During the 2008 presidential campaign opponents of then candidate Barack Obama, both in the primary and the general election, attacked him for being an elitist. Apparently, despite his modest roots, Obama was viewed by some as an elitist largely because he studied hard in school and managed to graduate from Columbia University, earn a law degree from Harvard University and work briefly as a professor of law at the University of Chicago. There is a deep strain of anti-intellectualism in American politics, as in many countries, so candidates with degrees from elite universities, particularly if those candidates speak well and demonstrate a capability for complex thought can expect to be attacked in this way.
Although many come from more privileged backgrounds than the president, the Republicans in the House of Representatives, on the other hand, cannot be accused of being elitists. On the contrary, they are contemptuous of formal education and wear their ignorance of the world and the economy as almost badge of honor. The contrast between the House Republican outlook and that of the president is extreme and playing itself out over the debt ceiling negotiations in a dire manner. Where President Obama, based on his negotiating strategy, sees a troubled but complex economy and recognizes the reality that failing to extend the debt ceiling would be a devastating mistake, the House Republicans see another opportunity to bang the anti-tax drum while continuing to live in an economic fantasy world where they can cut taxes and balance the budget either by magic or, failing that, by eviscerating what is left of the American economy and social fabric.
There are many reasons why the debt ceiling negotiations are difficult: the Republicans are used to winning in negotiations with Obama; both sides are going to have to concede something; the issue is extremely important and the Republicans are probably aware that they are in danger of losing their once promising political position heading into 2012 if they mishandle this situation. For the White House, the negotiations are frustrating because they highlight the difference between the president's ability to understand nuance, the complexity of a modern state and economy and the seriousness of stakes and the devolution of the Republican Party into a band of politicians sworn to fall on the sword of no taxes, and not concerned about whether or not they bring the whole country with them. At some point, maybe even in one of those elite universities, our elitist president learned the basics of how economies work and how compromise has to be reached. The Republicans in the House never got this and are therefore now almost incapable of engaging in a mature and serious dialog about the debt ceiling.
If the debt ceiling is not raised, the economic consequences for the U.S., and possibly the global economic system, will be severe and not easily ameliorated. The result will not simply be, as some Republicans, including presidential aspirants, suggest, that the U.S. will have learned some kind of lesson about fiscal responsibility, or that spending will simply be reduced. Instead, should the U.S. not increase its debt ceiling the country will likely face higher interest rates, another spike in joblessness, inability to pay basic expenses and other serious consequences, and, almost inevitably, higher taxes in the not too distant future.
Faced with this reality, Speaker of the House John Boehner is either unable to put enough Republican votes together in the House to pass a compromise that would still, on substance, be a victory for his party, or, along with the most extremist elements in his party, he also believes that a compromise which includes any increased revenue is so bad that is must be avoided even if doing so means doing serious damage to the national and global economy. Accordingly, Boehner has continued to cite the "Cut, Cap and Balance" legislation passed by the House last week but unlikely to go any further as evidence that it is the White House, not the Republicans that is being inflexible.
"Cut, Cap and Balance," seems like a potpourri of favorite Republican economic tricks including massive spending cuts, no new taxes and the initiation of a process calling for a balanced budget amendment. The legislation may be a respectable Republican starting point for the negotiation around the debt ceiling, albeit one that would probably devastate the economy, but Boehner and his supporters have implied that they will not negotiate any further.
Thus, we have have a president who believes, perhaps too much, in the value of compromise, often it seems simply for its own sake, a Republican majority in the House who seem to believe that compromise is always wrong, even if it is a compromise that is heavily weighted in their favor, and an economy that may very well collapse because of this.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Van Jones: Tuesday: Rallies Everywhere to Save the American Dream
Robert Kuttner: Obama Holds the Cards -- If He Will Play Them Well
Mohamed A. El-Erian: Americans Can Ill-Afford This Debt Ceiling Debacle
Clarence B. Jones: Compromise Does Not Preclude Drawing a Moral Line of Principle in the Sand
And the right attacking him as socialist is just plain laughable. Of course that also gets all of you defending him no matter why kind of repub things he does. Hmmm... almost seems like part of a plan...
What I believe the President needs to do is to be more aggressive and take the initiative in framing the debate. Instead of fighting the GOP on its own proverbial turf by talking solely about the debt, he needs to talk about jobs and the real economy, and make the public understand that drastic cuts in social spending (not to mention agreeing to the cap/cut plan) would in fact impede recovery rather than facilitate it.
Um, no. This is where progressives are seriously misguided. According to this theory, if you are offered a job at a fast-food restaurant for $8 an hour, all you have to do is counter by asking for $48 an hour, then you can settle in the middle for $28 an hour!
Doesn't work that way. The parameters of negotiation have to be in the general area of what someone is actually willing to do.
Barter is more like when you get an antique appraised by a pawnbroker, and the both of you haggle over the price. You don't start out asking precisely what you want. It's the same with selling a house, or buying a car--the seller usually negotiates by asking more than what they want.
Obviously, if I try to sell a 3-room shack for $238423904, nobody is going to take me seriously, so yes, the starting positions have to be within reason.
The GOP has been making out on every compromise thus far with the President, so it's hardly surprising that they feel they can get away with another lopsided deal. The goal of the GOP since the 30s has been to 'eviscerate' social programs, and this budget crisis provides the perfect pretext for doing it. They believe that they can bully Obama into accepting huge cuts in social spending.
First off Boehner is literally useless in his job. Becoming Leader of the House was a great achievement for him, but actually PERFORMING that job title is not only an inconvenience for a man of his character, it’s beyond his capabilities.
As you said, being unburdened with the complexities of real world politics he’s hoping stubbornness comes off as resolve. However not only is he incapable of negotiating with Obama, he’s unable to control the even more uneducated Tea Party caucus.
Secondly, Boehner committed one of the greatest acts of political suicide when he demanded a vote on the ridiculous Ryan plan. It may have slipped from the media, but all those Republicans who voted for killing Medicare are terrified of Democratic ads in 2012 showing them speaking their own words.
They can malign Obama all they want between then and now, but they know unless they can undo what’s been done, they’re doomed.
So, what you’re also seeing now is an attempt to win a do over from Obama. If they can force him to substantially cut into Medicare or other entitlement programs, the Dems lose their ultimate 2012 electoral weapon.
Offering Obama a six month extension means they can try again closer to election time and Obama knows this.
Boehner’s behaviour is driven by incompetence and the very real fear of political decimation unless they can undo the Ryan Plan fiasco.
"This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base."
-George W. Bush
Zero sense of irony, these types.
His inexplicable ignorance, utter lack of sensibility, and singular ability to render political satire redundant for 8 straight years will make him a legend to future generations.
McConnell made it very clear he champions party over country at any cost and is intent upon removing Obama (or any other Democrat I presume) as the first priority. Every tactic the GOP/Tea Party is attempting focuses solely upon furthering an ideology of centralized power and refusal to accept any culpability for any negative consequence. The collective votes of McConnell and Boehner have yet to repudiate this GOP/Tea Party platform.
Spend some time checking out his voting record and public utterances and it will be perfectly clear that he is not just a Republican but an anti-Democrat. During the first two years of Obama's presidency, Mr. Boehner voted no to nearly every bill that came before him in the House. Since he's been Speaker, his vote is usually listed as "Speaker," (meaning that it's tradition for the Speaker to skip votes). He gets the "benefit" of being able to talk his game without having to back it up with a vote. Of course, we Democrats who are represented by Mr. Boehner haven't been represented for such a long time that it's of no consequence when he skips a vote.
As for Mr. Obama, it's too bad he's NOT an ideologue. Maybe he could at least understand why Social Security, Medicare, and the various safety nets are needed for people who will never be his definition of "elite
Oh, he understands that quite well. You need to understand that if no changes are made to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they will run out of money.
