That's right -- I'm calling this a unity diary. If I've done my job right, then by the end of this diary, people of all stripes of support and opposition for Administration policy will wind up agreeing with three things:
(1) Dick Durbin has been saying some bad things about Social Security
(2) We must be loud and strong in our opposition to Dick Durbin
(3) In doing so, we are supporting Obama (and maybe even Durbin too)
I'm sure that all of these are probably completely self-evident -- but just in case, I'll go through the motions of writing a diary. I will style it as a conversation with you, Faithful Reader, pretending that I can read your thoughts. For example, right now you are thinking that I think that I am more entertaining than I really am. I forgive you for this. Shall we get on with it?
Dispensing with the formalities
Let me guess: is it kabuki?
Your first guess is that I'm going to say that this is all kabuki. No! Well, not really. Not entirely. Maybe a little. But not more than a little. The real answers to the "is it kabuki?" question are (1) calling it kabuki hinders rather than fosters understanding of what's going on and (2) it doesn't matter because we should have the same reaction to it whether or not it's kabuki. (All shall become clear in time!)
I will say this: like kabuki, everyone has a role to play -- including us -- and Dick Durbin's role really sucks. Obama could ask for no better friend than him.
Oh -- then I think I know! Is it "11-dimensional chess"?
No, it's not "11th-dimensional chess." It's not even that hard to figure out. It would be fair to call it 3-dimensional chess, though. What we're seeing now is a tactic -- and it's one that doesn't lead to a pre-determined outcome. The Administration will have contingency plans, presumably, for what happens next -- and many different things could happen. Again, it doesn't matter, because every one of us here, from the most rabidly Obama-bashing hater to the most craven Obama-defending apologist [note to self: change these to less inflammatory terms before publishing] should be on the exact same page here. Our role is clear.
OK, I'm tired of guessing. What is our role?
All in time! First you have to understand the premises of the argument, how the inferences grow from the facts we can agree upon, why we see things take this form rather than ...
Please! For the love of God! Make it stop!
All right, fine! I'll get on with it. Stop me when you have questions. You use brown type, I'll use black.
OK
Obama's best friend in the Senate
Dick Durbin is, you may have heard, "Obama's best friend in the Senate." If the President is defending Social Security so strongly, as he more or less maybe is we think, then it certainly is more than passing strange that his best friend is out there telling us that he's going to make sure that we make unacceptable compromises to it. And Durbin's behavior seems highly self-defeating, even from Obama's perspective. Durbin says that Obama's position is the liberal boundary of the field of compromise with the preferred right-wing option. As Republicans have more or less explained, this option is:
* Processing the elderly into Soylent Green
* In plants with non-unionized labor
* Without health or safety inspections
* With exemptions from environmental regulations
* With government subsidies for building the plants in the United States.
This is not a favorable field of play. It makes "elderly shall subsist on cat food" into a moderate position.
So, why is Durbin doing this? Presumably, it's because Obama wants him to.
Aha! So that means that Obama is betraying us!
Not necessarily. Yes, it's possible that Obama is being totally disingenuous and wants Social Security to wither on the vine, but I don't see much reason to think so. The position he's aligned with -- that minor fixes are needed and can be addressed as need be with higher taxes on the wealthy -- is fine. But what's clear is that he wants Durbin's position to be in the discussion mix -- and that he wants it to come from Durbin.
Why from Durbin? I thought he was Obama's best friend in the Senate?
He wants it to come from Durbin because Durbin is Obama's best friend in the Senate.
Either you start explaining or this is going to turn into an Abbott and Costello routine
OK. I presume that Durbin and Obama are in close communication over Social Security -- how could they not be? Durbin is taking on a really thankless role, for which he deserves credit for courage and sacrifice: he's taking on us lefties, keeping us occupied and being Obama's lightning rod. I'm not happy with what Durbin's being saying, but he must be a great friend to Obama to be willing to take the abuse of speaking in ways that alienate his base.
You said it wasn't 11-dimensional chess! You promised!
Yeah, I don't think it's that complicated. Our reactions to Durbin are probably being monitored with great interest by the Obama team. Our reactions to Durbin are going to get more and more negative, too. (I sure hope so. I plan for mine to do so, anyway.) Obama can separate himself from Durbin for now and watch what we do, arguing that for now he has to stay above the fray. It's a great strategy if you have a friend good enough to be willing to catch your flak.
But why are they doing this at all?
Many reasons.
First, they may believe that some concessions from the left are appropriate either on policy grounds or due to the strength of right-wing opposition. (Being right matters only so much. At some point, there's also "what can you get passed?" And the Republicans have been better at that recently, no matter what Democrats do. Just look at who's on the talk shows!)
