Why Obama Wants Republican Votes for His Economic Plan: Years of High Unemployment Coming

[kennetha]

Obama's economic advisors forecast that without his plan unemployment during the fourth quarter of 2010 will be 8.8%. (Some private economists predict that without the Obama's plan unemployment could reach double digits.) But even with Obama's plan, his advisors predict an unemployment rate of 7% in the 4th quarter of 2010 and 6.3% during the 4th quarter of 2011. 6.3% is still a high number. 7% is what we are at now.

During the 4th quarter of 2011, the repugnant primary contest will be kicking into high gear and getting a lot of media attention (since there won't be a contest on the democratic side.) So the repugnant spin on the first three years of the Obama adminstration will be getting lots of play. If the repugnants vote in large numbers for the Obama plan, they will be co-owners of the results of that plan. If they vote against it, they will not be. Since unemployment is going to remain historically very high through the first three years of Obama's term, you can hear the Repugnants now running against three years of an Obama recesssion, Obama unemployment, etc.

Of course, we all know that Obama and the democrats are not the ones who got us into this mess. It was eight years of Republican mismanagement. And Obama's job is to get us out of the ditch Bush has dug. But the American public, unfortunately, has a short attention span and faulty memory. By 2011 if unemployment is still at historically high levels and the economy is still creeping along, people may be in a sour mood and may be receptive to repugnant rhetoric.

Part of Obama's problem is that Bush and his mismanagement has pushed us to the brink of a possible depression. I think Obama's policies will definitely be sufficient to prevent us from falling over the brink. Unfortunately, because of a phenomenon called blindness to the base rate, he won't get full credit for what he prevents from happening.

Anyway, it seems to me that strategically, looking at three years of historically high unemployment, Obama needs enough Republican votes to make them co-owners of his economic plan. Or in the alternative, he needs to constantly remind voters of the mess he inherited and of what would have happened had his plan not been implemented and he needs to ask the public to be patient.

[greenman3610]

1. this makes sense to me

[stray cat]

2. 7.2% now and 13.5% if you include people who want but can't get full time jobs

It doesn't include 1.9 million unemployed people who looked for work in the last year, but not the last month. It doesn't include 8 million people working part-time either because they couldn't find full-time work or because their hours had been cut.

Add them in and you're looking at 21 million unemployed or underemployed workers, representing 13.5 percent of the labor force

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iDry4KDCaXQ1WhEgwCVZdkvfCjwwD95JSAH83

[Zynx]

5. For historical measures, that 13.5% is not the best measure.

We should count discouraged workers, but underemployment was never the measure used. In the Depression they counted people who had as little as a paid hour a week (or it might have even been a month) as employed. If you combined underemployment with unemployment in the Depression, that rate would probably have been 33% or higher.

[eridani]

3. Repubs voted for minimum wage increase in the 90s because--

--their constituents hassled them about it. Obama is never going to get their votes by compremising with them in advance. They want him to fail. IMO he should lay down serious demands first, and only then compromise as necessary.

[high density]

4. Reading that forecast was rather depressing

Even by Q4 of 2010, the employment picture they were painting didn't look much better than today, with a particularly nasty two years in between.

[MadHound]

6. So in other words, he's wanting to play political games rather than actually doing the right thing

Sorry, but if this is the sort of reasoning Obama's using, then all he's doing is becoming part of the problem. The Democrats have enough votes to pass Obama's stimulus package, we can sideline the 'Pugs, and certainly we need to. Instead, Obama's wanting to play politics, get the 'Pugs involved, which means that Obama's willing to give them another round of goddamn business taxbreaks that aren't needed and the country can't afford, all to placate the 'Pugs and get a few of them on board.

There's a time to play politics, and there's a time to do the right thing. Obama needs to start doing the right thing and screw politics.

[kennetha]

7. I wouldn't call it gamesmanship

He's going to do the right thing. But I think pushing a package through with Democratic votes only -- especially a package that will take a long time to have its full effect with lots of painful times guaranteed before the econom fully rights itself (if it ever does) is a recipe for political suicide. Recall how Clinton and the dems pushed through Clinton's economic package without a single republican vote. And recall that the dems lost both houses shortly after, before the benefits of Clinton's bold and efficacious plan were fully realized.

