Legal Commentary

Good Politics On The Stimulus Means Good Policy

By Big Tent Democrat

I am not enamored of the stimulus plan that passed the House because I think it is entirely too timid for the problems we face. In addition, it does not a thing for the housing crisis. For that reason, I think it is bad politics. Because for all the caterwauling, including from me, about Obama's post-partisan unity schtick, as in most cases, the politics of the stimulus plan will be determined by the results of the policy.

It is for that reason that I find Andrew Sullivan's analysis perplexing. First, Sullivan says he opposes the bill. But not 15 minutes later, he excoriates the House GOP for voting against the bill:

Obama's public and sincere attempt to win many over, his early inclusion of more tax cuts than many Democrats wanted, his outreach to the House GOP, which Bush merely dictated to: these are all good things. More to the point: the public will see them as good things. Obama seems like the reasonable future at this point. The GOP seems like a very ideological past.

But one fears that the logic of the election means that many Republicans who might otherwise have been open to a real compromise - or at least less partisan rhetoric - are no longer in the Congress. The remaining rump will seek ideological purity and attack the president from the get-go. Having ransacked the Treasury for eight years, I guess they have to earn back their fiscal cred somehow.

Of course the public will judge the efficacy of the stimulus plan, not the political theatre of the past few days. But here's my question, if House Republicans really disagree with the bill, what is the principle that necessitates their voting for it? I mean Sullivan himself says he would not vote for it. In heaven's name, how can he then criticize House Republicans for voting against it?

This is the triumph of style over substance and it is precisely the cancer that plagues the Beltway. And the question is has it infected Obama too? Will he, for the sake of political style, offer even more concessions to the Republicans even if he believes such concessions will weaken the efficacy of his plan? This remains an open question.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on January 29, 2009 (boomark / email).