Getty Images
We've seen the dynamic play out enough times that it's no longer a coincidence -- Republicans will propose an idea; President Obama will endorse the GOP idea; and Republicans will announce their opposition to their own proposal. It's happened on everything from immigration to health care, energy policy to taxes, deficit reduction to public safety.
As Jamelle Bouie noted today, it's not just Republican policymakers who change their mind about policies they used to support.
Today's poll from the Washington Post and Capital Insight shows something interesting: When Obama lends his name to proposals on immigration, climate change or the war in Afghanistan, support drops.
Without Obama's name, 78 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of independents support a path to citizenship as part of comprehensive immigration. But when you associate that proposal with the president, support drops to 75 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independents, and just 39 percent of Republicans -- a 21 point decline. Likewise, without Obama's name, 65 percent of Democrats, 32 percent of Republicans, and 51 percent of independents support measures to address climate change. With his name attached, Democratic and independent support increases -- to 71 percent and 55 percent, respectively -- but Republican support dips even further, to 24 percent.
Just so we're clear, there's nothing else driving the shifts. Republicans endorse an idea, then they learn Obama agrees with them, then they reject the idea they'd just endorsed.
With this sentiment prevailing in Congress and with rank-and-file GOP voters, one starts to understand how and why compromise is quite literally impossible -- if Obama expresses support for his own proposals, Republicans say no, and if Obama expresses support for GOP proposals, Republicans still say no.
It creates an environment in which the two sides can't even negotiate, because one side won't take "yes" for an answer.
Is the moral of the story that the president should simply say nothing, and make his positions on issues a national mystery?
Leave a Comment:
GOP: "You'll hate this idea."
Obama: "Actually, I love it."
GOP: "FASCIST! NAZI! SOCIALIST!"
Bennan's logic demonstrates why devotees of the Enlightenment make such poor parents. Children cannot be expected to be logical- the adult's behavior must be adaptive to the child's oftentimes pathological strategies to achieve their goals.
.
Predictable behavior provides an opportunity for national pedagogy. It is an opportunity the former professor can use or ignore to national disadvantage.
So why doesn't the POTUS use the ultimate reverse psychology ploy: I want to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, elimiate the "Death Tax," corporate income tax, and blow wide open all tax loopholes for the wealthy and corporations, cut spending across the board except for the DOD which I want funded at 300% above current levels? The worst they Republicans could do is say yes and then he can just veto any legislation and go "are you all fracking retarded? Psyche!"
But then, all will say he's not "leading".
Actually, he's the best leader the Republicans have.
You see, they won't know what they're opposed to until President Obama tells them what he supports.
So, is that "leading from behind"? or "hanging on the President's coattails"?
Either way, all they see is the President's backside.
Or maybe Obama should publicly espouse some of the lefty positions that the GOP accuses him of having anyway, then if they come back with something right-of-center but still reasonable and workable (assuming they're still capable of that every now and then - a big 'if', I know), Obama should double-dog-dare them to pass it, threatening veto all the way.
Then when they pass it, he signs it - with no signing ceremony, so that it looks like he's trying to conceal the 'fact' that he knuckled under to them, so the GOP can trumpet its victory, which would set the stage for repeats.
That would require them to come back with something even vaguely smacking of the center... which they won't do, because their steering wheel is stuck all the way to the right. Left to their own devices, we can see what the GOP comes up with... and to imagine that they'd respond to a left proposal by coming CLOSER to it is madness.
re 3.1 actually it would force them to come back with something vaguely smacking of something. To date their plan isn't you propose lefty A we counter with righty B it's "you propose lefty A we say it's unacceptable and why haven't you proposed righty B for us to show your desire for compromise." Then once righty B is proposed "we hate it."
...and that's how our political spectrum got ratcheted so far to the right: one concession at a time.
It hasn't forced them anywhere to date. They're quite happy to wreck the country and blame it on the black guy. The problem with that is, while those who actually pay attention know the facts and the GOP's culpability, the damage is still done. Because the Democrats and the president aren't political nihilists like the GOP, they aren't willing to let the people suffer for principle (unlike the GOP, who could give two sh!ts).
this is exactly what Churchill was referring to when he opined "the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter"
stupid, stupid people. we get the (braindead) government we deserve.
