrong about this President because my expectations were completely unrealistic. But I do believe that he, as well as the entire Democratic party had better get used to some truths about the Republican Party:
This thing isn't human. It feels no pain. It can not be reasoned with.
When we deal with an opposition that is as callous and craven as the Republican Party, we can not argue facts with them. We can not argue logic with them. We can not have a grown-up conversation with them. They are not interested facts, logic, or conversation. So we can not expect to have a give-and-take with them because they're not interested in giving.
The Republicans are more interested in getting home for Christmas than helping people who wish they had a job that would make them work Christmas day.
We need to stand up and fight them. Yes, even engage in some games of political "chicken" with them and make them own their disgusting policies. We have to take the fight to them, because the Democrats can not be an effective opposition party if their sole function is cleaning up the dung that the elephants leading the parade leave behind.
I have voted Democratic my entire adult life, mostly as a hedge against the Republicans. But I'm tired of voting against the Republicans. I'd rather have someone to vote FOR.
I'm frankly sick and tired of punching the Democratic ticket and saying "Well, at least they're not Republicans." But likely, that's just what I'll do in two years because the new breed of Republicans are hell-bent on finishing the job that Ronald Reagan started.
"That's a nice middle class you have there. It'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it."