On 2010-11-10, at 3:56 PM, c b wrote:
>> I'd say compromise. I believe the
> Reps have them in a bind because the tax cuts for the working class
> are tied to the tax cuts for the rich. ( I have to check on this) The
> Blue Dogs are Dogs and unreliable to win. I would say compromise to
> save the tax cuts for the working class.
Why are you so certain that the Democrats would lose a showdown on this issue? Did they suffer politically from the Gingrich-led Republicans closing down the government after the Clinton midterm fiasco? Its widely viewed to have been a turning for his administration.
The issue is about the Republicans tying the tax cuts for the masses to the tax cuts for the rich. Otherwise known as blackmail.
They're counting on Obama to be "prudent" and to compromise in advance - that is, without a fight - in line with his practice to date and the advice proferred by SA. Sadly, this seems to be your reflex too.
Unless it's clear from the beginning that the strength of other side is so overwhelming that it's in a position to dictate terms, you don't compromise before a fight. You only do so later - and only if, or for as much as, you need to. Any good politician, capitalist, trade unionist, or, um, revolutionary, knows this.
Your operating premise from the beginning has been that the Republicans and Wall Street are so dominant that it was never possible for Obama's administration to pass anything other than the most modest reforms in health insurance and financial regulation and an ineffective stimulus bill. Card check, the closure of Guantanamo, and other promises would never even see the light of day. It seems the only measures certain of passage are the ones you oppose - education "reform" and an escalation of the war in Afghanstan.
If that's the case, you've not only misread the real relationship of forces, but it's hardly consistent with your enthusiastic support for Obama during his campaign. You either decided not to share your deeper knowledge of the prospects at the time, in which case you were misleading us. Or you quickly concluded after the election that stronger reforms compatible with capitalism in crisis, of the kind his liberal and radical (and even conservative) critics were calling for, were never within reach, in which case you misled yourself about the significance of his election victory, but are unwilling to concede as much.
So, yes, for the above reasons, I think Obama should try to push through a tax bill letting the cuts expire for those earning 250,000k and higher. Let the Republicans howl and threaten to block the measure for everyone. Turn the spotlight on them and call it for what is is: blackmail on behalf of the rich. It is not likely to happen, but I think there would be a good chance for Obama and the DP to make gains on this issue. Even if a stalemate ultimately ensues which requires compromise to save the tax cuts for the working class, as you fear, Obama will not be seen as a spineless compromiser who surrenders to Republican blackmail without a fight.
The Republicans have tied them to the tax cuts for the rich.
> Preserving these tax cuts
> would be good in the sense that it might piss off the sincere Tea
> Partiers who might thereby come into conflict with the regular
> Republicans. Also, I never have vilified the liberal Democratic
> critics of the administration as ultra-left. I support Conyers,
> Kucinch, Kaptur, et al. I criticize, not vilify, the ultra-lefts (who
> emphatically characterize themselves as not-Democrats ) for not
> developing the rhetoric and arguments against the ultra-right. They
> reach this bizarre conclusion of only criticizing Democrats, and think
> nobody notices that they don't criticize the right and Reps as much as
> they criticize the Democrats. This is objectively rhetorical unity
> with the Republicans and right-wing, i.e backing into right-wing
> political discourse in this concrete situation. They have horrible
> concrete analysis of the concrete situation; they are very
> non-Leninists.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk