Now I usually don't do these sort of reply diaries, but right now there's a diary up that presents Jerry Brown's budget fight as being some kind of shining example of how a progressive politician should behave in such a fight, compared to President Obama's behavior during his budget fight. This diary is disingenuous because in large part, the general approach of Brown and Obama are not as different as the diarist suggests.
For example, the diarist writes that:
First, he didn’t come out of the starting block with a compromise pleasing to the entrenched extremist Republican minority obstructing a tax increase (unlike a certain President we know).
But the diarist fails to mention the fact
that Brown "pre-compromised" by proposing a bunch of stiff budget cuts up front, in addition to calling for temporary taxes which were already in place to be extended. Cutting spending, increased taxes (on in Brown's case, continuing existing increased taxes) on the rich - sounds a lot like Obama's approach.
In addition, contrary to diarist's suggestion that somehow Brown has, unlike that spineless coward Obama, been uncompromising with Republicans, here's an article from last Saturday in the LA Times:
Gov. Jerry Brown called on Republican lawmakers Friday to return to the budget bargaining table, saying he's ready to cut a deal on pension and regulatory reform to help solve the state's fiscal crisis.
"What we need now is a deal," Brown said. "I've laid out most of the ideas, but then I'm negotiating with myself…. I want the other side to have a few ideas they can own and put in there."
Oh noes! Brown wants to cut a deal with Republicans and include their ideas! And he's negotiating with himself! What a sell-out!
And guess what else?
Brown, who has been using his bully pulpit to preach the need for more taxes to help close the deficit, said Friday that both political parties were to blame for the stalemate.
"You have Republican legislators who don't want to extend the taxes, and then you have Democrats who are wary of curbing some of the patterns of spending that people have gotten used to," he said, adding that he was doing his best to play sheriff in "the great shootout in the O.K. Corral."
Why is Brown pulling this Broderesque "both sides are responsible" crap? In fact he sounds just like...President Obama?
And here's an article from January which states:
Brown is calling for “shared sacrifice” from all sides: Republicans, Democrats, unions and business leaders.
Shared sacrifice? What is he, some mushy DLC-Third Way centrist? And where have I heard this stuff about "shared sacrifice" recently...oh yeah, I heard it from President Obama.
My point here isn't to tear down Brown in order to protect Obama. In fact I wish both had not asked for as much in spending cuts as they did, but I generally support both of them and appreciate the crappy situations they both are dealing with.
Rather, I want to point out just how disingenuous the diary in question was. The diarist fails to grasp or convey is that California is not representative of the United States. It is a liberal state where the Democrats control every major statewide office, where the Democrats bucked the national trend and scored a landslide victory in last November's elections, and where Democrats very nearly have a 2/3 majority in both the California Senate and Assembly. By contrast President Obama had to deal with a Republican House of Representatives, a closely divided Senate, and he did so just months after the Republicans won a landslide victory in the midterm election.
Nevertheless, for all of Brown's advantages vis-à-vis Obama, he is still employing largely the same approach as Obama, with a few stylistic differences. The reason why Brown's plan is resonating with California voters while Obama's isn't having the same success with American voters is that California voters are much more liberal than the average American voter. I'll bet you that if you polled California voters on whether they support the President's budget plan or the Republicans' plan, they would likely support the President's plan by a margin much larger than whatever national polls say, just as all polling of President Obama's approval in California shows a much higher approval than the national average. Because California is simply more liberal than the rest of the country.
But why spoil an opportunity to bash the President, right?