I WAS FURIOUS YESTERDAY, when I heard the president's announcement of a compromise on the tax break for the super-wealthy.
But on mature consideration, I think I understand.
If he insists on being the broker between the parties, then he loses the right to lead one of them.
Barack Obama started out as a community organizer.
He was elected, in part, because Americans were sick and tired of the Tyranny of the Republican Party—the "I don't listen to polls, My way or the highway" attitude of the Bush administration.
We wanted a grownup, someone who could and would listen, someone who would and could compromise on occasion to get the practical work of running our country done for us.
But we also wanted change, and we meant more by that than less fighting in D.C.
We meant all kinds of things—many of them contained in the President's campaign promises: such as allowing the tax cut for the wealthy to expire.
A major task of any community organizer is mediation and reconciliation—bringing people together, encouraging compromise.
But the ability to do that depends on the fact that the community organizer is a third party: that there are two opposing parties to be brought together in the first place, and that the organizer is independent of either—a broker, a counselor, an arbitrator, a go-between.
This is a very important role for a president to play, and Barack Obama has played it well—in foreign policy, with the American public, with the corporate world.
But there are two reasons that the role of mediator isn't working with Congress:
- The first reason is traditional: the President is not only president, but also the leader of his party.
This means that he is not a third party, however much he wants to be.
It means that any attempt on his part to get a compromise going between the parties is likely to lead to capitulation, since it is seen as move on the part of Democrats. - The second reason is contemporary, and has to do with the nature of the Republican Party at the moment.
They are tyrannical by nature.
What is a tyranny if not the rule of a minority over the majority?
Republicans are in the minority on one issue after another.
They are against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell—even though the vast majority of Americans are for it.
They were against health care reform—even though the vast majority of Americans were for it.
They continually run on an undercurrent of racism—even though the vast majority of Americans are not racist.
They are in favor of increasing the deficit in order to line the pockets of the super-wealthy—even though the vast majority of Americans are against that.
Add to this their attitudes toward spying on Americans, getting us into wars we didn't want to get into, using torture, and hundreds of other issues, and it's clear that they are the party of minority positions.
Yet they have continued to have their way, even when they did not have a majority in Congress, or control of the presidency.
And how do they get away with it?- By focusing on their political goals (defeating Obama) no matter what it does to the country.
- By constantly distorting the facts—whether it's weapons of mass destruction, pretending Iraq was behind 9/11, pretending they want DADT—but just not now—or pretending that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were good for the economy they helped destroy.
- By being willing to hold the well-being of the country hostage, when the President is not.
And so we come to the present "deal".
There's nothing wrong with a necessary compromise, but this one isn't necessary.
This one is a function of the President's misunderstanding of his job description.
We do need a community organizer in the White House—but the community he needs to organize, to bring to a consensus or to compromise, is the country itself: not a group of politicians whose central agenda is to frustrate his administration.
His traditional job in the Congress is to lead his party to victory, not to bargain victory away behind the scenes.
His job is to protect us from the tyranny of a stubborn minority.
The Democrats in Congress have done their job well.
They passed the right bill in the House, they were on their way to passing the right bill in the Senate—and fulfilling Obama's campaign promise.
The "compromise" the President has proposed is a disaster—not just a political disaster, but a disaster for the country.
It hands out money to the very group who both put us in this recession and then profited from it—money that could go to reduce the deficit, to stimulate the economy, to help ease the burden on the poor and middle class.
It makes the deficit harder to deal with—and puts Republicans in a better position to demand cuts in programs that would help both the economy and the average citizen over the next two years.
And it teaches Republicans, once again, that they can get what they want by holding the country hostage.
It's long-term effects are disastrous.
It is bad policy and bad politics as well.
If the President doesn't change his course, if he doesn't wake up and join the fight, Democrats are left with only one alternative.
Take him at his word.
If he insists on being the broker between the parties, then he loses the right to lead one of them.
He can't do both—he can't continue to negotiate with himself.
The Democrats must break with tradition.
They must treat him as what he wants to be: the community organizer of Congress.
They must refuse him the right to have any input into their decisions, and must take on the Republicans themselves.
They must exclude him from their back room—from any input into their caucus—and give him the two opposing sides a conciliator needs in order to function.
It might just make the best use of his talents.
They can begin by refusing to pass this compromise.
At least, that's what I think today.
