The context of liberal surrender and Barack Obama’s choices -- Jonathan Bernstein

[Davis_X_Machina]

it was never at all plausible after November 2, 2010 that Obama and the Democrats could get through this year and next without losing on several fronts compared to what they had in the very liberal 111th Congress. And yet liberals seemed to believe that if only Obama negotiated properly he could avoid those losses. It just wasn’t going to happen.

So the proper way to see the current negotiations are in the context of watching both sides surrender. Republicans, as I’ve argued, are having to do most of the surrendering; what they’re going to get will be nothing remotely close to what they bid, and most of the drama of the past weeks has been trying to find a way to convince the House Crazy Caucus of that. But Democrats will have to surrender too... And of course liberals should be pushing for the best deal they can get, and fighting for their priorities. But the bottom line is that whether it’s associated with the debt limit or with FY 2012 spending bills, Republicans are going to get some of what they want, there’s no magic way — not the 14th amendment, not the McConnell plan, not brilliant negotiating or brilliant speeches by the man in the White House — to make that go away. What we’re seeing now, therefore, is Democrats coming to grips with that reality, and battling over what specific losses they should absorb.

Jonathan Bernstein, via The Plumline.

His Plain Blog About Politics is also always worth a read.

[damntexdem]

1. So just give up and go home?

I guess that would also include not bothering to vote in 2012, huh?

How is that it that when the Dems won both houses of Congress with a GOP pResident, Dubya still got a lot of what he wanted?

Could it be that there's a little more to it than controlling the House? And if there is, isn't it possible that the Dems could get much of what they want and the Repukes much less?

unrec

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. The omnipotent Bush again, huh?

How is that it that when the Dems won both houses of Congress with a GOP pResident, Dubya still got a lot of what he wanted?

Because he asked for popular things. A war. Tax cuts. No Child Left Behind. All popular.

When he wanted unpopular things -- social security privatization, another war in Iran -- he didn't get them.

[TheWraith]

4. How about we start by not using knee-jerk reactionary black and white thinking?

"Either we get everything we ever wanted instantly, or total defeat! There is nothing in between! If we don't, we give up and go home!"

:eyes:

How about the knowledge that politics goes slowly, and you don't always win everything. There have been compromises and drawbacks on every serious aspect of policymaking in American history, from the Declaration of Independence to the Civil Rights Act and on to today.

Not to mention the fact that the perception that Bush got more through a Dem congress than Obama has through a Republican congress misses a few key points, like the fact that Republicans have ALWAYS been better at stonewalling than we have, and always will be.

[TheWraith]

2. Dammit, I accidentally hit unrec. Kicked anyway. This is a vital point.

People imagine that there's some kind of magic button that Dems can push to "just do it!" or "just fight for it!" And then, those of us who still support Democrats despite not getting everything we want, WE'RE the ones who are accused of thinking Obama is Superman.