Medicare and Medicaid have never been totally transparent, but they are far less expensive than individual insurance company's charges. Had our Congress and POTUS worked for a fair health system such as some other countries have, we would have been in a far better place than we are now.
Consider SSI and Medicare are the nation's rent/mortgage and utilities payment. Every "family" budget I've seen has always had those items as first to pay. If we can't pay what's important, we need to start cutting in places less important.
-Hillary Clinton
"This is an accurate quote, but also a misleading one in that it completely omits the context. Senator Clinton was not addressing the general public, but rather a group of relatively WELL-TO-DO DEMOCRATS attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer. And her statement specifically specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
I mean, who can be against equality?
Then you dig a bit deeper and find out that "equality" really means fighting over a shrinking pie so that everyone gets the same crumb- EXCEPT of course- for the elites- whom they will NEVER get rid of- who STILL get to enjoy the steaks and cavier.
So, folks, would you rather have a hamburger- knowing that somewhere someone who is not part of the Elite is enjoying a steak? Or would you rather have a bowl of rice- eating it in the comfort that 90% are also reduced to eating rice?
Personally, I'll take the burger and live with the fact that others not in the top 1/10 of 1% have it better than I. But that's just me.
The debt ceiling has not been the issue because both sides will vote to make it happen. But both sides have also used it to bargain with for their strategy. The GOP wants spending reductions and the Dems want more spending. That's the dilemma for compromise
And no, the Democrats are not arguing for *more* spending. Last I checked, they agreed to a lot of spending reductions, just not as much as you want. President Johnson and the Great Society left a while ago. Kennedy too - by the way, how do think he made sure "qualified people were in place to make (going to the moon) happen?" Did they work for free?
Check the linek below so that you will see that the deficits under Bush pale in comparison to Obama.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
will continue to decline. Congress isn't changing our basic mode of operation. The Panama, Korea
and Columbian treaty will remove more jobs. We will remove even more money by the trade deficit,
More investment money will be transferd overseas, at the same more and more legals and illegals
without jobs will enter the country. They have to be supported by higher taxes. which lowers
consumer spending. we will have to spend more on education and health care, but because of
the trade deficit and overseas investments plus the cost of our 900 military bases we will have
less money available to spend. Explain how we can survive.
The reason for the spectacle--which has been and will be the manner of politics for the foreseeable future--is that the country has become a democracy in name only. It's really not even a plutocracy, although this explains how it came to no longer be a democracy. The plutocrats who stole away with all the country's wealth largely in the form of cash don't want to be bothered running the country. That's what they buy politicians for. The plutocrats don't want to be bothered with the frustrations, rigmarole, and publicity of politics. For the purely, supremely greedy, only making money holds interest, and with this ways to invest and spend it.
It's being said that the country is becoming a third-world country (although this term has been passe for some time now). This is so especially with the degree of the hold the uber-wealthy have on the economy and political system and the ruthlessness, visciousness, indifference, and absolutism they emply to keep this hold. But looking just at the surface as related in the media, the country is coming more to resemble Italy--i. e., a comical, laughable, and feckless political system and an economy and social system which function from degrees of barely to effectively in different regions of the country.
Furthermore, one of the reasons for the present muddled, aimless state is that power is not concentrated manifestly or sufficiently in any body or any office (e. g., the presidency). Thus all the shouting and posing, the style of brinkmanship. Underlying all this is the question of just what democracy is, or if it is even in effect any more. But such questions do not arise unless the form of government is being questioned.
Some are using the term "financialization" for what has happened and to describe the current condition. I am not drawn to this term however because I find it too narrow, relevant as it is. What is happening to the lower and middle classes is as historically significant and notable as what has happened to the wealthiest and the financial class.
What one wants, I think, is a term embracing the breadth and irreversibility of the change. But I don't have one yet--other than common word such as mess and free-for-all.