Legal Commentary

The "Political Capitulation Makes You Stronger" Theory

By Big Tent Democrat

I just noticed that digby called me an idiot* (apparently digby was joking about my propensity to actually call people idiots (which I do with some frequency) In this case, having missed the joke, I appear to have proven myself rather an idiot. My apologies for missing the joke. It is a pretty good one now that I think about it.) for disagreeing with her in this post. Digby writes:

There are many facets to negotiation but what really matters is what you are willing to to walk away from and what people think you are willing to walk away from. Here's the real difference between health care reform and war funding: Progressives want to vote for the first and they don't want to vote for the second. The strategy all flows from that.

(Emphasis supplied.) Apparently, Digby thinks making a pledge, repeatedly and in writing, and then capitulating on the issue, does not signal that you will cave in on everything. She seems to think that because the phrase "health care reform" is more pleasing than "war on terror," then of course the Progressive Block will be taken seriously on war funding. This part of Digby's post was particularly amusing:

It won't be the same next time he comes to them for money to escalate the war, especially after talking endlessly about controlling costs on health care. They really don't want it.

Pull the other leg Digby. First of all, unlike health care reform, Obama does not need the Progressive Caucus AT ALL for war funding. Republicans will vote for it and so will a majority of the Democratic Caucus. In fact, the Progressive Caucus has no say on war funding AT ALL. So yeah, I guess Digby is probably right that most of the Progressive Caucus will vote No on war funding -- BECAUSE Obama will not need their votes.

What capitulating on health care reform DOES do is destroy any credibility the Progressive Caucus has when it purports to take a stand on an issue they DO have influence over. This should be obvious to any observer.

Digby ends her attack on me with this bizarre passage:

. . . [I]f I were a member of congress instead of an obscure blogger, I would be out there proclaiming that I will hold fast to the public option until the last Blue Dog dies. ( I assume that next week, they will be doing just that --- and we will have to help them.) But between you and me and the blogroll, I don't think they will end up voting against the bill on that basis, for all the reasons I have stated. Don't tell Rahm.

I assume this is an implicit swipe at my criticisms of Matt Yglesias and, especially, Ezra Klein. I do not understand Digby's point. I know Digby is not a blogger followed by the Media (unlike Ezra and Matt.) I know she is pretty much without influence and like me, is just spouting opinions. I did not criticize her for expressing her opinion. I disagreed with it.

I dunno, maybe this is blogger positioning for the capitulation digby is expecting (I have never been on the private e-mail lists so I do not know what the great progressive blogger strategy is these days.) But shooting at me seems pretty pointless.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 13, 2009 (boomark / email).