What A Successful Bluff Doesn't Look Like

[jpgray]

The President is, for whatever reason, much more anxious to appear serious about deficit reduction than the GOP, who never have been anxious to appear serious about it.

The President is heartlessly cruel if he is willing to sacrifice half the liberal totems he's offered up for collapsed potential deals; it's likely he is not willing or prepared to really go through with those sacrifices.

In that case he is scraping the security and dignity of millions forward and back again on the bargaining table like a game marker, over and over, with pundit belief in his sincerity as the prize.

This is enormously, carelessly disrespectful to all who cherish or need those programs. Not just because the stake is made up with something so desperately important, but because the takings after the "bluff" are so depressingly small. I don't know what backhanded compliments from David Brooks are worth, but I wouldn't give a single gramma a moment's disquiet about anything, let alone her very livelihood and health, for such a cheap prize.

The GOP will never be abandoned by the media as unserious about the deficit, no matter how ridiculously plain it is that they are unserious. They don't want a deal and never have.

Obama is making it awkward by having them refuse more and more generous gifts, but even if the refusal is a given every time, what he is offering is ours. The real treasures of the New Deal and the Great Society should be above being cast as tokens in phony deal-making for the sake of mild GOP discomfort; even the safest, surest certainty of refusal doesn't change that, does it?

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. The biggest bluff of all:

Is in the party who sells tax reduction as their main objective, knowing that the largest tax burden is consumed by senior citizens, who are also their own base.

Obama can play chicken with them on this, it really doesn't matter much. The Republicans are invested entirely in an information game, maintaining a base who "wants government OUT of their social security!". Obama's options are win and win.

[jpgray]

3. Suppose a gator has lockjaw and will never clamp down

It's still less than classy to hold grammas between its gaping jaws for cheers from the crowd, no?

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. I agree, I don't think its classy when Republicans do that.

Threatening to cut programs which sustain seniors. But still, this is much of the Fox demographic, these older folks. And they don't vote for Obama. I think the great mistake a lot people make is thinking that people who prefer peace, prefer helping, can't be hardcore. That's what won Obama the last election, when after his gentleness he came out swinging against Romney, and Romney was seen as having been attacking 110% all along, it looked like the gentle cool guy at school smashing down the perpetually shit talking bully after he had enough. Its a big surprise when you find out that the knocked down guy, the beaten guy, actually isn't any of the above, he was just patient and self-controlled, isn't it? So long as Republicans beat the bully drum, they will always be giving Obama the chance for an extremely well time punched in the mouth that will let him win. And that's (IMHO) what you have here, Obama raising his fist just a little bit to remind them there is more to life than information manipulation, there are fundamentals that don't go away when we stop believing in them.

PEace!

[HiPointDem]

6. 45% of people 65 and over voted for obama in '08. so yes, 'older folks' *do* vote for obama.

nearly half.

[napoleon_in_rags]

7. But do we have to be held hostage while Republicans threaten to harm the 55% who are their own base?

Because they are just that loco but we aren't, we should allow this to be a way they endlessly control us through hostage manipulations? No. At some point you have to stand your ground.

[HiPointDem]

8. i doubt that 55% of seniors are their base. I think there's quite a bit of swing in those percents.

It depends on what the conditions are & what each candidate is offering.

It's a mistake to go in thinking that just because 55% vote for the pub this year, they are pub 'base'.

and no, we shouldn't be held hostage. is that what's happening though? i have my doubts. i think that's partly just an excuse to justify policies our own guys want.

again, they tell us, e.g. 'oh, the pubs have a base of 55% of seniors'. but actually, a majority of *all* seniors don't want changes to SS.

so if *our guy* were the one holding the line on SS, some of that supposed 'base' would move to our side.

unfortunately...

[napoleon_in_rags]

11. The thing is, the hostages WON'T be hurt.

The Republicans have too much of an investment in them. So Obama putting forth this offer and having it refused doesn't bother me so much. Its basically a signal to move the debate elsewhere, Obama isn't falling for this one... He pretended to fall for it for a bit, but he's not. At least that's how I see it.

so if *our guy* were the one holding the line on SS, some of that supposed 'base' would move to our side.

That's the issue though, the modern political game is SO much about information manipulation and bullshit, the fundamentals of what actually happened/is happening/will happen actually get lost in the fray. So much of this demographic depends on Fox news, they will be told about how Obama wants to kill them even as he alone tries to save them. So somewhere along the line you have to ask what's the point in doing constantly punished good deeds? And trust in the political calculus of the Republican leadership not to go down this road when push comes to shove if we don't choose to act.

[HiPointDem]

12. "the modern political game is SO much about information manipulation and bullshit"

i certainly agree there. and yes, what's the point? more fundamentally, who, exactly, is being bullshitted? it ain't the republicans. it ain't the democrats. they're the bullshitters.

it has to be us. both sides are playing the public. which isn't democracy at all.

[napoleon_in_rags]

15. Maybe.

I like talking about politics, but sometimes its a little like talking about a football game. But you bring up the fact that we are being bullshitted by all, and all the sudden the TV, the game, has been turned off. You're no longer talking to a Seahawks fan, you're now talking to ME. In a quiet room with no noise.

Of course we're being bullshitted. Its wrong to place the blame simply on the political parties, because our entire culture is doing it, through skeezy religions, through ads, through this that and the other thing. Bullshit has become language, more than that it has become capital, it has become currency. People trade bullshit facts, they try to take bullshit to the bank and cash it in. And often it pays off, short term.

But the rebellion against all this has no name, it has no brand, it has no church, it has no party. Its a very personal thing we have to do locally, with each other and with ourselves, finding the truth. Honestly even discussing it online is kind of pointless. Its the taste of a beer with a friend, its the sun, its your vegetable garden.

So that said, if you don't mind, I'm going to turn the game back on. Go Seahawks!

[HiPointDem]

16. "Its a very personal thing we have to do locally, with each other and with ourselves"

maybe to you.

[napoleon_in_rags]

23. "media" is a word who's meaning has been lost.

It refers to the intermediate agency between what happened, and those who hear about it. Media is about information, and dependency upon it always makes us vulnerable to BS, because information about the thing isn't the real thing. To avoid that, we have to connect with what's real, what's present.

I say tapping away on the keyboard.... Arrgh!

Okay, time for a DU break for me. Peace!

[HiPointDem]

26. the power structure is designed specifically to put such intermediaries between the people and

the powerholders.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Do you think that those *dependent* on SS are big Republican voters?

People with total family income under $30,000 voted 63%-35% in favour of Obama. The elderly whose main income is Social Security will mostly be Democratic voters. Yes, there can be a point at which the Republicans say "screw it, we've lost those people already - we'll go with the 'cut SS' proposal, the low-information voters who think they're about to get rich and thus won't need SS will thank us for it (like they thank us for high end tax cuts they'll never benefit from), and we can say "the Democrats cut Social Security" to get the Democratic base to stay at home".

[still_one]

2. I do not believe it is a bluff.

[grasswire]

4. plus the fact that offering up Dem principles ....

.... nullifies their value in elections.

IOW, when compromise is offered on long-protected turf issues, those issues are lost to Dems.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. The attitude is tax cuts for the rich are core to the Republicans,...

....so Democrats have to give on their core beliefs.

This, of course, IGNORES the fact that Republicans had their asses handed to them in the election.

This "the country is evenly divided" myth in DC has to end. This is NOT a "50/50 country" the way the DC Media likes to claim and America just said loud and clear that "Populism" is Popular.

[tblue]

10. BRAVO!

I always think that way. Why toy with vulnerable people's sense of security? Why make them worry? It's downright cruel.

And that is assuming he is even opposed to the cuts he proposes. I don't believe he is.

This is really pissing me off. We need a champion in the White House. A principled, Democratic champion. Not this.

Thanks for a much-needed post!

[BrotherIvan]

13. I'm going to get myself a new bumper sticker (and I hate bumper stickers)

THE THIRD FUCKING RAIL:
DON'T FUCKING TOUCH IT

[TrollBuster9090]

14. I agree, Obama needs to show more passion in defense of the Great Society, BUT...

But...I'm not so sure the 'bluff' has be unsuccessful. Here's why:

1. He WON the election, despite economic numbers that would otherwise have killed him. Why? Because he appeared to be the only adult in the room, which was his strategy from the start.

2. A record number of people now have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. Why? Because they appear to be irrational, inflexible, and yes...unserious, to everybody EXCEPT one issue voters, wedge issue voters, BRAND loyalists, and various other people who are not acting rationally.

The strategy is working. It isn't pretty, but it's working. The idea that the Republicans are an irrational, inflexible party, driven by dogmatism, racism and xenophobia; while the Democrats are rational and willing to compromise is taking hold. It's the new narrative which will soon be as powerful as the old (false) narrative about Republicans being the party of common sense and fiscal responsibility.

"The GOP will never be abandoned by the media as unserious about the deficit, no matter how ridiculously plain it is that they are unserious. They don't want a deal and never have. "

I'm not sure this is true. The mythology about the GOP being the party of fiscal responsibility took a serious hit when CLINTON balanced the budget, and brought in the first surplus in modern history, and then Bush II squandered it on tax cuts that didn't stimulate the economy. It's been fairly obvious ever since that the GOP is NOT serious about deficit reduction, but they managed to coast for about a decade on the mainstream media's stupid FALSE EQUIVALENCE nonsense, without being called on it. (The false equivalence that says, if there are only two parties, and roughly half the people in the country support each, we HAVE to give more or less equal credibility to each, despite the fact that one of them has clearly gone CRACKERS.) Then the left wing media and bloggosphere started calling the MSM on their false equivalence, and they're starting to respond to the pressure and call the GOP on their bullshit.

The GOP is no longer a rational party. They haven't been for 15 years. But for a good 10 years the media has been covering for them, and painting a false equivalence that wasn't there. Well, they've gotten as much milage out of that as they're going to get. And I think Obama has been doing a pretty good job of feeding the narrative that the GOP is irrational, and incapable of governing; but the Democrats ARE rational, willing to compromise, and able to get RESULTS. Able, through compromise, to actually accomplish things that we've been told could NEVER be done. Universal Healthcare, as disappointing as the loss of single payer and public option was...got done. Is it worse than nothing? No. Does it leave the door open for improvements? Yes. Did it perpetuate the narrative that Democrats can get things done, and all Republicans can do is obstruct? Yes. Does all of this narrative building raise the possibility of long-lasting Democratic majorities (at least in the Senate and White House), and (eventually) the realization of REAL Democratic Party ideals? Yes, personally I do think so.

[Glitterati]

21. Here is where your logic fails spectacularly

I'm not sure this is true. The mythology about the GOP being the party of fiscal responsibility took a serious hit when CLINTON balanced the budget, and brought in the first surplus in modern history, and then Bush II squandered it on tax cuts that didn't stimulate the economy. It's been fairly obvious ever since that the GOP is NOT serious about deficit reduction, but they managed to coast for about a decade on the mainstream media's stupid FALSE EQUIVALENCE nonsense, without being called on it. (The false equivalence that says, if there are only two parties, and roughly half the people in the country support each, we HAVE to give more or less equal credibility to each, despite the fact that one of them has clearly gone CRACKERS.) Then the left wing media and bloggosphere started calling the MSM on their false equivalence, and they're starting to respond to the pressure and call the GOP on their bullshit.

According to the right wingers, that balanced budget was the direct result of the 94 REPUBLICAN congress and had absolutely nothing to do with Bill Clinton. According to them, that was the Newt Gingrich Balanced Budget.

[Progressive dog]

18. If it's a bluff, it's a bad one nt

[midnight]

19. Time for our President to move from his ego to his heart....

[Glitterati]

22. I'm starting to believe there's no difference

No one with a heart could throw seniors to the wolves like this.

No. One.

[duffyduff]

25. Only somebody who is in bed with the likes of Peter J. Peterson and Robert Rubin would.

Obama is a bought-and-paid-for Wall Street shill.

I really wish people had actually looked into this guy's background before he was nominated in 2008.

[midnight]

27. We need to walk away from money trumps peace talk....

[aandegoons]

20. For a bluff to work it has to fool someone.

And exactly who would you be trying to fool by offering up the lives of our seniors?

[duffyduff]

24. He's not "bluffing." He actually believes in austerity.

This is what people can't seem to get about this president. He's far more comfortable working with the GOP than he is with his supposed political party.

[forestpath]

29. +1

[gulliver]

28. I guess I'll have to go with Obama and his advisors on this one.

It's really hard to have a successful bluff or plan of any kind when one of the parties is crazy. The Republicans have managed to gerrymander and lie their way to one of the cockpit seats of our national plane. About all we can do is struggle to keep it aloft while they do their best to crash it.