Find it here: http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=8622
--Kim
* Strategy for Obama
Here is the write-up of my proposed strategy for Obama. I came up with the idea a couple of days before the election, and I sent it off in a direction that showed some promise for getting the idea to the attention of the president.In the more than two weeks that have passed since, those possibilities have diminished. I held off on going public with this while the chances seemed better, thinking that publication might make it less likely that the idea might be implemented. But now, here I am posting the proposal, so that it can get out there in this way if not in the way I had most hoped for.
*************************
INTRODUCTION
If recent history is any indication, the Republicans will be opposing whatever Obama proposes, and will be proposing things that Obama will wish to oppose. If that same recent history is any indication, most of the Republican positions on these issues will be indefensible: they will have little to do with actually helping the country, but will instead be designed solely to seek their own political advantage, to gain more political power, even if this means leaving the real challenges facing the country unmet and allowing the condition of the country to be degraded.
The purpose of the strategy I propose is to help President Obama expose that reality about the Republicans and, by exposing it, to compel them either to pay a high political price –in public opinion, and then at the pollsfor continuing their destructive opportunism, or to become more constructive and cooperative and actually help accomplish the nation's work.
THE STRATEGY
Here's what Obama should do:
When a conflict on some important issue emerges between Obama and the Republicans, the president should challenge to the Republicans to debate the issue on national television saying, in effect: "Send forth a champion of your choosing –any of your members of the House or Senate– to debate what we should do on this issue that's best for the country."
For each such issue, it is important that the issue to be debated be framed explicitly in terms of what's best for the country – important because a) that's what the people want their government to be focusing on, so the people will support the question b) that's what the Republicans have shown themselves indifferent to, and so it attacks a point of vulnerability c) that failure, or refusal, on the part of the Republicans is one of the best ways –in terms of impact on public opinion– of revealing the larger dark reality about what America's "conservative" party has become, and d) it makes the nation's business, not the politicians (priority one is making sure "Obama is a one-term president"), the focus of attention, which helps render irrelevant the Republicans' huge investment in demonizing Obama.
The idea is that there will be a whole series of such debates. Doubtless there will be an abundance of issues to choose among, and Obama can choose his sequence strategically.
On any issue, the call for a debate should come only after at least an apparent attempt to negotiate and cooperate in coming up with a solution that is good for the country.
It will be up to the Republicans to decide whether to put forward the same challenger in each case (like the Speaker of the House) or to select a different one according to the issue. The debates should occur in no more than two/three weeks from the President's laying down the challenge.
With each public issuance of the challenge to debate, the President should declare that if the Republicans refuse to meet the challenge, he will instead give a talk to the nation about why the country needs what he is proposing and why the Republicans' approach will not serve the nation well.
One premise of this strategy is that, while Obama seems disinclined to "fight" in a struggle for power, he does seem quite able to step up and "debate" the merits of an issue. Thus, the ground that he has lost by not contesting Republican advances in the "field of battle" can be regained by making visible the indefensibility of the Republican assertions and positions on issues of importance to the country, and his own hard work to solve the nation's problems.
Another premise is that Obama can indeed get the better of the debatesbeing a better debater and having superior positions to defend and advance.
If Obama wins in the public's eyes, he will of course gain politically. Whereas during the first two years of his presidency he largely allowed the Republicans to define him, with a series of such debates he will be able more powerfully to define himself: the champion of moving the country forward, actually meeting our challenges and doing the people's business.
The other side of the same coin is that while defining himself –as constructive, as reasonable, as seeking to serve the countryhe will also be exposing the Republicans. Thus exposed –"No compromise" can in itself be exposed as a stance contrary to American political ideals, for under our system in these circumstances it prevents "what's best for the country" from being accomplishedthe Republicans will either have to change from their current destructive stance or this sequence of debates will shape the issues and the structure of the 2012 campaign in favor of the Democrats and Obama.
Either way, the country benefits. And so does Obama.
One more important wrinkle: The debates should include a panel of experts in the relevant fields. Whenever there arises, in the course of the debate, a point of dispute on a question of fact, on what the reality is, or at least on what expert opinion is regarding a question of truth, either participant –the President or his Republican opponentwill be allowed to appeal to this panel to report on what is known or believed by the experts in the field.
