Carrots and Sticks
by David Atkins (“thereisnospoon”)
Digby is right, of course, about the fact that a fairly meager tax on millionaires isn’t a good trade for big cuts to Social Security and Medicare. In fact, it’s a pretty terrible trade.
It’s also fairly clear that President Obama’s chances of passing the “Buffett Rule” tax on millionaires through the GOP House and corrupted Senate are less likely than his chances of becoming a professional hockey player. It’s a political maneuver for election season–but that’s a good thing. It’s important to put these sorts of “message bills” out there, so that the opposition is forced to vote on them and so that Democrats can say “This is what we want to do if you elect enough of us.”
So what is a smart progressive to do in this circumstance? Reading over various blogs and comments, the progressive community seems to be divided into two camps: the defenders pooh-pooh the horrible realities that Medicare and Medicaid cuts would present while arguing that the President is and has always been a a progressive, and that everyone should get behind the Grand Bargain to give the President a political victory lest the GOP take the White House in 2012. The critics argue that Buffett Rule is a cynical ploy to quell progressive anger so that Democrats can make more cuts to the safety net while minimizing damage from core Democratic activists, and that what progressives need to do is spew more fire and anger at the President.
Both approaches to the situation are misguided. The reality is that effective players in politics use a “carrot and stick” approach to policy, essentially creating a Pavlovian response from politicians. This is how effective conservative outfits like Club for Growth operate, and have done so for years. Effective advocates reward good behavior–even a show of good behavior–and attack bad behavior.
If the Administration fails to receive an overtly positive reaction from the progressive community in response to the Buffett Rule, it will rightly conclude that there is no sense even pushing progressive policy agendas for a group of petulant children who will attack them regardless. (This is the same calculation, of course, that the Administration should have been making about Republican politicians and advocacy groups, but that’s partly because conservative groups have moved beyond behavioral rewards to all-out war against any Democrat. That’s a situation we should as progressives be able to take advantage of to secure policy victories.)
But for the defenders, if on the other hand we all defend the Administration even if the final deal includes no Buffett Rule (as it almost certainly will not) but includes Medicare and Medicaid cuts anyway, then there’s little point in supporting the Administration or even being involved in politics at all, outside of setting up a permanent defense against a Republican ever taking the White House. And that’s a fool’s errand in America’s binary political system because a Republican will be President sooner or later.
The smart move is to cheer like crazy for the Buffett Rule. Urge your congressmembers to support it, and refuse a budget deal that doesn’t contain it. Let them know that you won’t vote for them or support them if they don’t insist on the Buffett Rule’s inclusion in the final budget. At the same time, rage and fight like heck against Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and urge your congressmembers that you won’t vote for them or support them if they allow cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
Because in the end, the likelihood of getting Medicare cuts through a Democratic Senate should be as hopeless as the likelihood of getting a Buffett Rule through the GOP House. Much as the bipartisan compromise fetishists claim that sort of divided government would be a horrible thing, that’s actually a good thing. It has to get worse before it can get better, because right now only the conservative side is playing for keeps.
But more importantly, Obama Administration critics and defenders need to realize that this shouldn’t be about supporting or attacking the President. It should be about engendering a twitch response in our politicians that we’ll support them for doing the right thing–even saying they’ll do the right thing–and not support them when they don’t.
.