Eric Alterman: Obama's Fake Bipartisanship

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-19/obamas-canny-bipartisanship/full/


Obama's Fake Bipartisanship

by Eric Alterman

Is the president delusional to hope for bipartisanship in the face of Republican demagoguery over health care? Far from it, says Eric Alterman. Obama’s using a strategy honed in last fall’s election.

snip//

So is the president delusional? An awfully large number of people are beginning to think so, particularly among his most vociferous supporters on the left. Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, asks, on The Huffington Post, “Will somebody please explain to me why Barack Obama is still on his bipartisan kick…What do these guys think they are getting by continuing to kiss up to the Republicans?”

Funnily enough, I think I can answer Mr. Kuttner by introducing him to one Mark Schmitt, who happens to be executive editor of, you guessed it, The American Prospect. Way back in December 2007, when supporters of both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards were pummeling Obama on what they deemed was the wishy-washiness of his bipartisan appeal in the face of so nasty an opponent, Schmitt published an influential (among liberals) argument, “The ‘Theory of Change’ Primary.” In it, Schmitt argued that liberals were “too literal in believing that ‘hope’ and bipartisanship are things that Obama naïvely believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure. Claiming the mantle of bipartisanship and national unity, and defining the problem to be solved (e.g. universal health care) puts one in a position of strength, and Republicans would defect from that position at their own risk.”

Obama invited me to dinner shortly after he became a senator, and I got exactly the same impression. This man is, like FDR, a genuine liberal, but also a serious politician. He is not interested in moral victories or noble defeats. He wants to win. What he’s figured out, however, is that—particularly after two full decades of Bush/Clinton/Bush wars—the American people feel more comfortable with a politician who appears to reach out to the other side, who gives them a chance to play ball. This works both as an electoral strategy and a governing strategy. He gave in a little on the stimulus, but just enough to keep the ball rolling. He could always come back for more, later if necessary.

What’s more, that concession strengthened the necessary narrative for this, far more significant one. And given that the Republicans have all but admitted that they are acting in bad faith—and their supporters are showing up at health-care meetings as if armed to fight the War of the Worlds, and spouting Nazi-style slogans—Obama can certainly go to the country and swear up and down that he gave this bipartisan thing every possible chance but these folks are, um, more interested in defeating him “than solving the health-insurance problems that Americans face every day.”

The problem with this strategy is that it rests on the widespread realization that the Republicans are not serious about governance. And given how the complexity of the issues involved—and the willingness of so many in the media to indulge the likes of Palin, Kristol, Grassley, and the rest—it is hardly a straight shot to assume that the truth will eventually conquer falsehood. As of today, in fact, the lies are winning.

But what choice does Obama have? To capitulate to the opposition on health care would not only embolden the most recalcitrant elements of the Republican Party, it would amount to an admission that the country is, in significant fashion, ungovernable. And what kind of Democrat can possibly thrive in an environment like that? Better, of course, to fight than to switch; just be sure to keep that fight “bipartisan…”

.

I think Obama is smarter than most politicians.

We will get health care reform, and Obama will look as though he tried his best to get a bi-partisan bill. The Repubs will look like the Party of No. Of course, 30% of the country will still think Obama is an illegal alien, but that's to be expected.

Grassley:If Obama Doesn’t Publicly Renounce Public Option Now, He’s Not Interested In Bipartisanship

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8601400&mesg_id=8601400

I believe the president is playing this right.

He needs to at least maintain the illusion that he's reaching across the aisle and not being too partisan.

All this August drama is setting the stage for a show down and resolution that will fulfill the promise he iterated earlier.

He will not sign without a public option.

And it will happen this year.

:patriot:

Perfectly sum up how Obama operates. K&R

"This man is, like FDR, a genuine liberal, but also a serious politician. He is not interested in moral victories or noble defeats. He wants to win....."

That's been my gut feeling about Obama, ever since I (belatedly) became an enthusiastic supporter of him, around May last year. My occasional lapses into doubt, have had very little to do with actuality.They were largely triggered by the SCREAMERS of the "Left"; largely from here in DU! I feel a LOT better now, after reading that article!

pnorman

They have proven that they are dishonest.

And I believe most people appreciate Obama's stated goal of bipartisanship. And will go along with him when he says in september -- "Look folks, I tried, but the Republicans just aren't are serious about this."

His seeming dedication to bipartisanship over all other considerations just made no sense to me except in the context of political strategy.

I always enjoy hearing Alterman's perspective.