Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The President's "Sanctimonious" and "Purist" Base

Well, here we are: two days after the "odious tax deal" President Obama cut with the Republican leadership on Monday. In his remarks on Tuesday afternoon, responding to the obviously-unanticipated dislike of this deal by the Democratic base, Mr. Obama referred to those members of his party visibly disturbed by this package as "sanctimonious" and "purists" -- in other words, as politically unsophisticated amateurs -- unduly lacking in knowledge and gratitude for the heavy lifting this Administration has done in standing up against the hostage-taking brinksmanship of the Republican party. This is not a pretty sight: the American President, the historic, articulate, intelligent and Nobel Peace Prize-winning Chief Executive dressing down his own supporters and likening his predicament in Neustadt-like negotiations with eleven people on Monday as "negotiating with hostage-takers." Not only has Eric Cantor taken exception with the President's characterization of his party, but the President's self-martyred depiction is essentially saying that the most powerful office in the world doesn't actually command leverage in policymaking here; rather, it's the hostage-taking, tantrum-throwing, rich-protecting crowd who lead the party who created this mess.

I'm sorry, but "the devil-made-me-do-it" rationale doesn't cut it: it's not presidential; and it's not leadership. And that doesn't say anything about the preposterously unjust provisions proposed in the "framework" announced Monday. That our President would concede to the extension of an absurd continuation of the marginal rate for the ubber-wealthy who have seen the sum total of their wealth as the upper 5% of American households go from $5 trillion in 1980 before Reagan took office to $40 trillion in just three decades, while real income for the vast majority of the families in America has remained stagnant at best, is indefensible -- morally, economically, pragmatically, in every respect.

Polls tells us -- and have for a while == that only a quarter of Americans favor an extension of the high-end tax cuts. That the President would reverse his oft-stated intentions to end this supposed "temporary" subsidy to those not needing it, while refusing to take Sam Kernell's advice and "go public" with a case that -- the 2010 elections notwithstanding -- was easy to rally support for is an abject insult to the intelligence of American citizens. Aside from the wing-nuts from the Right, those who have succommed to the fear-mongering that produced the ban in Oklahama on the scary and perennial threat of "Shariah Law," most Americans -- including a majority of self-identified Republicans -- find the decision to further subsidize the Super Rich as senseless.

2 comments:

  1. The extension of the Bush tax cuts, no matter what they were in exchange for, is extremely disappointing. I agree, Obama seems to be saying that while he is the president, he is just there for show. The Republican party continues to think they hold all of the cards. Well, Obama hasn't given them any reason to think anything else. But in light of Bill Clinton's press conference and Bernie Sander's speech on the floor of the Senate, there may be some hope. Obama has a few weeks to compile a New Year's resolution, maybe somewhere in it will be to develop a partial backbone?

    ReplyDelete
  2. It doesn't make sense to me to not tax the rich more. As long as we're not going to a system of communism, I don't see how the rich can be upset. They will still be "rich" they will still have more money than most Americans. I would love to see bipartisanship work, or have candidates vote on issues based what their people want, rather than their party and the rich doners of their campaigns want, but until we get a president with some balls that will represent the majority of Americans we might as well get used to a crappy economy.

    ReplyDelete