Glad to see you back Adam!

First of all, no worries about being critical of my comments. I do like a good debate.

Certainly Obama could have tried to fight the Republicans tooth and nail on the tax cuts for the wealthy. And he could have launched a nationwide campaign to try to educate people on the fallacies of trickle down economics. But could any of this have had a chance of working within the couple of weeks left this year? Was it worth risking NOT extending the middle class tax cuts and NOT extending unemployment benefits, regardless of whether or not he might have “won” in the end? I really think that the “deal” was the pragamatic choice leading to the least bad result in the short term.

Further, in the big picture long-term view, this may have been a battle worth “losing”. In 2012 we’ll likely either re-elect Obama or elect a Republican as president. Assuming you still prefer the former outcome (if you don’t, then that’s another discussion), then what was the best strategy here? I think he may have found it.

By embracing all ideas for improving the economy, no matter how specious, he is, in fact, increasing the chances of a decent recovery by 2012. If there is a decent recovery by then, he’s almost a shoe-in for re-election (as history has proven). On the other hand, if the economy is still in the tank, now at least the case can be made that we tried everything and NOBODY’s ideas (Democratic or Republican) worked to extricate us from this mess. That’s a much better position to be in for a re-election campaign than if he had vetoed all opposing views for two years, thus making it “clear” that the failed recovery is his doing.

I believe the economy will very likely still be in the tank in 2012 (because of the size of the bubbles that have burst, and because jobs won’t be coming back due to offshoring and automation advances). In that case, it’s only smart for Obama to let Republicans get some skin in the game so that they can also share the blame. Then, moving forward, as we try to find a way to adjust the national psyche to an economy with persistent 10%+ unemployment and an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, I’d much rather have a Democrat in charge than a Republican, regardless of whether he’s as strong a leader as we’d like.

As Bill Maher put it, let’s not confuse a friend in whom we’re disappointed with an enemy out to eat our souls. Could Obama do better? Sure. Is he still our best option at this point? It sure seems like it.

Regarding the collapse of the old conservative brand, it has happened across the Western world:

- In Canada, we witnessed the implosion of the Progressive Conservative Party in the 1980′s (allowing the Liberals to be without opposition for 13 years) and when the Canadian right finally reconstituted itself as the Conservative Party in the early years of the new millenium, well, it’s economic and taxation policies mirrored that of your ‘Republicans’.

- In Britain, the rise of Thatcherism in 1979 to the tune that Reagon would later dance to brought about the “war as a popularity grab” problem now infecting the right, and culminating when even the Labour Party under Tony Blair moved away from its traditional left-wing philosophy towards the centre and strong support for the “new” conservatism.

- The return of a conservative-libertarian faction to control the government of France and the presidency under Nicolas Sarkozy.

- In Australia, the Labour Party still manages to cling to power, but is slowly but surely loosing ground and support.

http://did101.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/flashpoints_prt1/

To take your comments in order:

The position you (and Obama) have taken on the compromise is based on false premise that those were the only two options. There were plenty of ways that the legislation could have been structured which have avoided the “hostage” scenario. The easiest would have been to decouple the two policies — do one tax bill and another unemployment bill. By allowing the Republicans to conflate the two, this outcome was almost inevitable. He let them pick the turf, which is bozo no-no #1 in any kind of a battle.

Your comment also seems to assume that resolving this issue would free congress to work on other things for the rest of the session. But of course the Republicans won’t let that happen — they’re against almost the entire rest of the agenda (DADT, START, etc.), and have just been trained that they don’t have to engage in debates that they don’t like their odds of winning. Like any good dog, when the next bell goes off they’ll salivate all over again. Remember Bill Clinton’s famous statement to the effect that insanity is when you keep doing the same things and expecting a different outcome.

As I’ve said ad nauseam, the particular issue here pales against the backdrop of a feckless President who can’t be trusted to fight for even his own (avowed) principles. I don’t seriously believe — as some on the left seem to — that he’s actually a centrist and that we were snookered in the ’08 election (though it’s getting harder and harder to defend him on that count). I think that he just hasn’t grown into his shoes as President…that he hasn’t accepted that he can’t do the job without both giving and getting some punches. He seems to play rope-a-dope, or perhaps better to say that he refuses to understand that engaging in the fight actually affects the outcome (on substance) and that American’s will have more respect for him for fighting and getting a bad outcome than they will for rolling over and getting a marginally better one. Leadership means inspiring people to trust you, and he gets a big fat ‘F’ on that. It kills me to say it, but there’s no denying it at this point. His political failures drive his policy failures, and it’s only going to get worse until he stops being such a f**king pussy.