Second, they want to see us energized and mobilized to fend off the right-wing in the coming fight. My take is that Obama doesn't want us liberals weak; he wants us pissed. He just doesn't want us pissed at him. Personally, I find that Durbin's seeming betrayal is firing me up something fierce. I expect to be disgusted by Mark Warner's take on it. That's just depressing. But for Dick Durbin to start saying this? One of our best Senators? That has my rapt attention. Don't you think they knew we'd feel this way? We will mobilize in response to what Durbin is saying in a way that we would not mobilize if it were just Warner, McCaskill, and whoever else. (And that's important, because with a few exceptions we've been pretty poor at mobilizing since mid-2009. This criticism is less aimed at DKos -- although some of it fits -- than at Democrats in general.) We will have to explain the sorts of things presented in Joan McCarter's front page stories today -- and they will get attention because Dick Durbin is the one we're arguing with. That spells danger; danger means reaction. But note one thing: Obama himself is still talking like he's on our side. That's the hint that they don't want us to drop into a fetal position, but to start fighting back.
Third, they want to be seen as taking us on. Having Durbin turn against the Left with this blather puts on a good show for the Republicans; it's probably seem as almost a prerequisite for serious negotiations -- and, more to the point, for "serious" negotiations, those that the media will take seriously. That is, believe it or not, good for us, because of two things: (1) the facts are on our side and (2) it puts the pressure on the right wing to start talking about tax hikes on the wealthy. That's what they have to bargain with -- and so far they aren't doing it. Meeting Durbin even halfway means saying yes to tax hikes. Either they do it, and it busts the current logjam and creates wild infighting within the Republican Party, or they don't do it and they're not serious.
Our howling in pain at what Durbin is saying gives Republicans cover to compromise -- if they want to. But my guess is that Obama is guessing -- correctly -- that they won't budge to any substantial degree. ("Catfood be damned! We want our government subsidized Soylent Green factories now, damn you!" And we want the profits exempt from taxation!) Republicans will support no tax hikes on the wealthy, period. That "even Dick Durbin" is seeking compromise makes that position look all the worse. And that's good for us.
Yeah -- except that it means that we're going to end up with a terrible compromise!
No, it doesn't! We need to pound away at the facts here, but we shouldn't assume that Obama (or Durbin) really wants a compromise. We don't need a compromise because the Social Security system is secure and that failure to reach a compromise doesn't hurt us at all! What we want -- and what the Republicans won't be able to avoid -- is for the Republicans to be blamed for the failure!
We have a tremendous opportunity here. The Republican Party is a hostage to their fringe elements. We can put the Social Security issue on ice for another decade or two -- at which time a mild payroll hike for upper incomes will solve its problems. What we can achieve now is to make sure that when the public hears the words "Social Security" and "deficits" they will think back to how the Republicans blew their chance to negotiate back in 2011 because they were so afraid of the Tea Party.
For the rest of his political career, Dick Durbin will be shaking his head in interviews when the subject comes up and saying this:
I tried to solve these problems back in 2011. You wouldn't believe how hard I tried. You wouldn't believe the abuse I got from liberals. But the Republicans just would not compromise. We could have had a deal, but they couldn't get their act together. I could have brought the Democrats on board, but they weren't serious about solving the problem.
That's very touching, if wildly optimistic. But what do we do now?
I think we should start with another major section heading.
What everyone -- every single person -- on DKos should be doing now
We should support the President.
What??? If you think that an Obama critic like me is going to unquestionably support the President's actions just because he --
Hang on. What is the President saying?
That Social Security isn't broken and it can be fixed with minor changes in how much is paid by the wealthy
Do you have a problem with that?
Um ... no
So you're willing to support the President?
Yes -- but, but ... DURBIN!!!
Did I say you should support Durbin?
No
Is the President putting daylight between his position and Durbin's?
Yes -- but you're saying that he supports Durbin saying this!
Right. But he's not saying so. So we just take him at his word.
Great -- but you're forgetting one thing! I'm not actually an Obama critic at all! I'm actually an Obama defender! And so I'm not going to take a strong left-wing position against --
Hold on. Are you going to oppose the President?
Unpossible.
So, you're willing to take the same strong line in opposition for Durbin's calls to compromise, right?
Well, I would, but that makes compromise less likely, and that hurts the President, so I am helping the President by disagreeing with him. Owww, brain hurts!
Look -- the President wants people to take a strong position on Social Security, right? We have to get the message out to voters. We have to get our base fired up and reaching out. We need voters to be interested and active. We have to get them ready to blame the Republicans for any failure to achieve a compromise -- especially one that we know isn't worth achieving anyway.
So what you're saying is that, to help support Obama, to achieve a good policy outcome, to break the back and the spirit of the Republican Party, to save the nation and the world, I have to do the EXACT SAME THING as the people with whom I'm fighting with all the time on Daily Kos, and that THEY have to do the same thing with respect to me, so that we all work TOGETHER?
Yeah. We need to make our case strongly and attack what Durbin is doing, even if he's a decent guy who is really on our side, because he's playing his role and our role is to beat the stuffing out of him.
And you're sure that this isn't 11-dimensional chess?
No, 3-dimensional. 4-dimensional, tops. Maybe 5. But it doesn't matter, it's what we have got to do.
Just don't make me sing "Kumbaya"
Wouldn't dream of it. Now start reading Joan's diaries here and here and diaries from Obama defenders and critics and let's get our act together. There's a good chance that this will end up being fun!