<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Should The Democrats Hold The Government&nbsp;Hostage?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>If they ever want to actually increase taxes, then yes, <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/some-advice-for-democrats/" target="_self">according</a> to Douthat:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is the reality that liberals need to face: Much of the Republican  “intransigence” and “hostage-taking” and “terrorism” that they deplore  is a direct consequence of the fact that Republicans assume that  Democrats will always, <em>always</em>, cave on taxes. And so long as  that assumption keeps getting vindicated by events, there’s no incentive  for the G.O.P. to accede to sweeping compromises on deficit reduction.  Why would you compromise with <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/pelosi-were-not-going-to-see-a-big-debate-on-eliminating-the-middle-income-tax-cuts/2011/07/11/gIQA7XZUsI_blog.html">a party that won’t actually fight</a> for the revenues required to pay for the programs it claims to want to  protect? Why would you sign off on tax increases that your notionally  pro-government opposition doesn’t want to sign off on themselves? &#8230; In the long run, you can’t have compromise without intransigence.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>