Boehner bluffs, but Obama has the better hand

There was a sci-fi action movie out last spring called “Battleship,” which most critics described with various forms of the word “stupid.” Gigantic craft from an alien world respond to some radio signals some geeky scientist types put out, and all they want to do is take over the planet, or something. Nobody actually knows what they want, but as usual it can’t be anything good. Somehow, with technology to travel billions of miles, the alien spaceships are destroyed by puny Earthling know-how. 

What really stumps me about movies like this is that they show you just how brain-dead national chauvinism and military chest-thumping really is. I mean, the world is running out of resources, technologically the world is at a standstill, no one has any idea on how to escape to other worlds once the Earth cannot support human life, and all anyone can think about (at least in the movies) is not conducting a friendly inquiry about how to exploit the aliens’ obviously far advanced technology; they are just “illegal aliens” who must be destroyed, and no one seems a bit interested in learning the knowledge they might have to impart. I mean, is that stupid, or what? It’s not that “civilians” are any smarter, of course. Take “Men in Black.” They have all these aliens in some underground warehouse and all anyone can get out of them is laser hand guns and memory-erasing devices? Some of these aliens actually speak English; perhaps our scientists could have picked the aliens brains and glean more useful information—say, the form of energy they used to power their spacecraft? 

Of course, there are real world examples of purposeful ignorance. In his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond describes how the first Norse settlers of Greenland preferred to heap contempt upon and kill the indigenous Inuit population, rather than learn their survival skills; the Inuit had lived in the harsh environment for thousands of years and continue to do so today, yet the racial prejudices of the Norse settlers prevented them from learning—and in the end, from living. Another example is the federal government the past four years. Historian Allen Brinkley noted  the stark difference between a federal government with the White House and Congress under Democratic control, and that with a Republican-controlled House:

Another real world example is the federal government, which the teabaggers in the House have held hostage for the past two years. The 111^th Congress, controlled in both houses by the Democrats, was the most productive since the 1960s, Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2% of all proposed laws, according to a USA TODAY analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk’s office. In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law. The only other year in which Congress failed to pass at least 125 laws was 1995. …When Democrats controlled both chambers during the 111th Congress, 258 laws were enacted in 2010 and 125 in 2009, including President Obama’s health care law.

The problem seems to be that voters think that when legislatures actually do the people’s work, they are doing too much. Thanks to Republican propaganda, voters in 2010 were led to believe that their lives would become suddenly too complicated and out of control—even though for most of us, life goes on unchanged. Yet the voters who put the teabaggers in control of the House didn’t seem to notice that the government was now virtually at a standstill, and legislation that would have been a boon to economic growth and jobs was blocked merely on partisan grounds; anything that had positive impact on people was seen as too helpful to re-elect Obama, and everything must be done to make things so bad that people would not want Obama back in office. In fact, Republican governors may have deliberately conducted massive lay-offs in public sector jobs in order to artificially increase the unemployment rate. 

But voters apparently decided that less is more in the 2012 House elections, which is something that House Speaker John Boehner has taken as a “sign” to continue his obstructionist designs. Directly following the past election, Boehner suggested that he was willing to “give” on the revenue side of the budget deficit question. “That is the will of the people. And we answer to them. For purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions” he said. He even conceded that “Obamacare is the law of the land.” On immigration reform, he said “A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.” Furthermore, “Mr. President,” he proclaimed, “this is your moment. We’re ready to be led — not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. We want you to lead, not as a liberal or a conservative, but as president of the United States of America.”

But just one day later, Boehner changed his tune, like a schizophrenic off his medication; apparently he had heard Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tell the press that no way, no how were revenue increases going to pass the House, and like any good servant, Boehner put his tail between his legs before his master. Raising tax rates on the wealthy is now "unacceptable.” He disingenuously told Diane Sawyer in a television interview that "Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate. Of course, we'll talk about it. We talk about all kinds of things we may disagree on. I'm the most reasonable, responsible person here in Washington. The president knows it. He knows that he and I can work together. The election's over. Now it's time to get to work."

Boehner is probably the only man in Washington who thinks that he is the “most reasonable, responsible” person in town. If he was, this debt “crisis” would have been “solved” to a rational facsimile of agreement by now. Boehner is in fact a weak leader who failed utterly to cobble together even a tiny minority of his charges to support his “grand bargain” with the president. Boehner continues to live a world of his own making, far distant from reality. He claimed that teabaggers had no influence in his decision to abandon his pledge to Obama. Rather than admitting that they were a destructive force, he claimed that "These are ordinary Americans who've taken a more active role in their government. They want solutions, but we've all come a long way over the last two years. I think we all understand each other a lot better." If that is true, then why did Boehner do a backflip on the revenue issue?

For his part, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stood firm on their position that the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans should be allowed to lapse at the end of the year. The fact that exit polls show that 60 percent of voters support this move shows that the Republican leadership continues to play by the rules set down by their puppet masters. The blackmail by Republican corporate donors has already begun; Robert Murray of Ohio-based coal company Murray Energy announced layoffs, because “The American people have made their choice. They have decided that America must change its course, away from the principals of our Founders. And away from the idea of individual freedom and individual responsibility. Away from capitalism, economic responsibility, and personal acceptance.”  Murray claimed that he asked “God” for “forgiveness.” If there is such a deity, I’m certain it will easily recognize the blackness of Murray’s heart. 

Some commentators have counseled Obama not to cave-in to such threats, asserting that he holds all of the cards now with the election done. If the Republicans refuse to bargain in good faith, the Bush tax cuts will end regardless, and while automatic budget cuts will hurt, there will not be the meat cleaver to social programs that the Republicans are hoping to do. Before that happens, however, Boehner will have his opportunity to prove he is “reasonable”—or a fraud.