Curing Krugman's agony

Reading Krugman's blogging about proposed and counterproposed fiscal-cliff deals is like reading a day-to-day history of the Korean War peace negotiations--"I’m agonizing, big time; as of last night I was marginally positive, right now marginally negative"--so I'd like to offer, to Prof. Krugman, this advice. Endorse no compromise. Not this time.

Ordinarily I'm a big defender of the art. Compromise is, after all, the essence of politics, notwithstanding the intensity of the far right's and activist progressives' commonplace exhortations to just fight, fight, fight to the bitter end, which are more pretentious than strategic.

In today's circumstances, however, I find myself among their ranks, although not for ideological or idealistic reasons. Rather, I believe we've arrived at a critically decisive juncture with respect to the essence of governance and raw power, much as Lincoln did in 1861--a juncture at which he could either compromise the Union into oblivion, or he could crush the South into submission.

In the 42 days since the election, we've learned this much about the GOP's "new" politics: It possesses no will to fundamentally change. Republicans are geopolitically cornered and they know it; yet rather than modify or moderate, they're entrenching. Although I suspect they'll relent on their debt ceiling threats at the eleventh hour, even the run-up to more extortionist brutality and protection-racket politics reveals a party unalterably bereft of conscience or integrity or even the most rudimentary commitment to responsible governance. It seems their indulgence of nihilism is complete.

So screw 'em. No compromise, no life rafts, no concessions from which they'll only triumphantly wave freshly bloodied shirts. Let them sweat it out. And then you, Prof. Krugman, can stop agonizing.

Comments

[AnneJ]

The problem is that it is not Paul Krugman's decision to let them sweat it out and the president seems to be doing a little sweating of his own.

[Turgidson]

I am grudgingly aware that something distasteful was always likely to be in any "deal" reached. Chained CPI isn't the rankest piece of shit we could be asked to swallow (though it does give off a foul stench). Ultimately, something was going to have to pass the GOP House, whether now, in January, or later.

I just don't see why the White House is putting that in an offer atll, much less at this earlyish point in the game. They hold the cards, are winning the messaging war, and each passing day tightens the vice grip on Boehner's balls. Why now? And more importantly, why put Democratic fingerprints all over a Social Security cut? If it, or something equally unpleasant, had to be included to get a deal done, MAKE THE GOP SPECIFICALLY DEMAND IT, IN PUBLIC. I'll give Boehner that much - even though it made him look like an innumerate fool, he was wise to refuse to request specific cuts. They're unpopular, and the other party will run against them in 2014. And the electorate in this country, with its 2 second attention span, has probably already forgotten that the GOP just put a Zombie-Eyed Granny Starver on the national ticket.

Obama is giving them something they dearly want without making them own it and pay the political price for their selfish foolishness. AND giving them an opening to cut "Obama cut Social Security!" ads for 2014. THAT is the problem I have with this. I thought he'd learned his lesson about this. It appears they have not, although of course nothing is done just yet.

[Peter G]

I'm not particularly fearful of the fiscal cliff and without a good deal it isn't worth doing a deal. Nor am I unsympathetic to your argument about protection racket politics although that has always to some degree been an element of politics. But I'm not seeing what other people are seeing here when it comes to SS. To me this looks like Republican surrender. The differences between the methods of calculating the CPI are minute. so minute that it takes twenty years for a significant difference to become apparent. And during those twenty years, or as they are known in politics, eternity, the CPI calculation can be changed or benefits otherwise increased and almost certainly will be. One has only to look at the power of electoral demographics to see that the retiring baby boom generation will exert enormous electoral power in that same time period. I expect simple electoral survival is going to drive SS benefit increases. So as a condition of surrendering the Republicans are demanding the right to play Uncle Ernie and take little nephew SS into the closet for some diddling. Let em. Ten years from now they'll be tying themselves into knots trying to undo what they have done or they won't exist.

[Turgidson]

^ "Ten years from now they'll be tying themselves into knots trying to undo what they have done or they won't exist."

Only if responsibility for it is properly affixed to them. That's where I think Obama is dropping the ball. Maybe it doesn't matter, as the GOP has never let facts get in the way when they're campaigning and will say whatever they goddamn well please to win in 2014. Nonetheless, Obama should have made them extract this as a hard-fought concession and prize for all the world to see. Make them own the baggage of being the party that wanted to cut Social Security. As it is presently unfolding, there will be plenty of articles saying "Obama offered [cuts to Social Security.]" to throw into campaign ads.

But we shall see.