In announcing his proposed format for these debates, President Obama can announce that these experts shall be selected in a non-partisan fashion, by those professional groups whose expertise is most relevant to the issue at hand, groups whose essential nature is recognized as apolitical: e.g. institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Bar Association, the American Economic Association.
The president would publicly ask such institutions: "Please provide to us x people who are best equipped to fact check the issue, and to help communicate to the American people what the people who know most believe to be true regarding matters pertaining to the issue we will be debating."
By these means, Obama will achieve two important things: 1) he will strengthen himself in the debate, while acting in a transparently "impartial" way; and 2) he will fortify that ethic of knowledge and rationality and expertise that has been seriously eroded in America in recent times.
1) It will presumably strengthen Obama in the debates because the Republicans have relied for so long on fear-mongering falsehoods and distortions to manipulate the public, they will likely not readily be able to adjust their approach, nor fare well in the light of actual expert opinion. (And if they do make the necessary adjustment to survive this format, that in itself will constitute an important step forward toward the kind of responsibility it needs from its two major political parties.) As JFK once modeled a respect for America's intellectual culture, so also can Obama with these panels.
2) And it will serve a vital need of our damaged American culture, in this age of Limbaugh and Fox News, etc. Whereas in these times, the right has been utilizing fear-and-hate-mongering lies to distort reality and subvert rational discourse, to make it almost impossible for America's deliberative democracy to discuss virtually any issue in a meaningful way, and to bring out the worst in a substantial portion of the American public, these debates will enable Obama to counter this descent into the dangerous realms of primitive, fear-based fantasies and to strengthen the power of knowledge and reason to shape America's choices about its future.
CONCLUSION
It is one fairly simple political gambit. But it addresses simultaneously a number of the most serious political problems that Obama faces, tilting the field to his advantage, and several of the deeper problems that have damaged the American body politic and beyond that the wider American culture.
***************
•ADDENDUM: a sense of urgency (as of November 4)
There are reports that Obama is signaling a readiness to compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I believe that would be a mistake, and a missed opportunity. This issue would be an excellent one with which to inaugurate the debating process.
The tax cuts for the rich are a great example of the GOP's indefensible positions, and polls show the public is opposed to them.
Obama has ready-made arguments of several kinds: the cuts add to the deficit the Republicans profess such concern for; the multiplier effect is so weak for such tax cuts that they do little to help the economy, and there are ways of deploying the same funds that have five or six times the stimulative value; and this particular group of people are not only rich, but their wealth position has improved even during this recession, while so many other Americans are losing ground, or holding on by their fingernails.
This should be a winner for Obama, and a strong winner would be a great way of getting these debates launched."
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 21st, 2010 at 10:25 pmand is filed under Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Print This Post 
Email This Post 13 Responses to "* Strategy for Obama"
- Katrin Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 12:29 am
- Sounds like a great plan, but it also seems sad realizing this debate will mostly not take place? Why? Just, because nothing has.
- Bob F Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 11:27 am
- This proposal would be a wonderful addition to our political discourse. Alas, I don't think there's a chance of it happening. The Republicans seem to be following a master plan handed down from somewhere on high. They won't deviate. Obama seems to be a kindred spirit to conservatives. I wouldn't be that surprised if he thinks they have a point that he should be a one-term president.
I don't think anybody (beyond an obvious handful of deviants) in American national political life cares what happens to the average American or "what's best for the country." - Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 am
- Two things I'd note, in response to your comment, Bob F. First, this strategy does not depend in ANY way on the Republicans. They can continue to follow their "master plan," if one exists, but if it is exposed as indefensible that plan will fail. The point is to drive them into a choice between being exposed or changing their ways. Either way, the country, and Obama and the Dems, win.
Second, it may or may not be true that the well-being of the average American and what's best for the country are matters of indifference to the players on the national political stage. (I do not believe it is.) But even if it were so, this strategy –played out on a public stage– would get for Obama and the Dems what politicians of all stripes and degrees of altruism generally want: an advantage in the struggle for power, the upper hand, the wind at their backs to enable them to achieve their political will rather than having the other guys roll over them. - Pat Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
- A Great Idea!!! How can we get this publicized and force its implementation?
- Pat
- Jim Z. Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 3:03 pm
- I tried to imagine the first issue subject to this proposed strategy to be that of Social Security. The result of this mind execise was not promising.
