I'm trying to understand to thought process that drives this WH

[kratos12]

Let me start by saying that Democratic politicians are flawed, disorganized, sometimes spineless, sometimes corrupt and all too eager to compromise even with people who wouldn't throw them a life preserver if they were drowning. But on balance Dems have generally good intentions when compared to the Racist for the rich white folk Repukes...so Dems get my vote til the day I die.


That said I have to say I'm super confused by the thought process that drives this WH's decision making. Just pick an issue and they have taken what appears to be at best a center right position that satisfies no one and STILL evokes calls of Socialism from the insane tea posse right (see what I did there with "insane clown posse" hee hee).

Can anybody who feels that they understand what this WH is doing explain to me what the rationale is in pissing off their base by trying to accomplish half measures while still perpetually attacked from the right?

Why not just try one thing where the go all in and take a stand and see how the country responds to it.

IMO DADT is the perfect issue, there is a plethora of decorated Gay servicemembers who can serve as the poster children for a rare progressive shot across the right wing bow if tha WH just passed an executive order repealing it.

I just don't see the downside of this.

[sandnsea]

1. It's easy

"and STILL evokes calls of Corporatism and Warmonger from the insane left posse"

In July 2009, the public option was added to the health care reform bill. You had six months to gain the votes of about 5 Dem Senators. You didn't do it.

That's the thinking of this White House and I don't understand why it's so confusing to anybody.

[Solomon]

30. Thank you. This line in the op really jumped out at me

"Why not just try one thing where the go all in and take a stand and see how the country responds to it."

Why everbody thinks the president alone can do these things is beyond my comprehension.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Here's a diagram:

With a side order of "Who the fuck else ya gonna vote for, assholes? Palin? Yah, sure."

They figure it worked when they all worked for Clinton, they'll do it the same way this time.

[leeroysphitz]

10. So triangulation is great if all you care about is getting into and then keeping power.

Not so much for actually getting things done tho...

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Worse then that - it forces Republicans to move further right!

In order to differentiate themselves with voters, Republicans have to move further right. Then triangulating Democrats move further right too, to catch up.

This is why things have gone so, so far to the right over the last 18 years.

[zipplewrath]

3. Triangulation

It's a modern version of the triangulation strategy. It's more important to co-opt your opponents issues, and reframe them in your own terms, than to accomplish your own goals, and be criticized by your opponents. Satisfying your supporters doesn't really buy you very much, they already support you, and in empowers your opponents to criticize you.

[Romulox]

12. I think it's the end-game of triangulation.

Triangulation, by it's nature, gives credence to one's opponents' frames such that each new co-option of a formerly rightwing ideology necessarily moves the entire center to the right. At its final stages, there is so little difference between the two parties that they primarily define themselves by minute distinctions in their stances on symbolic "culture war" issues. With DADT, however, you have the President ceding even these sorts of issues to the right as he accepts (and attempts to co-opt) positions staked out by the "mainstream" right, which had previously been positions staked out by the "far" right prior to the center of political gravity being wrenched to the right.

In other words, the DLC are now eating their seed corn. It can't go on much longer like this.

[zipplewrath]

20. There's a major realignment in progress.

I don't claim for one second to know how it will end up. But it appears that the GOP is moving towards being the party of labor and unions, probably with a touch of libertarian in them, and the democrats are moving towards authortarianism, with its wagon hitched to the banks. The confusion factor is the hispanics, who are up for grabs right now and the GOP seems hell bent on pissing them off. If they coudl change their tune (and when the tea party loses big this fall, it may happen) they could coopt the labor vote by picking up much of the hispanic vote.

[Hannah Bell]

24. Huh? "the GOP is moving towards being the party of labor and unions"

evidence for this? i don't see it.


more like, the GOP is going to exploit unemployment & social misery in a turn to fascism of the rand paul "libertarian" variety.

the right plays the fake populist card to install fascist measures.

[zipplewrath]

25. The dems are abandoning the unions and labor

They are missing a chance to leverage populist outrage. Once the tea party kefluffle is over, there's still going to be a bunch-o-pissed off lower middle class. They'll be ripe for the picking. The dems have the hispanics because the GOP is so incompetent. But they are still up for grabs. Just as we saw the white southerner switch to the "party of Lincoln", if the Dems don't start to recognize that they need the unions, teachers included, and the general laborer, they'll lose them to a reorganized GOP who will leverage their populist outrage.

[Hannah Bell]

26. the fact that the dems are abandoning labor doesn't = republicans supporting labor.

that's not going to happen.

what's going to happen is phoney populism, with the gop capitalizing on the abandonment of labor to draw people into reactionary shit like anti-immigrant, anti-crime, surveillance state bullshit.

which is already happening, btw.

[zipplewrath]

27. Reagan democrats

It's been done before. Reagan won on the "Reagan democrats", union members who were attracted to many of his other themes. A bit of populism, a touch of patriotism, and a whole lotta american exceptionilism and the GOP is there. They just have to let go of one or two issues that aren't really working for them much anymore anyways. They'll have to dump the Christian right.

[Hannah Bell]

28. no, it hasn't been "done before". the reagan democrats weren't reacting to 10%

unemployment & wage cuts.

[lunatica]

4. They're Radical Centrists

[Uncle Joe]

5. This is a natural by-product of corporate supremacy over "We the Peoples'" Government.

The corporations own the Republican Party and dominate the Democratic Party.

The only way politicians can represent their corporate masters' best interests over that of the American People is either to outright have the Republicans in power or at least strong enough to provide plausible fig leaf cover for the Democrats.

By deliberately pissing off the base of the Democratic Party, either via inadequate policies or asinine statements, emotional motivation for supporting Democrats is reduced increasing the chances of Republicans wins in November; thus providing a larger fig leaf.

Thanks for the thread, kratos.

[kratos12]

9. But too what end?

I get the why the Repukes do this kind of stuff, it just naturally flows with their central ideology of "fuck you I got mine" but I still believe that most DEms earnestly want to try to help the average citizen.

It seems as they they are working a larger strategy but that strategy is always predicated on not trying to piss off the right instead of once in a while trying to lead the country to the left.

Why not pick just one issue and instead of triangulating or compromising...LEAD FOR A CHANGE!!

Hell, it just might work.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Both political parties want power for them selves but the "end" is corporate representation over the

people.

That kind of policy; is more natural for the Republican Party as they can outright demonize the idea of "big government" regulating corporate malfeasance while in fact growing it from a police state level against the people, but it's far more costly to the nation.

The Democratic Party has to fake it, this is not to say some Democrats aren't committed to the people, but corporate interests dominate.

That's why this BS about bipartisanship has become an end unto itself regardless of the people's will or any mandate, so if the Republican Party gets knocked down on it's knees as they were, the Democratic Party has to help it up before the GOP is knocked out.

As the corporate media's; true clients are their parent corporations and commercial buying corporations this is also why they're so quick and enthusiastic to sing the praises of "bi-partisanship" when Democrats are in power.

Bush didn't give a rat's ass about "bi-partisanship" and the corporate media didn't say Jack-squat, but it drove the nation in to the ground.

This strategy of good cop/bad cop corporate representation can ultimately only lead to disaster as the people's will; being continually ignored and the public good shortchanged, results in massive erosion of privacy and freedom coupled with everlasting war and environmental degradation.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Here is a more specific example of what I'm talking about

From my previous post.

"That's why this BS about bipartisanship has become an end unto itself regardless of the people's will or any mandate, so if the Republican Party gets knocked down on it's knees as they were, the Democratic Party has to help it up before the GOP is knocked out.

And this column below.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/114099-house-dems-frustration-with-robert-gibbs-boils-over

Gibbs last month said on NBC’s "Meet the Press" that there was "no doubt" there were enough House seats in play to flip control of the lower chamber to the GOP.

That remark drew a swift rebuke — at least behind closed doors — from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Now whose interests do you think Gibbs was representing with that comment?

[DeSwiss]

6. You could do worse for an answer.....

...but try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)#Origins_within_Clinton_Presidency">this explanation. Or, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8494796.stm">this one.

"So, ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants, and slide on the ice." ~ Dr. Sidney Freedman, 4077th - M*A*S*H

;)

[alc]

7. party power (elections & reelection)

As long as you're left of the other party you get the vote of everyone to your left. So move as far right as possible. Moving right also keeps corporate donations coming in (or not going to the other party) which is important for winning. "Winning" simply means getting re-elected and having your party get elected in enough numbers to maintain control. "Winning" has nothing to do with "doing the right thing" or representing the people.

They say "winning" is about representing the people because if the republicans win next time we're screwed. So they are representing us by spending so much effort on winning the next election. But I don't buy it. Do the right thing for your constituents - don't let your party tell you what is right for them to maintain control. If that's not enough to get re-elected, move to another job and let the other person take over. Your position should be an honor not a career so do it honorably.

[notadmblnd]

8. What drives them? Easy $$$s

They are ensuring their financial futures and their children's financial futures by cow-towing to the powers that can make or break their futures.

It must be a sad life for one whose every thought in life evolves around money. Accumulating more than they or any family member will ever need or be able to spend. Oh sure, they can have or do anything they want at any time they want. However, it's all really meaningless in the big scheme of things. They are the ones that are enslaved and really have less freedom the the person on the street that has absolutely nothing. Every decision they make has to please the ones who hold their futures in their hands. It's hard to have sympathy for them though.

[leeroysphitz]

11. An admin filled with professional fence sitters. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

13. If you keep in mind that New Democrats are just old Republicans then it is all crystal

[Individualist]

17. Correct!

[zipplewrath]

21. Rockefeller republicans

The DLC is basically the rockefeller republicans. Basically the banking crowd. Go back 50 years and Timmy would be a republican.

[Odin2005]

14. Their thinking is simple: Do what pleases their corporate masters while giving us a few scraps.

[Stevepol]

16. Think of the people in the WH closest to Obama:

RAHM, Geithner, Summers, et al.

I know Obama chose these people, but if you're surrounded by people like this, you're sure to begin to think like them.

That's not to excuse Obama. Eventually, he's going to have to really take charge and do what he knows is right and not triangulate and compromisilate and strangulate. I think I'l be at least as happy to see Rahm (et al.) go as I was to see Obama elected.

[dbt]

18. This WH lives in a bigger bubble than the bu$h WH,

impossible as that may seem. All bu$h's handlers had to do was protect him from bullets. Mr. Obama's handlers, on the other hand, have to keep the Truth from getting to him.

That is, unless he prefers not to hear the Truth and is comfortable with looking forward to the pension that the rest of us can only dream of...

[paulk]

19. the center right position

is the desired position of the Obama WH.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. "Professional" Centrists love that Triangulation theory. Kiss up to the right, insult the Left.