I disagree with this attitude. It's too easy to say "people are morons" (which implies superiority). Gerrymandering, voter suppression, companies that don't allow time off to go vote, judges selected during past zeitgeist episodes, arcane rules like the filibuster and seniority... all of these things contribute to the government we get.
And THEN...the GOP will run for the microphones decrying the President's 'lack of leadership'.
I'm sorry, but you have to blame the voters for nearly all of this.
With their latest campaign, the GOP is trying to shift the sequester blame to President Obama. Anyone with half a brain KNOWS what happened here. Yet, you're already seeing voters, led by the Republicans and the Tea Party, saying how this is the President's fault.
Ahoypolloi nailed it: "The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill
@Dogjudge while I agree with you, it's also because WE are so NOT post-racial. I'm sure that Darwin would be surprised to learn that Americans have proved his "Origin of the Species" is wrong; instead of "survival of the fittest/most adaptable" the GOTP have reverted to their reptillian brains....
So just maybe they'll die out of extinction.....
On the Sunday night news on NBC, there was a story about Cantor on a Sunday talk show saying Obama won't negotiate, won't compromise. Then cut to Michael Gerson saying the same thing and so ends the report. Does NBC point out that Obama has tried time and again to bargain with them? Any rebuttal at all from anybody? Of course not. So a low info viewer/voter is left with the impression that it's all Obama's fault, that he's the one who always digs in his heels.
The corporate media, supporting the corporate agenda.
What do you expect from MSM when it's owned by the teapub rich and only spews the teapub talking points? If it wasn't for TRMS and TLW, journalism would be completely gone.
Do Republicans believe their "just say no" strategy is working? After 4 years of endless obstruction, they couldn't defeat Obama in the last election. Why do they act as if it's still worth a try? Either they've lost their minds or they really were that STUPID to begin with.
Assuming they have a goal that's anything like governance, "just say no" is absolutely insane. Since they can safely assume that they can maintain a filibustering minority in the Senate and a majority in the House no matter what, it's all a matter of tenure. Having a career that simply ensures a lucrative status quo for your favored industries is a great resume-builder for your average right-wing republican. For the party, maintaining a government in stasis in opposition to a vilified opposition is the only electoral strategy they have left since they've long since abandoned any sort of popular program for governing.
I've said before, the solution to the Democrats' electoral problems is for Michelle Obama to publicly urge Americans to thoroughly cook their poultry and to store their mayonnaise in the refrigerator.
The Republican base would immediately start declaring that they would never surrender their "freedom" and from now on they would eat their chicken rare and bloody (as Jesus intended) and that they would proudly store their potato salad on the back porch in the sun.
I agree with the others that voters are at fault here. Humanities might eventually come into play if we taught humanities. Currently, we only have "Stupid", "Self-Seeking" and "High School Revelry" making the top slots in the National "voting repertoire"..
This is why the GOP continually complains that Obama hasn't laid out specifics. They want to know just exactly what he might support so they can figure out how to craft legislation that he WON'T support.
Maybe the last question should be:
"If the President's last name was Anglo-Saxon in origin, would that affect your decision(s)?"
"If the President's
lastname was Anglo-Saxon in origin, would that affect your decision(s)?"Obama should keep on endorsing the ideas Republicans support because they are making the president's and Dems case to the public that Republicans are incapable of governing. That is the big message for 2014. Dems can pound Republicans for accomplishing nothing except saying "no." And that message works for independent voters.
Since adopting Republican ideas hasn't worked, perhaps it is time to go all 'Br'er Rabbit and the Briar Patch' on them.
"Oh, please, Mister Republican, don't pass that legislation, and make me sign that bill!"
More like Lucy and the football. Nothing doing!
Talk about wearing your prejudice on your sleeve! There are some among us who believe if President Obama sneezes, it's only because he wants the rest of us to catch pneumonia! -Kevo
Wasn't Obama Derangement Syndrome added to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V)?
Yes, along with Foxaholic - persons willfully refusing any mental nurishment except that which rots their intellectual teeth.
It's a bit misleading when you go to the article in the link.
If you're one of those who doesn't expand the details box, you'll only see what Fox wants you to see. I'm waiting for their spin on it.
Because of this, I humbly request a link to a website .pdf with the whole shebang in there, instead. (if there is one)
As a general rule, Conservatives make lousy leaders. Unless you want to be led into war, in which case, booyah.
And I don't think that they would be very good with actually finishing a war; starting one, yes, any fool can do that. In order to finish a war, you need to be able to plan a coherent strategy, and then decide which tactics would let you implement that strategy. I have not noticed that modern "Conservatives" have any sense for anything beyond reaching a very short-term goal.
"At any given moment, public opinion is a chaos of superstition, misinformation, and prejudice" - Gore Vidal
"Persuading the people to vote against their own best interests has been the awesome genius of the American political elite from the beginning."- Gore Vidal
The numbers explain why the Republican leadership consistently tries to engage only the President on every issue. Since the Dems are inept at the kind of negotiation and maneuvering that would allow Obama to stay above the fray, instead the Republicans are able to bait the President into endorsing a policy that they can more successfully oppose.
I want to point out one thing about this poll, Dem's are just as guilty leading me to believe that the knee jerk reaction to Obama's name is not necessarily about a prejudice against the president but rather about uniformed voters using the highest profile "D" as an indication of what they support or don't support. The assault weapons ban sees a 16% jump in Democrats when Obama is attached. I tend to believe this is because those 16% of people don't know how they feel about it but know their a democrat and know that they likely agree with Obama. The same is probably true for the 21% of republicans who don't know how they feel about a path to citizenship but know they disagree with democrats and are using Obama's name as an indication that they should oppose something.
We all do it, how many people vote with the party for the lesser known state positions simply based on the probability you're more likely to support them.
But the GOP did not like Bush's immigration policy either , because they do not like any real change , just fake change , like having the financial industry police its self , it is a rubber stamp that changes nothing , this is the kind of LAW the gop worship and love , because it LOOKS LIKE they are doing something , when in fact they are doing NOTHING
And this is how it has gone down for the last 30 years , the corporate msm say DEMS MUST COMPROMISE WITH THE GOP , and when they do , we end up with ineffective laws that do little or nothing to help america move forward , so it is always a WIN WIN for the gop , because in the end , it is like passing NOTHING , you can trace this all the back to the end of the civil war
The gop voters are all for an bass ackwards romney immigration plan , that would be completely dysfunctional for everyone but the 1%
that's Obama Derangement Syndrome.
"Elaine, An Immigration Success Story"
Elaine arrived in the United States in 1961 from aboard a freighter ship at age 8.
Elaine, along with her 5 sisters and mother (Ruth) came to America from Taiwan to be united with her father (James) who had 3 years earlier arrived in New York to begin a new life after previously escaping a communist China resulting from the Chinese Civil War (1949).
James had began his career as a merchant mariner and later, after getting established in New York, built a successful shipping company (Foremost Shipping Co.).
By 1975, Elaine had received her B.A. in Economics from Mount Holyoke College and her MBA from the Harvard Business School in 1979.
Elaine also studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dartmouth College, and Columbia University. In addition, Elaine has received 34 honorary doctorate degrees.
In 1983, Elaine's family connection to shipping was instrumental in her application for a White House Fellowship being granted, and in 1986 she became Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration in the US Department of Transportation.
From 1988 to 1989, Elaine served as Chairwoman of the Federal Maritime Commission under the Reagan Administration and in 1989, President George H. W. Bush nominated Elaine to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
From 1991 to 1992, Elaine was Director of the Peace Corps. She was the first Asian Pacific American to serve in any of these positions.
In 2001 Elaine became the first Asian-Pacific American woman to ever be appointed to a US Presidential cabinet when GW Bush appointed her as Labor Secretary, an office she would hold for the entire 8 years of Bush's presidency.
Secretary Elaine Chao - arrived in here at age 8, a young immigrant by no real choice of her own, yet would go on to do all these extroidinary things in her life for the service of this country.
She should shine as a bright example of what President Obama has been saying about the value of immigrants who attend schools here and stay here to do great things.
Secretary Chao could have gotten her education in the United States and returned to Taiwan, or possibly even China ... but she stayed here,.....
and became Mrs. Mitch McConnell.
- Razorback Jack
And thus, huge potential was squandered.
It boggles the mind that someone who is apparently very well educated and intelligent would end up with a sack of s$$t like Mitch McConnell.
I remember when drones killing American citizens was a bad thing.