On 2010-11-10, at 10:25 PM, SA wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 9:29 PM, Marv Gandall wrote:
>
>
>>> If compromise is motherhood and apple pie, why are the Republicans in this poll opposed to it?
>>
>> What incentive do they have to compromise? It is the Obama administration which has given way on each occasion
>
> True, but then why do the Democrats in the poll keep favoring compromise?
It is deeply embedded in the culture, especially among liberals, to favour compromise rather than confrontation - which is often necessary, but in certain circumstances can be self-defeating - and it requires leadership to both recognize such circumstances and to educate and organize the membership for a possible confrontation when it becomes necessary to do so. The timid Obama administration is emphatically not that kind of leadership, nor is there a politically coherent and organized opposition at the base of the party which could substitute for it and undertake this task.
> In nuclear strategy, Paul Nitze used to propound the doctrine of "escalation dominance." If a crisis escalates, and each side fires its weapons, the chain of escalation will eventually reach a rung where one side runs out of weapons. That side will find itself disarmed and lose catastrophically. Knowing this in advance, it will seek to avoid confrontation from the beginning, and will always preemptively concede. I think the Democrats are in the position of the side with fewer weapons. For example, based on the poll I cited, the population seems to contain at least twice as many anti-compromise Republicans as anti-compromise Democrats. In that situation, it may well be prudent for Democrats to concede in advance.
The hallmark of this administration has been nothing other than offering "prudential" concessions in advance, so your strategic advice to it is both redundant and a proven failure. I evidently can't persuade you or Charles or Woj that the administration was in a stronger position than the Republicans and the bankers when it first took office, and that seizing the initiative as Roosevelt did in similar, albeit not identical, circumstances would have almost certainly have produced a better outcome. Could it have been any worse? The administration "lost catastrophically" not because it had fewer weapons, but because it refused to assemble and fire those it had, especially when it became clear that it was under attack by an uncompromising foe.
> You cite polls showing the popularity of rescinding tax cuts for the rich. Progressives are always citing polls that show the popularity of their issues. There's nothing wrong with the polls, but polls don't tell you how an actual political confrontation will play out.
No, polls can't guarantee the outcome, but like anecdotal evidence and past political experience, can help serve as a guide to action. Progressives like yourself who don't like the results of polling data are always citing the unreliability of polls.
> Think about the health care debate. All the polls showed that universal coverage was popular. Obama had won agreements from the lobbies not to oppose the bill. Major Republican politicians had already endorsed individual insurance mandates (the bill's least popular element) in the past. How could Obama lose?
>
> Well, the Right had more ammunition. They had flesh-and-blood human beings -- not telephone poll respondents -- show up to town halls and yell about death panels. They had propaganda outlets with millions of views and listeners yelling about socialism. The popularity of Obama's reform -- which was originally high -- plummeted in the polls. Moderate Democrats started wavering and demanding concessions. The concessions sparked outrage from numerically few but vocal liberals. The bill seemed to be in deep trouble. The Right smelled blood in the water and refused all compromise. Etc. In the end, the bill passed but health reform -- Obama's greatest "accomplishment" -- is now a major political liability.
Well, this is the party line which you, Charles, and Woj have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Those bad boys on the other side just refuse to play nice! The Obama administration, says the Obama administration, is in no way the architect of its own misfortune, and you dutifully scratch your chins and nod.
> My real point about Obama is that it's not helpful to fulminate about the weakness and betrayals of politicians. The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves.
I don't fulminate. Nor do I consider the bourgeois leadership of the DP to have "betrayed" its working class base; it is what it is, as Carrol would rightly say. But within the framework and limitations of bourgeois politics, and set against the needs of a system in crisis, and its own narrow partisan party interest, it has most certainly shown itself to be...weak.