To your last point, I understand the theory but it would be impossible in practice. There are already too many ways to manipulate the tax code, and the IRS wouldn’t stand a chance against the army of accountant and lawyers who would make billions off of finding ways to exploit the complexity. But again, I have to take issue with the premise (sorry….) It’s something approaching tragic that the trickle-down meme and it’s various close cousins on the tree of ideas haven’t been driven to extinction. It’s simply inaccurate economics.

Here’s one of many reasons it’s wrong: If I own a small business and my decisions are REALLY driven by trying to avoid the marginal increase for my income above some threshold, then my rational response would be to to leave money in the business to grow it so that I increase the enterprise value. That way I avoid current taxes, and when I do monetize that increase in value by selling the company, it’s taxed at the much lower capital gains rate. While this would admittedly not apply to all businesses (some aren’t grown for an exit), on a macro level the reinvestment would (I believe) more than offset any fictional negative effect that they claim (which is that people stop selling things when they start to get close to that threshold because they find the prospect of paying a slightly higher rate on those extra profits so repellent).

The problem is, simply, that the Democrats allow crackpot economic theories to fester on the political landscape unchallenged. They should be scoffing at this kind of BS, not legitimizing it rolling over like a fat hooker on a Saturday night whenever they encounter a pack of lies.

Obama has always recognized that he needs to choose his battles, and while he may not always have done so wisely, this one was probably not a battle worth turning into a full scale war. In the 2012 election season the “tax cuts for the rich” will be on the table again and should be an election theme. In the meantime, I’d rather the president and congress focus on the big picture view of our debt and deficit instead of getting knotted up in this one irreconcilable difference.

BTW, I’ve had a thought, and please let me know where this idea misses the mark. It seems that the Republicans’ primary reason given for extending tax cuts for the wealthy is to not slow down the recovery by taking money away from those who can create jobs. I don’t necessarily agree that the tax increase we’re talking about would significantly impact the recovery, but put that aside for the moment. If this really is the Republicans’ motivation, then why not offer a compromise where taxes go up on the wealthiest 2% *except* for those who run small businesses with employees *and* who have their business income pass through on their personal tax returns? Wouldn’t that target the exact people the Republicans claim to be concerned about?

I’ll admit this idea would likely never fly. But the main reason I like the idea of proposing it is because it would force Republicans to admit their *real* reason for wanting to extend tax cuts to the rich — to simply keep themselves and their rich donors richer.

You’d struggle to find polls that show America is not a Center-Right nation. Even California, the State that elects the most flaming Liberals, can’t push through Gay marriage or legalizing dope.

The word “socialist” has a particular meaning, and refers to a particular political philosophy.

Correct mostly. The most standard and rigid definition refers to State owned methods of production. That is, literally, the State owns the companies. While we are clearly a LONG ways from that, the other variants and forms of Socialism are alive and well in the mind of Obama and others on the Left.

Consider this:

Cultural Dictionary

socialism definition

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise.

Clearly when those of us who favor free and open markets refer to Obama and his ilk as “Socialists” we don’t mean that he is trying to obtain government control of companies, we mean that he is trying to establish government control of the market.

That is, to control who and how things are made and who and how people are paid and compensated. It’s less of “Government Ownership” than it is “Redistribution of Wealth”. If you wanna call THAT something else, label it and I’ll call Obama and ya’ll THAT. Until then, please, come down from the “Oh my God tree” and calm yourself on the word games.

The push to which I referred was

Interesting. But I was replying to Ferguson, not to you. My point to him, and now to you, is that there has been a second push. That we were pushed to the Right, or –to your point– AWAY form the Left is very clear.

rather a political failure of the Democrats.

You make it sound like you guys didn’t put up enough campaign signs or man the calling stations well enough. When the fact is that while the nation was/is fed up with Republicans who act like Democrats, we REALLY don’t like Democrats who act like Socialists.

a wonderful job of channeling Sarah Palin. Congrats — keep it up! The best chance we have of holding the White House in 2012

Clever. Never would have thought you’d play the Palin Gambit. I am without retort.