Thoughts of Future Past
Only a little over three weeks remain before the next election. We should take stock of where we are, where we came from, and where we could be going.
Four years ago on this date, Americans faced in awe the possibility that we could actually elect a black man to the most powerful office on Earth. The impossible happened. On November 4, 2008, Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the United States. He was sworn in on January 20, 2009, just three days after the 80th birthday of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. On that very evening, Republican Congressional leaders met in the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington DC to plot the downfall of the Obama presidency, even if it meant undermining and destroying the US economy.
The luminaries in attendance included, among others, Representative Eric Cantor (R-Richmond, VA), Representative Pete Sessions (R-Dallas, TX), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) — and Representative Paul Ryan (R-Janesville, WI), the current Republican Vice Presidential nominee. Also present were political operative Frank Luntz and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They set the tone of Congress — and, thereby, the terms of the national debate — for the ensuing four years.
The nature of the meeting is well-documented, and undisputed. According to reports, during this four-hour meeting the participants agreed to bring the work of Congress to a standstill, regardless of any active harm it would do to the American economy. They agreed to block all legislation, even matters they would otherwise support, simply for the purpose of making President Obama look bad. The birth of the Republican obstructionism of the 111th and 112th Congresses occurred in that room.
Some of their effort failed. President Obama shepherded through Congress a stunning panoply of major legislation, from the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, from the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Most of the major legislation in President Obama’s first term was enacted with few Republican votes — usually with none at all, as the Caucus Room meeting had planned. Despite the undeniable legislative successes of the first two years, forged in an atmosphere of unrelenting hostility and brick-wall opposition, Republicans did succeed in painting the President as partisan and unwilling to compromise.
This image was a carefully-crafted fiction, of course. President Obama reached out to Republicans even during his presidential campaign. He intentionally modeled his cabinet on the principles of Abraham Lincoln’s bipartisan “Team of Rivals”. In Obama’s cabinet are Republicans Ray LaHood (Secretary of Transportation), John McHugh (Secretary of the Army), Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense) and Chuck Hagel (Co-Chair of Intelligence Board). He appointed Utah’s Republican Governor John Huntsman to be Ambassador to China, and nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg to be Secretary of Commerce (Gregg declined the honor).
Even during the prolonged and contentious debate on health care reform, President Obama reached out to Republican leaders for recommendations and suggestions. The final bill was based on Republican proposals, and contained hundreds of Republican amendments.
Yet the final votes on the Affordable Care Act included not one Republican “yea”. This wasn’t because Republicans had been excluded in crafting the bill; it was because Republican leadership had vowed to oppose anything President Obama supported, regardless of the content of the bill, or the consequences for the nation. The whole point was to pretend President Obama was “forcing” a partisan agenda on the nation, when in fact, the partisan nature of the conversation in Washington was being engineered entirely by the Republican Party.
The lame duck session at the end of the 111th Congress, in December of 2010, proved to be amazingly productive. In the absence of pressure to campaign, Congress approved — with overwhelming support from both parties — an historic nuclear arms treaty with Russia, a bill to help survivors of the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks, an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts, an extension of the stimulative payroll tax holiday, an extension of unemployment benefits, a repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, a sweeping reform of food safety laws, and a $4.5 billion child nutrition plan and expansion of the the federal school lunch program.
That lame-duck session reveals what could happen, the bipartisan progress that can be made, if Republican leaders simply get out of the way, stop trying to bring down a duly-elected President, and simply let Congress do its job. The President’s supporters have frequently chided him for bending over backwards in an attempt to be accommodating to intransigent and inflexible Republican opposition. Whether the amazingly productive 2010 lame-duck session was due to the President’s willingness to compromise, or simply a result of a sudden and temporary spasm of responsibility and civic consciousness on the part of Republicans, remains an unsettled question.
