Is Obama Pulling a Clinton or a Carter?
By Bradley Blakeman
FOXNews.com
Is Obama's forced
deal with Republicans on the re-upping of the
Bush tax cuts a result of strategic
"triangulation" or political strangulation?
President Obama and Congressional lame duck
Democrats thought they could muscle through
their own tax cut deal leaving out those making
$250,000 or more -- thereby soaking and
penalizing the few who provide for the many.
They also thought they could also extend unemployment insurance thereby warehousing a workforce instead of putting them to work.
Then the bad news
hit - last week we learned that unemployment
rose to 9.8 percent. Faced with continued high
unemployment and expiring tax cuts and lack of
confidence and anger in the market place forced
the president to scrap ideology for reality.
The president and Democrats will be forced to
re-up the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, cut
the payroll tax and deal with estate taxes in a
bipartisan way. -- Not because they wanted to
but because they had to. If the president
practiced what he preached 2 years ago he could
have been done much earlier what they are force
to do now and as a result our recovery would
have been healthier and more robust.
"Triangulation" is a phrase that describes the
act of a politician who advances his position as
being between the left and the right. The
politician slyly adopts the position on his
opponent and thereby cuts of or triangulates any
push back from the opposition to his own
position.
The greatest triangulator in recent times was
President Clinton. After Clinton took a beating
in the 1994 midterms he realized that he had to
reverse his political fortunes in order to save
his own political skin. So, Clinton in his
re-election campaign advanced right of center
positions that were not typical of a national
Democratic candidate. Clinton supported a
balanced budget and deregulation, positions he
knew Republicans could not attack.
Taking the wind out
of the sails of your opposition is the hallmark
of triangulation.
There is a fine line however between
triangulation and strangulation.
On tax cuts, Obama was forced to make a deal. He
did not adopt a position of his opponents as an
affirmative policy but instead was boxed into a
deal because reality, time and public opinion
were against him.
Obama attempted to spin that it was his
bipartisan approach that caused a deal to be
made but we know better. The cornerstone of
Obama's campaign and his administration up to
and including last week was that he would not
cut taxes on those making in excess of $250,000.
Obama vowed to tax those making in excess and
refused to extend the Bush tax cuts. He blamed
the Bush tax cuts for getting us into the
"ditch" we are in economically and said the Bush
tax cuts was irresponsible.
Democrats are apoplectic that president Obama "caved" to Republicans on their signature issue. They are disgusted that Obama and the White House would "sell out" and not stand their ground. They are afraid that his newfound bipartisanship will be the rule instead of the exception going forward. Left of center Democrats do not want compromise -- they want it all.
And if they can't get it so be it. Nothing gets done.
It is clear now that
Obama was the victim of strangulation not
triangulation on the tax compromise.
It remains to be seen if the president has
learned any lessons moving forward with a new
Congress in January.
Once the president catches his breath, he is the
one that needs to change his style and
governance if there is any "hope" for his
re-election. Obama needs to quiet his base and
make them understand that half a loaf is better
than no loaf at all.
A strategy of triangulation can save him while a
strategy of strangulation will doom him.
Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant
to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is
currently a professor of Politics and Public
Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent
contributor to Fox News Opinion.