The Big Freeze?

A touch of revisionism from the NYT editorial page's Apocalypse tour guides: "Following the fiscal cliff deal, President Obama declared that he would not get into another fight over the debt ceiling." Following, true enough; also during, prior to, and, spiritually, above.

This, unmistakably, is a kind of cold war politics in which the president and Republican nihilists are engaged--a game of bluff, brinkmanship, and bilateral warnings of Mutually Assured Destruction. And it is perhaps the only kind of war in which "not getting into another fight" means prolonging the one we have.

I freely confess that I'm an anti-nihilist hawk. Hit them now, Mr. President, while you've got the muscle. Of course "now" is too late to hit them at the cliff, which was a tactically superior opportunity that held the vast potential of greater strategic benefit: a fiscal-cliff skirmish--at much lower human costs--might well have weakened the nihilists to the extent of political exhaustion and thus a preemptive, debt-ceiling surrender. But, no matter now.

Alternatively, we could try replaying our original M.A.D. game of cold war politics. We could, that is, suffer the escalating costs of prolonged tensions while just waiting the nihilists out--negotiating here and containing there, whenever possible. Like all evil empires their internal rot has them pre-doomed; their collapse is, as they say, just a matter of time, so why fight? But those interstitial costs. Lord, the costs.

So far, Obama remains in the hawks' camp, insisting on the hardest possible line. (And I remain almost wholly mystified about his courtiers' thunderous distinction between the immense nobility of not negotiating now and the alleged unspeakable stupidity of not negotiating just a week before. Now, when the consequences of presidential intransigence could mean a multiyear global meltdown which dwarfs the Great Depression, Obama's non-negotiating position is hailed as awesomely courageous; before, when the consequences of presidential intransigence would by all accounts have been far less apocalyptic, Obama's option of non-negotiation was ridiculed as insanely aggressive. The only demystification is this: To Obama's 100-Percenters, whatever he chooses is the right choice. Theirs is always a glowing, after-the-fact assessment. Because Obama is never wrong, their assessments are never wrong. Pretty slick.)

Will Obama remain unyieldingly hawkish? The aforementioned Times editor unleashes a firm judgment of endless ambiguity. He ventures both "fat chance," and this (italics mine): "if he makes any offer linked to the debt ceiling, he will have lost the war. He will end up negotiating with himself again, as he did over the fiscal cliff."

In sum, the cold war politics of negotiation worked once. It's very unlikely to work again.

Comments

[Smartypants]

What you completely ignore is that there is a constitutional issue at stake in the debt ceiling that was not present in the so-called fiscal cliff - can Congress force the President to not fulfill his/her duties when it comes to the full faith and credit of the US?

You'd do better to compare Obama negotiating last time on the debt ceiling to his refusal to do so this time.

And that little piece of advice comes from one of the people you so affectionately call the "Obama 100-Percenters." ;-)

[japa21]

I am somewhat amused by the term "Obama 100-percenters." I don't really know too many of them. In fact, I can think of only one on one other site. I know a lot of people who would probably fall into the Obot category, but all of them have at one time or another expressed disagreement with something he has said or done.

Regarding the fiscal cliff, in theory I would have liked him to go over the bump. In reality, too many people would have suffered immensely. Enough that, even if it had been resolved in a few weeks or a couple months, the economy would have taken a hit.

Regarding the debt ceiling, I do think there is a difference. There is a lot less threat of a Global Depression if Congress doesn't raise it, because if they don't, they will within a couple days. The aftermath would be too damaging to the GOP brand (yes, I also wonder how it could be damaged any more than it is) and Boehner would have to do the same thing he did on the cliff deal, pass it with a minority of the Republicans voting for it.

[PM]

I will note once more that no one has argued, no one is arguing, and no one ever will argue that there's no substantive difference between the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff--there are, obviously, huge differences: economic, constitutional, historical. The simple non-distinction I've raised is tactical: non-negotiating is non-negotiating. You can restate that proposition in as many different ways as you like, but it always comes back to an unmitigated non-difference.

With that, I'll butt out. This space is for you, not me, and I should respect that.
--PM

(Oh, forgot to add--to see entire armies of 100-Percenters, just watch 2 minutes of Rev. Al or Martin Bashir, if you can take it.)

[pamelabrown53]

Actually, pm, I'm glad to see you participate in the comments. Otherwise it's like talking into a vacuum.

Actually, I'm happy that the unemployed won't suffer MORE as well as other tax credits included for the most vulnerable. There was no other way to ensure their inclusion in an over the cliff scenario.

As far as the debt ceiling, it's time to lance that crazy boil: the cuts will be negotiated in the sequester. If (heh) the republicans won't deal, then the sequester goes into effect. Too bad for DOD.

So, in sum, IMO,everything needs to be separated in a discreet way that the general public can understand and because nothing else will have a rat's ass chance of getting through the crazy House of Gerrymandered Representatives.

Also, too, I think tactics are focused almost too exclusively at the expense strategy, i.e. VISION which requires long-term strategizing (tactics).

(Oh, forgot to add- Rev. Al and Martin Bashir have their place in a cacophony of negativity where Pew Research has found only 7% of Obama coverage is positive. So, yes, I can take it in small doses.

That said, I'm not a big fan of cable "news".

[Peter G]

The distinction seems clear to me. The fiscal cliff, artificial or not, demanded negotiation, even a largely fake one else the president's political capital and his perception by the public as a reasonable man risked being evaporated. Spending and taxation clearly lies within the purview of the House. The president did quite well out of that negotiation all things considered. Now we move on to the debt ceiling wherein the Republicans imagine that tax issues have been settled and it is time to move onto spending cuts. Imagine their surprise when the president just says no or, even better, demands still greater concessions on tax increases before he will entertain a dollar of cuts to social programs. What will they do? It is the executive that has discretion on what bills will be paid should the US default and be forced into what amounts to a balanced budget amendment. The only place you'll be able to buy stock in Boehner is in the OTC penny stock markets.