What does this bode for the future? There are a number of vital issues which need to be resolved within the first few months after the election — the question of the once-more-expiring Bush tax cuts and payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits; the sequester of federal funds looming due to the failure of the budget Supercommittee, mandated because of Republican obstinacy over raising the debt ceiling; and speaking of the debt ceiling, another increase in federal borrowing authority for FY 2013 and beyond; and the details of the 2013 federal budget — among other sticky matters. The final form of these decisions will undoubtedly be shaped, in part, by awareness of the winners and losers next month.
It will be shaped, too, by the differences between the 111th Congress and the 112th. In 2010, elected Republicans included a far smaller percentage of Tea Party activists than we have infesting the halls of the capital today. The débâcle of the 2011 debt ceiling debate could not have occurred (and did not occur) at any prior point in American history. A resolution of the fiscal cliff we face may have to await the actual swearing-in of the 113th Congress next January. The creatures currently seated may be entirely incapable of any ideological compromise.
The point is, the current atmosphere in Washington is a direct and intentionally-engineered result of the January 2009 Caucus Room plot. One way or another, the flavor may change sometime after the election. We may have four more years of deadlock. That could well happen. There are two other possibilities.
If there is a Democratic wave, then sufficient numbers of Tea Party obstructionists may be washed away to allow actual progress and compromise — the lifeblood of American governance for the last two centuries — to flow once more.
Alternatively, a new Republican president and Republican control of both houses of Congress would put the responsibility of national stewardship into the hands of people who have shown no desire to actually govern.
Related articles
Republicans Eager to Embarrass Obama End Up Compromising US Security
When partisan impulses meet health care needs
Obama Calls On Congress
Analysis: Obama’s health care law historic reform and signature failure
Cenk and Eliot Spitzer to President Obama: Stop pre-emptively compromising with Republicans

This entry was posted by dcpetterson on October 14, 2012 at 3:00 am, and is filed under Uncategorized. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
-
#2 written by rgbact 7 months ago
I’m almost rooting for more the 4 more years of deadlock. Assuming Congress never does anything constructive.…inaction, while sometimes depressing to watch as a spectator sport, is the best for the country. So we go bankrupt. Probably for the best.
That lame-duck session reveals what could happen, the bipartisan progress that can be made
More like it reveals how destructive a bunch of people– who had gotten fired in a recent election– could be when they no longer had to worry about the consequences of votes. Probably one of the most despicable acts by Congress in recent history. It pretty much declared that however irrelevant the GOP thought Obama’s election was.….the Dems thought the 2010 TP’er election was 5 times moreso. And its been that way ever since.
-
#3 written by mclever 7 months ago
Destructive, rgbact?
Passing a nuclear arms treaty with Russia was destructive??
Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was destructive?
Continuing unemployment benefits and the reduced payroll tax for struggling Americans was destructive?Rather than showing that “the Dems thought the 2010 TP’er election was 5 times [more irrelevant]”, the fact that they rushed these things through with bipartisan agreement probably shows that even the Republicans in the fall of 2010 knew how destructive and obstructive the incoming TPers would be, so they knew they’d better get some of these important things passed while they could.
-
#4 written by Max 7 months ago
rgbact,
Of course. That’s the Teaper plan all along. We already know that.
Meanwhile, we have a country to run, and economy to repair, and an entire world that needs to be addressed on numerous levels. Doing nothing is not an option!
So just GTF out of the way and stop hindering the adults in the room.
-
#5 written by Max 7 months ago
I find it a bit odd that the right, and their party organ, FoxNews, are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to build a case directly blaming the President for the terrorist attack in Benghazi, trying to piece together a link of CIA and State missives and testimony.
Meanwhile, NOT ONE of them will state for the record that, in spite of a NIE, and earlier cautions by the Clinton administration during the transition, George W Bush was responsible for the MUCH worse terrorist attack on American soil!
-
#6 written by DrFunguy 7 months ago
-
#8 written by DrFunguy 7 months ago
The thought of a Romney administration is certainly sobering. Continued discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, another middle east war, an economic policy likely to drive the U.S. if not the world into a depression; a halt to health care reform. Then there is the Supreme Court; abortion rights out the window, corporate personhood (which I realize goes back, tragically, to about 1870), denial of attempts at gun control…
Its enough to make one want to move to Canada, … oh wait. Seriously, it could drive me to apply for citizenship when I become eligible in about a year and half.
