The GOP: determined to elevate Obama to the very highest status

What were the odds? What were the odds that after victoriously decamping from the campaign battlefield on which blundered American history's most incompetent nominee ever that President Obama would instantly confront a ragtag mob of unreconstructed Republicans so ineffably goofy that they can't even recognize a victory of their own?

All great and near-great presidents have enjoyed extraordinary luck in the almost absurdly self-limiting character of their enemies--the phenomenon seems to be a metaphysical fact of historical justice--but Obama's luck is just downright breathtaking. On the fiscal cliff he offers "significant, arguably unnecessary concessions," as the NYT's Andrew Rosenthal puts it, to his lone and inescapably cornered foe, who then promptly rejects the unwarrantable gift by cooking up instead a whoppingly undigestible loser of a "Plan B" that leaves everyone in inexpressible bewilderment. (I was on the road nearly all of yesterday, or I would have chortled then.)

In the historical question of "presidential luck" there does indeed rest, I would argue, a kind of logical symmetry, referenced above as a "metaphysical fact." But when you think about it, it's not so metaphysical. Great and near-great presidents achieved their status because they happened to be on the right side of history; whereas their foes, it follows, were on the wrong side of history--and the latter was generally true because said foes simply weren't all that bright. From Lincoln's inbred Southern bullies to FDR's fascist thugs, the opponents of presidential greatness were who and what actually made those presidents great (which is not, I hasten to add, to take away the genius of Lincoln or Roosevelt).

Thus, President Obama, we give you Boehner, McConnell & Co.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

But, does Obama have the stomach to push the House Republicans to a breaking point which foments a GOP civil war resulting in absolute carnage for the "moderate Republicans"?

[Peter G]

Luck? I suppose the random forces of nature that gave Obama his current foes could be described so. But that doesn't mean you can't terribly misplay a good hand. Many think Obama is doing just that but I do not. In relation to your previous post I think he knows exactly the character of the people he is dealing with and their limitations. And I think he knows the character of his allies and party members and supporters and how to motivate them. But enough said about that. It seems your family emergency persists and I hope it ends well. Best wishes for it.

[Peter G]

I have been giving a little thought to that subject myself Robert. But the question I am asking myself is should he? Not will he? One tends to think of politics as a game and certainly game theory has many applications in politics but unless the Mayans and the current crop of Woo meisters are right it is a game that never ends. What exactly would be the consequences of a complete collapse of the Republican party into internecine warfare? What I once perceived as a laudable goal and, in fact, an end game won't be. Further I will not say. I'm still thinking about it.

[Robert Lipscomb]

@PeterG: I share the same instincts and am by nature a meet-you-halfway kind of guy. I prefer a full-throated, honest debate and put it up for debate. The radical right does not. They want obedience, not debate.

The radical right is not killing the Democratic Party; they are strengthening it. The radical right is killing the Republican Party. I want establishment, truly-conservative Republicans to squash the radical right, so they can go back to being the loyal opposition for debates.

[Peter G]

That's the way I'm thinking too Robert. Short of blowing them up I wonder if there is any set of policies that could encourage this republican Renaissance.