My God, you are an idiot.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I think you're talking to the wall. Ty has never really ran anything IRL (besides overseeing the trolls here running off most non-libs). Of course Reagan and Clinton faced about the same challenges and went to the people.

If you want friends, be friendly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Do you think Obama's leadership has anything to do with the broad swaths of people who disagree with him on policy (or, in your words, are part of the problem)?

Yes. I think he has a consistent m.o. of trying not to antagonize his political opponents, of playing to the middle, and of taking what's on the table and moving to the next fight. All of this is aimed to get what he can, given the opposition.

I generally agree with the policy directions Obama wants to take; if it were left to him, I think it's likely he would have enacted stronger short-term stimulus, eliminated the Bush tax cuts and taken other medium-term efforts on the deficit, and even, maybe, do more about the longer-term fiscal problem of entitlements.

But very few people seem to think that.

I think it's obvious that on each of those issues he has gotten what he could out of the situation, given the Senate and House. But part of his strategy seems to be to insist that he's always getting exactly what he wants, rather than acknowledging that he would have liked more. This can be maddening.

Also, on the big economic issues, I think -- per Delong -- that Obama has been listening to the wrong people (Bernanke and Geithner) with the wrong advice.

You can blame Rs -- they deserve it -- but why is he so much less effective on convincing people that such approaches are right? Why are there so many people who are "part of the problem" -- particularly when it was a very different set of policies that got us into this mess?

Two very different questions, I think. On the first, I really think a President's ability to persuade people to change their mind is quite limited. But if the question is, can he persuade his base that he's done them well, I think we will see him pivot from getting what he could out of Congress to running for another term, and when he makes that switch he will run against Republicans much more, a la Truman. I think he has felt that saying those things would undercut his ability to get what he could.

On the "part of the problem" question, there are strong reasons for various stakeholders to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. E.g., some inflation would help a lot of people, reducing the debt overhang, but people with financial holdings don't like it.

eta: Put differently, other than blame the Rs, what's a frustrated Dem to do?

Organize, a la Wisconsin. The more Democrats there are in Congress, the more leverage Obama has.

I think Obama made a mistake when he abandoned his campaign apparatus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You can say that about Reagan. Pretty hard to say that about Clinton.

Even leaving aside impeachment, the Newt gang only became willing to work with Clinton when he brilliantly turned the government shutdown and the Contract on America around on them.

Clinton famously got no Republican votes for his first budget. They blocked healthcare reform by moving the goalposts whenever he tried to agree with them. The reason he got welfare reform done was that it was a GOP priority. I don't recall him persuading Republicans to work with him at all.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The reason he got welfare reform done

"he got welfare reform done?" are you serious? he might have tweaked it a bit but it was not something he pushed for, it was rammed right down his throat.

when he stood up to the Rs was when they couldn't agree on a budget and Government started shutting down. He went on TV, blamed the Rs and they caved.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

But part of his strategy seems to be to insist that he's always getting exactly what he wants, rather than acknowledging that he would have liked more. This can be maddening.

Agreed, and I don't understand it. I guess they think it would be showing weakness (or lack of leadership) to say, "this isn't exactly what I wanted, but it's what we could get." If so, I think they are wrong.

Also, on the big economic issues, I think -- per Delong -- that Obama has been listening to the wrong people (Bernanke and Geithner) with the wrong advice.

The truly strange question is why Bernanke, a student of Japan's situation, is in the group of the wrong.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"he got welfare reform done?" are you serious? he might have tweaked it a bit but it was not something he pushed for, it was rammed right down his throat.

Yes, I remember the dramatic vote when they overroad his veto.

Here's wikipedia's summary of the history:

A central pledge of President Clinton’s campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare, and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as ninety days. Gingrich insisted that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.[10]

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton[11], Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. ...

Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party’s vote counts and persuaded more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.[11]

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.[11] As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act "gives us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives."[13]

ETA: What's with the apparent conservative fetish for the throat-ramming metaphor? It's not like it's ever particularly apt in our system of checks and balances.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

You didn't answer the question. You talked about W, which was an entirely different dynamic. The answer is that they both had the public behind them, and were able to leverage that support.

What were W's legislative accomplishments, and where did he persuade Democrats to vote for things they didn't want to vote for? (eta: W spent a lot of time focusing on (and expanding) parts of his Presidency where he didn't have to work with Democrats, because it wasn't something he liked or did well.)

The answer is, precious few, and he didn't.

Notably, W couldn't leverage his re-election into getting rid of Social Security.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Adder was too young to remember the 90s.

W had people behind him on the war because he had public support for the war and (unfortunately) couched it in terms of patriotism.

And because a fair number of Democrats like a good war now and then, especially when the country has been attacked.

On NCLB, he worked with TK because they both had a common goal and frankly, because federally backed education reform is traditionally a core D issue. Same with Part D.

In other words, he didn't persuade Democrats to do things -- he found an issue where they had common interests. Same thing with immigration, though it got blocked.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"he got welfare reform done?" are you serious? he might have tweaked it a bit but it was not something he pushed for, it was rammed right down his throat.

If you insist, but that only strengthens the point I was making.

when he stood up to the Rs was when they couldn't agree on a budget and Government started shutting down. He went on TV, blamed the Rs and they caved.

OK. In this context, so what?

I suspect that Obama would win a similar fight now, but wasn't willing to do the damage that would have come if the government couldn't pay its bills. Maybe we'll find out yet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The truly strange question is why Bernanke, a student of Japan's situation, is in the group of the wrong.

Indeed. History will not be kind.

[Ty@50]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Indeed. History will not be kind.

I am surely aware of this problem

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Ty@50

I am surely aware of this problem

Hey, what did economists eventually come up with to address the economic situation?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes. I think he has a consistent m.o. of trying not to antagonize his political opponents, of playing to the middle, and of taking what's on the table and moving to the next fight. All of this is aimed to get what he can, given the opposition.

I think that's accurate, but I'm not sure it's the right approach. The Rs he is dealing with are not saying "thanks for not antagonizing us, we'll work with you now." They could not be any more hostile to him. I think it'd be worth antagonizing them in order to get more public perception on his side, since the Rs are plainly encouraged every time Obama loses a point in approval ratings.

I don't accept that approval ratings, public opinion, etc., are either meaningless or are beyond the president's ability to affect. I'm not sure which of those you believe but it's one of them. Dems worked with Reagan, in part because they knew he was very popular, and he was popular because he continued to sell his vision of America.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Indeed. History will not be kind.

Dude, he's already been played by Paul Giamatti. How much worse can it get?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

ETA: What's with the apparent conservative fetish for the throat-ramming metaphor? It's not like it's ever particularly apt in our system of checks and balances.

I believe it is a form of enhanced legislation.