-
#9 written by rgbact 7 months ago
So just GTF out of the way and stop hindering the adults in the room.
Yeah,the “adults” featuring the Congress that hasn’t passed a budget in 3+ years and the president thats never held a fiscally responsible job in his life. Sorry, well be hindering these clowns all the way. Go gridlock! If it wasn’t for Obamacare—I’d actually look forward to Obama accomplishing absolutely nothing if reëlected.
-
#10 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
The cul de sac Romney has to vacate sooner or later, IMO, is the one embodied in Grover Norquist infamous words…
“We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget,” he told New York magazine. “Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States.”
Somewhere in the next 2 1⁄2 weeks Romney needs to have his “Sister Souljah” moment with that sentiment. The trouble is, having picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, how does he throw Norquist under the bus without tossing Ryan there as well. -
#11 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#12 written by rgbact 7 months ago
-
#13 written by shortchain 7 months ago
Actually, if Congress does nothing, the Bush tax cuts expire. And then there will be terrible suffering by those who rely on government programs to alleviate their sorry lot — like the military-industrial complex, and of course the lower middle class (using Romney’s definition, that would be everyone with an income of under 100,000/yr, or, in other words, about 93 percent of the population.)
Whatever political or social problems the country will have then, it won’t be government “bankruptcy” under that set of circumstances…
-
#14 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#15 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
Yeah,the “adults” featuring the Congress that hasn’t passed a budget in 3+ years and the president thats never held a fiscally responsible job in his life.
Congress hasn’t passed a budget in 3 years? Yawn. “Passing a budget” is clearly irrelevant. The government has continued to function, and to fully fund all its functions, despite not having a “budget”.
As far as President Obama not having had a job in the private sector — so what? That has nothing whatever to do with running a nation.
-
#17 written by rgbact 7 months ago
-
Actually, if Congress does nothing, the Bush tax cuts expire.
This is the delightful irony of Republican obstructionism. The Bush tax cuts expire on Jan 2. Period. Democrats can propose a renewal of the tax cuts on incomes under $250K. Republicans would have to allow the 1% to go back to Clinton-era tax levels. Here is where we see inaction working for the good of the nation for a change.
-
-
#20 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#21 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Scott Brown has apparently walked into a propeller. He, this last summer, attempted to lobby and lend his support to Pharmaceutical Compounders, the self same industry responsible for the Meningitis outbreak going on now that has killed over a dozen people and sickened hundreds. It appears to be a quid pro quo for political funding activities.
-
#23 written by rgbact 7 months ago
perhaps you could articulate ‘Mitts agenda’ then, perhaps more clearly than he has even
I just read a piece from Ezra Klein. Even he understands Mitt’s agenda. Check it out. If you have specific questions you’d like greater detail on, let me know. I’m not going to write a white paper on my beliefs on every issue.
-
#24 written by dawolf 7 months ago
Romney wants to be a Rorsharch Test. His idea is that republicans will listen to what he says that is right wing, and Independents will listen to what he says that is moderate. Both will see what they want to see.
It is an interesting tactic. Time will tell if he gets elected while saying two different things.
-
#25 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
dawolf, absolutely true. There is hardly any position Romney has not taken. One must assume his only real policy goal is the election of Mitt Romney. Running America as he ran Bain Capital means dismantling the nation to further enrich himself and his cronies.
Couple that lack of concern for America to the insanity of the Tea Party, and may God have mercy on our souls. rgbact’s desire to have government do nothing is not uncommon among the far right. Somalia, here we come. A Republican wave next month would devastate the nation, and probably the rest of human civilization as well.
-
#21 cc.. yeah Brown is working our yokel version of the mittspeil.
I am long familiar at how utterly crooked all parties are in the commonwealth where “It ain’t whatcha know.. it’s whooya know” is the central lesson we learn by middle school.
The Dem graft is mainly nepotistic featherbedding while the GOP version has more to do with rigging situations.
The honest people are either wealthy and ditzy or middle class and disgruntled.