I doubt the dems want to suffer the same fate this time around. And we shouldn't want them to.

[Two Americas]

8. not possible

These fears - worrying about how the party looks to the public, what th image of the party is, and how that will impact the fortunes of the Democratic party - is placing partisanship above the needs of the people. Strange that this extreme partisanship is being promoted as "post partisan."

The political ideas of the right don't work, the political ideas of the Left do. This reality is not going to disappear, and there is no longer any need to fool or manipulate the people about this - nor will it work. Fooling the people for "our side" is no better than the Republicans fooling them for their side.

The only way for the Dems to lose now is for them to fail to move forward on behalf of the people, and that means moving to the Left and that will mean opposition from the right. There is no way to avoid that showdown that is consistent with responding to the growing crisis, and I think it is cowardly and morally depraved to continue to look for an easy way out of this. The people have rejected the religious right and Reganomics. The only way that the public would now reject the Democrats is if they fail to also reject the religious right and Reaganomics.

While there may only be a few of us now who are disgusted with this call for post partisanship and the efforts to revive the fortunes of the political right, breathing new life into them, I am convinced that that we are closer to the public then the centrists are, and I am also convinced that the growing Depression will demand strong left wing political programs and there will no longer be any possibility of playing partisan games and triangulating. Doing so is what will be suicidal for the party.

I think people are underestimating the scope of the crisis we face, as well as the depth of the rejection of the political right by the public.

The desperation of the people will not go away because they are told that it should. The Democrats must attack the causes of the desperation of the people and stop cowering and compromising and playing games, no matter how clever we may think those games are. Events have moved far beyond that now.

"Post partisan" means "don't fight the right wing" and the purpose of that is to gain partisan advantage. The people will see through that. Moving to the right will increase the desperation of the people, because it is the programs of the political right that caused the desperation. That is the reality, and that reality cannot be escaped.

If Democrats want to improve their image with the public, they need to attack the political right and communicate powerfully to the public about the need for left wing programs. Doing the opposite - changing the programs for the sake of public relations - will be fatal to the party's success.

[kennetha]

12. If there were a quick partisan fix for the mess we're in

I would 100% agree with you. But by the best estimates, we're going to have an economy sputtering along for the next several years at best. Unemployment will remain high -- 6.3% -- through the 4th quarter of 2011, by Obama's own estimation. By the 4th quarter of 2010, unemployment is forecast to be roughly where it is now -- again by Obama's own estimation. And these are probably the more optimistic of the realistic scenarios.

My point is that Obama will not have a booming economy to run on in 2012 -- unless the economy takes off during that year. Instead he will have are record of prolonged economic recession to run on. THe recession will not have been has fault. And the actions he wants us to take will have the massive benefit of keeping the ongoing recession shorter and less deep than it otherwise would have been. Indeed, we have tiptoed up to the brink of Depression II, according to many economists. And current and future government action is the only thing that can bring us back from that edge of depression. But it won't be enough on it's own to make the capitalist economy hum at full bore again. So, Obama will not be presiding over a 1990's style boom -- at least not during his first term. From a political point of view, if we democrats want to retain power, it seems to me that we have only two options, given the likelihood that the next four years will not bring a great deal of economic prosperity.

Option A: Constantly run against the failed policies of the past. Constantly remind people how deep a ditch the repugnants have dug for us. And keep telling them that we are doing what is necessary to bring us out of that ditch and right the economy. Sell them on the fact that it's a long term problem that won't be solved overnight and that we have to celebrate each small victory along the way. (That means making a decline in unemployment from 7% to merely 6.3% seem like victory, though a small one, with the promise of larger victories to come..



Option B: Try to make the Republicans co-owners of the solutions proposed on the grounds that excessive partisanship will just get in the way of our adopting the most politically challenging solutions. Because nobody is going to vote for a bitter pill that will take a long time to work, if the other party can simply stand on the sidelines offering an easy sounding alternative.


I think it was, in retrospect, a hugely costly political mistake for Clinton to push through his economic plan w/out a single Republican vote. The plan worked brilliantly and it took a lot of courage to push it through. But it's full impact wasn't evident until long after the midterm elections, when the Dems got creamed for pushing tough medicine that had not yet shown its full benefits.

So politically, I'm in favor of option B -- even though I agree that the repugnants and the policies that got us into this mess have been thoroughly repudiated. We need to throw them sort of lifeline -- a tough bipartsian plan that has a chance of working -- though only in the long term and only by spreading a fair amount of pain -- not for their benefit but for our own as well.

[Two Americas]

13. backward and delusional

The purpose of rebuilding the economy is not so Obama gets credit, looks good, and gets re-elected.

Can you not see that this is how you are approaching this?

FDR won re-election despite the ongoing Depression. Let's look to him rather than Clinton, shall we? Why did the ongoing Depression not hurt FDR's chances at re-election? Answer that, and you will have found your way out of the trap you are setting up here.

[kennetha]

15. sticks and stones

seriously, Two, we're on the same side. We're discussing tactics not fundamental aims.

Okay?

[Two Americas]

16. not name-calling

I am not calling you names and I am not trying to antagonize you. I am sorry of it sounds as though I were.

What about that, though - the fact that FDR did not eliminate the Depression in his first term did not cause him to lose support from the people. As his first term went along, he became more combative and more partisan (in the sense of promoting and defending principles and ideals, not the party's political fortunes) and that meant more public support, not less.

[gravity]

9. The Democrats should want Republican votes for all their plans

It isn't rocket science. When you get bipartisan support for your ideas, it is easier to get it passed and to sell it to the public. You also build your political capital instead of expending it.

[Two Americas]

10. that won't work

That is almost certain to backfire.

The public rejected the political right. There is no need to "sell" left wing politics to the public. Democrats need to stand up and speak out, not play games.

The Republicans oppose us and oppose the needs of the people. The people have realized that.

"Post partisanship" and reaching across the aisle, for the sake of the political fortunes of the Democratic party - partisanship, in other words in its most cynical and manipulative form - is self-contradictory and certain to fail.

This fear of fighting back, because the big bad Republicans might hurt us with the public and our politicians might get voted out of office, is cowardly, morally ambiguous, and extremely impractical.

[gravity]

11. Most Americans hate partisan politics from the left and the right

If the Democrats start acting like republicans, they will lose their power in the years ahead too.

The Democrats should try to get bipartisan support for everything they do. It doesn't mean that they will always get it, but they shouldn't just write off the Republicans on everything.

It is like dealing with international affairs. You make all your efforts to use diplomacy, and only go to war as a last resort.

[Two Americas]

14. no they don't

No matter how much the conservatives, in both parties, keep pounding on this theme it is still false and misleading.

What "post partisan" means is "do not fight for the principles and ideals of the party" and the purpose of that is to improve the chances of getting re-elected. In other words, it is the worst sort of partisanship - "our team" above princi0les and ideals, and yes the public is fed up with that type of partisanship.

"War" has already been declared by the right wing, and I don't know how anyone can fail to see that. The question is whether or not we fight back. Hoping that there will not be a confrontation, that there is some nice and easy way out, is simply out of step with reality and out of step with the needs and aspirations of the people.

The people are tired of cynical partisan maneuvering - making decisions based on gaining and keeping power - they are not tired of principles and ideals.

How did so many Democrats get brainwashed into thinking that standing and fighting for the principles and ideals of the party works against practicality and success? The opposite is true. Throughout history, the times when the Democrats fought for the ideals and principles are the times when they had the greatest electoral success.

As Democrats, we know that our programs and ideas are not merely about "what we want," mot merely "smarter" ideas, nor are they some "product" that needs to be cleverly sold to the people, nor are they something that we need to pander and triangulate in order to fool the people into supporting, but rather they represent fighting for the needs and aspirations of the people. Since this is a representative democracy, fighting for the people will always gain the people's support and will always lead to electoral success.

We must fight for the people. We can fight for the people. The people have asked us to fight for them. The way to get the support of the people is to fight for them, and the way to do that is to stand up and speak out for the traditional principles and ideals of the party and to give no quarter to those who would destroy the people - those fighting tooth and nail night and day for the political right wing.'

The people hate manipulating, maneuvering, compromising, caving, posturing, and triangulating. They do not hate those who fight for the have-nots - almost all of us - who battle back courageously against the few who are preying on and destroying the people.

Saying that we should ignore and compromise on principles and ideals for the sake of political success, and justifying that by saying that the "people hate both the left and the right," is promoting the very type of cynical partisanship that the people do hate.