Matt Yglesias writes:

This, right before our eyes, is a living, breathing example of why presidential speechmaking doesn’t do the things people say it does. It doesn’t even have the intended impact on its intended audience! Is Atrios fired up and ready to go? Prepared to stop writing sarcastic, depressed, and dismissive blog posts and instead go hard against the president’s critics, boosting the morale of the president’s audience? No, he’s sarcastic, depressed, and dismissive because the objective situation is depressing and everyone knows the jobs plan won’t pass.

I love Atrios but the prototypical voter he is not. Yglesias needs to find a more "representative" Friedmanesque cab driver.

Speaking for me only

Rep. Peter DeFazio said:

“I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it?

MisterMix of Balloon Juice objects:

[L]et’s not forget the high-pitched cry of the safe-seat absolutist [. . .] Faced with the real possibility of losing the Presidency and both houses of Congress, in the worst recession in most of their lifetimes, this is how the Democratic Party reacts to the least objectionable piece of legislation that’s been sent to the hill in a long time. I’m sure Future President Perry, Future Majority Leader McConnell, and Continuing Speaker Boehner are all laughing right now.

I suppose some might call that a "pragmatic" analysis. I'm not one of them. Running against the Bush economic record, as DeFazio seems to suggest, seems like a pretty good political notion. YMMV.

Matt Yglesias says progressives have failed:

I got a great email today from a self-described “well-educated, politically literate, 30-something person with a job and a kid” who spends “let’s say 45 minutes a day that I spend thinking about politics” [she reads the Klein Group of self proclaimed "wonk" bloggers] and who had a great question:

I’m starting to realize that I am part of the problem as well. I don’t actually DO anything besides read and fulminate in the quiet of my own home.

Yglesias agrees that it is her fault:

There is something pathetic about this post from Kevin Drum about a GOP plan to make some states likely to swing Dem in the 2012 Presidential election not winner take all (example, Obama wins Wisconsin, but only gets 6 of the 11 EVs. See also Obama winning an EV in Nebraska in 2008.) Kevin writes:

[H]ere's what really so disheartening about the whole thing. As recently as a couple of decades ago this would have been a bridge too far for most of the party's mandarins: conservative pundits and senior GOP officials would have sounded off against it because it was just too raw a deal even for flinty political pros. But now we live in the era of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove and Tom DeLay and Fox News. There's really no one left who might object to this merely out of a decent respect for institutional integrity and fairmindedness.

I suppose it is disheartening, but it is not new. What is disheartening to me is how the Democratic Party and some pundits, including on occasion, Drum, handwring over Dems and liberals being "too mean." It is a complaint of longstanding for me. Fighting Dems was something first talked about on the Left blogs in 2003. 8 years later, some are still shocked and disheartened by what the GOP does, and still tut tutting if Dems and progressives are "too mean."

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes:

It’s often best in life to try to avoid assuming that people you disagree with are motivated by “absurd” lines of reasoning. Perhaps [White House Chief of Staff Bill] Daley['s support for the President's decision to suspend EPA rule writing on ozone] is [due to being] persuaded by Matthew Kahn’s point (based on research from Michael Greenstone) that enhanced EPA regulations cause job-shifting out of non-attainment counties into attainment ones. Regulations that break up concentrations of extreme pollution in part by shifting polluting activity to less-polluted areas are perfectly sound public health measures, but there’s nothing absurd about the theory that it could do political damage to the standing of incumbent politicians in the areas that suffer from the negative short-term effects.

I checked the link Yglesias provides and find his political reasoning to be absurd. From the link:

Today, Paul Krugman writes about Europe's flailing elite insisting on how perfect their conduct has been on the economy:

On Thursday Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank or E.C.B. — Europe’s equivalent to Ben Bernanke — lost his sang-froid. In response to a question about whether the E.C.B. is becoming a “bad bank” thanks to its purchases of troubled nations’ debt, Mr. Trichet, his voice rising, insisted that his institution has performed “impeccably, impeccably!” as a guardian of price stability.

Krugman goes on to explain that this is, in fact, Trichet's problem -- he has acted in the interests of the rentier class and thus is in the process of destroying Europe and the euro. For the details, read Krugman's column, but I was struck by this part of the piece:

Matt Yglesias writes:

[W]hen it’s cheaper to pay for things by borrowing money than by taxing productive activity, it’s pretty foolish not to step up your borrowing. The issue we ought to be debating is whether we should increase borrowing by cutting taxes or increase borrowing by hiking spending.

This is obviously true. It would be the right economic policy to both cut taxes and borrow to increase government spending. But that's not going to happen in our political world of "governments are like households." The choice for Democrats is whether we will cut taxes AND reduce spending. That's why I oppose cutting taxes now - because cutting taxes is less effective stimulus than government spending. A pragmatic view of our choices makes this clear. Yglesias asks "With the House controlled by Republicans and the White House controlled by Democrats, we’d end up compromising on a mix of the two. Instead we’re talking deficit reduction. Why?" Because Democrats, led by the President, played into the deficit scare is why. For some reason, people don't like to say that. But that's the main reason.

Speaking for me only

John Cole endorses Jon Chait's critique of fantasy (Jon Chait's fantasy) liberal critiques of President Obama. Here's my question - how is President Obama's "pragmatism" working out politically? Is being a one term President part of the "pragmatism?"

How's Obama's Theory of Change working out?

Obama's "theory of change" was aimed at offering the political opposition a choice between cooperation on progressive policy initiatives or self-isolation through obstruction and extremism. In other words, in a country unhappy with partisan gridlock, Republicans would either go along with key elements of a progressive agenda, or shrink themselves into an ever-more-extreme ideological rump that was irrelevant to the direction of the country.

(Emphasis supplied.) One GOP landslide in 2010 and an Obama approval rating of 40 later, it seems difficult to argue that the Theory of Change has worked politically. Will Obama stick to it through the 2012 election and will it be advisable for him to do so? I argue, and I think "liberals" argue, that no, that would be a political mistake. Jon Chait and John Cole seem to be arguing that Obama needs to "stay the course." More . . .

Ezra Klein writes:

The Obama administration is weighing whether to go big or go small in their jobs plan next week. I think the answer is clear: they should go big so they can go small. [. . . T]he more he identifies himself with particular solutions, the more he poisons those solutions for the Republican Party. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) simply cannot come out and say that “the president’s jobs plan is a sensible, pragmatic package for moving America forward that correctly takes the best ideas from both sides into account.” The moment Obama mentions a policy in a big speech, it becomes that much less likely to pass a divided Congress.

Apparently, asking for more than you expect to get in a negotiation is now understood by Ezra. I welcome his enlightenment on this point. But of course, the reality is nothing will be agreed to on stimulus, something Ezra seems to recognize. Good for Ezra, whose thinking on the President's power to set the agenda has also appeared to evolve.:

It is bizarre to me that Matt Yglesias thinks this argument makes any POLITICAL sense:

I feel like a lot of highly perceptive skilled writers tend to kind of see the problem and then take their eye off the ball. There’s obstructionism in Congress, not all of it from Republicans. And excuses don’t matter, results do. Therefore, what you need to do is devise a strategy designed to produce the best possible results given the constraints.

(Emphasis supplied.) If Obama follows THIS advice, he might as well start packing his bags. The results have stunk and will stink some more through November 2012. Someone needs to be blamed for the bad results. You can't do that if you don't point out what YOUR best plan is and who is stopping you from doing it. Hell, even the "President is powerless" is a better argument than this one. As Atrios responds:

The point is that what's been on the table so far isn't going to actually achieve results, if by results we mean "lowering unemployment by Nov. 2012" instead of "passing some crap through Congress that at best won't do much." [. . .] I do tend to think if you aren't going to have any results then messaging is all you have left.

(Emphasis supplied.) We've pretty much reached the "messaging is all we have left" stage.

I used Scott Lemieux as a whipping boy yesterday, and was not totally fair about it. Lemieux is a smart good guy so I think I should try to be fair and link to his reaction:

[W]orking backward from my clearly stated position, he seems to be saying that we shouldn’t care about foreign policy and security policy (where presidential power is dominant or near-dominant), the appointment power, the enforcement of legislation, the ability to veto legislation, the power to set the agenda, and the real (if subordinate) power to influence domestic policy all don’t matter! I disagree — I think this stuff matters a great deal, and personally plan to follow the next presidential election with substantial interest.

That's fair tit for tat. I did misrepresent his position and of course he is paying me back by doing the same to me. I do think we have a fundamental disagreement on the power of the President on domestic policy. And I think he severely underestimates how important domestic policy is in a Presidential election. In short, I do not think his argument on Presidential weakness on domestic policy, particularly the economy, is going to cut it politically. I think it is wrong as a question of fact and I know it will not work as a question of politics.

Speaking for me only

Scott Lemieux, with assists from Jon Chait and the 2008 Ezra Klein. Yes, the usual suspects.

Here's what's weird to me about this - the continued argument against a straw man - the nonexistent argument that the President can do whatever he wants - ignores the fact that the President is the least relevant person in the country on domestic policy - except for everyone else.

Can a President do it by himself? Of course not. But a President can lead the conversation where he wants the policy discussion to go. Like say, deficit reduction. And he has been known to have some political power as well.

At this point, the discussion is just plain ridiculous. In any event, since I do think that who is the President matters, I'll continue to try and explain why I think you should vote for the reelection of President Obama, despite his shortcomings, ESPECIALLY on domestic policy and the economy. The usual suspects will in due course, I imagine, drop their defensive crouch on Obama's behalf and start arguing what Obama might be able to do on domestic policy in a second term. I hope so at least.

Speaking for me only