I have a sense the ditzes will align more closely with the disgruntled in this round than they did in Brown’s last at bat.
A comparison of 2008 turn out numbers with the off year election is not a good thing for Brown. And Warren actually works for the job, a refreshing change from Coakley, who figured it was an entitlement.
-
#28 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
DC,
if you are accurate about the GOP position on ‘doing nothing’, why is it so hard for Republican lifers to admit that fact. You do raise an interesting issue though, how do you fire a US citizen, or remove his citizenship from him. If the Bain analogy is an apt one, those are key questions. Now, on the face of it, they are self serving questions and perhaps political rhetoric, but if a political party will, through conscious effort and forethought, disenfranchise perhaps millions of voters, are those questions simple polemics or is their fire under that smoke.
-
Once again, rgbact, I’m forced to conclude you have a serious reading comprehension deficit, or you’re trying deliberately to obfuscate and mislead.
Assuming this is the Ezra Klein piece you reference (an assumption I had to make because you were somehow unable to provide a simple URL):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012–10-10/romney-beats-obama-on-hope.html
It slams both Obama and Romney. Let me quote the parts about Romney’s agenda:
Mitt Romney can tell you exactly what he wants to do, but barely a word about how he’ll do it. President Barack Obama can’t describe what he wants to achieve, but he can tell you everything about how he’ll get it done. At this point, Romney and Obama are running almost perfectly opposite campaigns.
…
Conversely, Romney’s campaign agenda appears huge. He wants root-and-branch reform of the tax code, including a 20 percent across-the-board cut to marginal tax rates. He wants to reduce federal spending to 20 percent of gross domestic product and balance the budget. He wants to convert Medicare to a voucher program, make Medicaid a block-grant program, and repeal the health-care law and hand responsibility to the states.Ask how he intends to achieve any of this and the answers grow fuzzy. Romney will pay for his tax cuts and hold the burden steady on the rich by closing tax breaks that he won’t name and that the best independent analyses have concluded don’t exist in sufficient amounts to pay for the plan. Ask where he’ll make his vast budget cuts – his plan implies a 40 percent cut to everything other than Medicare, Social Security and defense – and Romney says he’ll cut tiny PBS. Ask how fast his Medicare vouchers will grow and he says he hasn’t decided. Ask how Medicaid recipients will survive his huge cut and he says the states will do more with less. Ask how he’ll replace Obama’s health-care law and he says that states should emulate Massachusetts, even though Massachusetts relied heavily on Medicaid funds that Romney has vowed to cut.
This is someone you want to vote for?
-
#30 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
dc,
…rgbact’s desire to have government do nothing is not uncommon among the far right. Somalia, here we come…
if you’re correct, that’s not a Republican agenda, that’s an anarchist agenda. If that is so, then in speech, here and elsewhere, they should be labeled as the anarchist wing of the GOP.
-
#31 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Wow, Abbas is claiming, more or less, that Netanyahu and Likud torpedoed a Palestinian-Israeli two state agreement in 2008–9. He claims Olmert and he had a deal, and before they could close (sell it to Hamas and the West Bank), Likud purposefully ginned up a controversy that caused the government to fall. No wonder Netanyahu wants a compliant Romney to win the election. I wonder if that could have been at the root of Obama’s overheard comments to Mevedev about, “waiting until after the election”.
-
#32 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
Today’s interesting data load in graphic form:
http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-that-should-get-obama-reëlected-2012–10#
-
-
#34 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
#35 written by channelclemente 7 months ago
-
You must be logged in to post a comment. - Comment Feed for this Post
About dcpetterson (186 posts)
D. C. Petterson is a novelist and a software consultant in Minnesota who has been writing science fiction since the age of six. He is the author of A Melancholy Humour, Rune Song and Still Life. He lives with his wife, two dogs, two cats, and a lizard, and insists that grandchildren are the reward for having survived teenagers. When not writing stories or software, he plays guitar and piano, engages in political debate, and reads a lot of history and physics texts—for fun. Follow on Twitter @dcpetterson






Yawn.