<?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[Dissent Of The&nbsp;Day]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>A reader writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>1) If you buy into this <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/03/obama-as-a-leader/" target="_blank">leadership model</a>, recognize that Obama has applied it to budget negotiations. All your exhortations to get behind Bowles-Simpson need to be viewed in the context of Obama&#8217;s stated goal of avoiding what Ezra Klein later called the paradox of power &#8211; that if the president advocates for something, the opposition must be against it. Thus his <a href="http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2011/02/pulping-bully-approach-to-presidential_15.html" target="_blank">restraint</a> in early 2011: &#8220;This is not a matter of you go first or I go first,&#8221; he said before describing a goal of &#8220;everybody … ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn’t tip over” and now too, as Beutler nicely <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/obamas-permission-structure-and-his-last-best-chance-for-a-budget-grand-bargain.php" target="_blank">illustrates.</a></p>
<p>2) This style of leadership is potentially powerful but does not preclude the need to fight an intransigent opposition by maximizing leverage when you&#8217;ve got it. In my view, Obama failed at this. I can&#8217;t imagine Clinton signing on to sequestration in the first place, or letting it happen. By constantly postponing showdown Obama has basically <a href="http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2013/04/slow-train-wreck-coming-progressives.html" target="_blank">lost the budget wars</a>.</p></blockquote>
<p>I do think his caution with Bowles-Simpson was a terribly wasted opportunity to clarify his essentially centrist position with voters &#8211; thereby creating a &#8220;permission structure&#8221; to get centrist Republicans to back it. It would have been a risk because there are almost no moderate Republicans left, but Obama&#8217;s reluctance to take risks &#8211; to put some audacity into his hope &#8211; has been alternately a strength and a weakness. He has gotten nowhere on long-term debt anyway. Why not put down a rhetorical marker that is easy to understand?</p>
<p>But look: we have an end to torture, the winding down of two disastrous wars, a sea-change on marriage equality, universal healthcare, declining deficits, a real possibility of immigration reform, and a recovery other countries would dream of. And the failure to tackle the revenue crunch and entitlement costs (beyond experiments in cost-control in Obamacare) is not truly a function of the president. Maybe he should have let all the tax cuts disappear on January 1. But that would have been irresponsible.</p>
<p>When one side in a struggle is prepared to be irresponsible endlessly, what&#8217;s a president to do? About as much as he has. </p>
]]></html></oembed>