The first problem arose in wondering just what Obama believes "helps the country." It went downhill from there. - Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
- It sounds, Jim Z., as though you are in a true slough of despond.
- Jim Oberg Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
- You may recall, Andy, your invitation to all members of the 9/11 Commission to take part (or send a representative) in a serious debate with their critics that you would moderate, so that they could provide us with solid evidence about the merits of their conspiracy theory. As I recall, you got absolutely no response from any of them. In this fine plan above, you propose that Republicans show up to defend other indefensible elements of their agenda against a President skilled in debating, who already has shown how well he could show them up during their misguided invitation to him last year to attend their caucus on health care. Fox was so flummoxed by how badly the Republicans were performing that they cut off their live coverage! Why would Republicans ever agree to do this in front of the nation, when they are quite content to let Fox and Limbaugh hammer their irrational message home to their loyal flock with no countering arguments? Why mess with a winning formula?
Their agenda is succeeding because they keep it out of the light of reason and away from facts, and the Democrats never go on the offensive against it in any sustained manner. They even do not do a very good job projecting their own agenda to the public. Seems like more evidence that they are all in on it together to support their masters' (the oligarch's who have bought their services) agenda, with the middle and working classes left with no meaningful representation. Seems our attention should be focused on exposing the real manipulators, who have succeeded with their aggressive anti-democratic control of our political system. It's beginning to get pretty clear that neither party gives a damn about our larger society's needs any longer. - Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 5:24 pm
- Why would Republicans ever agree to do this in front of the nation…?
I think he wins that way, too. And if he does it well enough, the Republicans may decide that the best way to deal with subsequent challenges is to attend the debate.
I don't see any safe route for them, given this strategy, so long as Obama executes it effectively, doing things that we've already witnessed him as being able to do. - Jim Z. Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 5:54 pm
- Andy, do you believe that Obama believes that Social Security should be protected from cuts in the name of deficit reduction?
- Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
- November 22nd, 2010 at 6:40 pm
- I believe Obama is on record saying things about Social Security that are supportive of your concerns. The question I have about Obama, on this matter as on so many others, is whether he has it in him to hold his ground, press the battle, fight the fight.
- Jim Z. Says:
- November 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 am
- My concens? Obama has not spoken against cutting Social Security benefits, but rather cleverly opposed "privatizing" it, as a red herring. During his presidential campaign he clearly categorized Social Security as a part of the deficit and national debt problem – that is until Hilary Clinton pointed out his error, after which Obama merely remained silent on it, never standing corrected.
While you have nrrowed the field to whether Obama has the courage to fight, I'm directly questioning whether he even holds honest and fact-based positions on a variety of issues, beginning with, but not exclusively on, Social Security.
Additionally, Social Security is not some side show, easily dismissed as merely "my concerns." It is the cornerstone of our liberal society. It created, and continues to maintain, the middle class. No other existing aspect of domestic policy approaches its power to hold back the fears of the common man against the wolf at the door. I realize that health care ranks up there, too, and of course, can be the diference between penury and survival. But this fact only goes to show how disfunctional the US health system is.
Americans have too few weapons aganst the economic oligarchs who would place them back into a feudal existence. And those weapons are being taken out of their hands at an accelerating rate. I have not seen Obama make any sort of political case for this. He has completely abandoned the actual measures that would have a hope of bringing the country back economically, and he as good as endorses the catfood commission approach to cement the oligarchy.
He does not seem to believe in a liberal society, and unfortunately it has taken two years for his supporters to realize this. It is not a matter of his willingness to fight, certainly highly suspect; it is that he does not belive in what is worth fighting for. Tactics are only interesting if the goal is worth fighting for. He does not possess the goals that liberals thought he had. - Andrew Bard Schmookler Says:
- November 23rd, 2010 at 7:47 am
- He does not seem to believe in a liberal society, and unfortunately it has taken two years for his supporters to realize this.
- Ira Says:
- November 24th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
- I think it's a good idea Andy–a different kind of reality TV.
- But probably to "outside the box" for current politics. It does for with the numerous calls for Obama to become a "fighter" and to use the "bully pulpit" more. Reasoned debate, alas, seems difficult with society's current split personality.
Geez–if Palin's kid can get to the finals of Dancing with the Stars, the deck seems kinda stacked against separating fact from fiction
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment