Obama’s deal with the GOP exposes two sad truths

President sacrifices key campaign promise for the sake of political expediency.

It is said that a stereotype gains traction because there is within it an element of truth. This week, we appear to have further confirmation of this idea. In the United States, President Barack Obama has agreed to a deal that sees the economically disastrous tax cuts passed under George W Bush extended for another two years, having campaigned against them in 2008. In this one move, Obama has, for a large number of people, demonstrated the truth in two stereotypes.

First, that politicians from all sides of the spectrum will go back on their campaign promises if it suits them politically. Morals be damned; political expediency is king (another recent example of this was when Obama's predecessor said – with a straight face – that he was not in the business of nation-building). Obama is not bowing to public pressure to appear strong in the face of an enemy as Bush did, however. He is caving in to the pressure from rich Republicans who threatened to filibuster tax relief for the middle-class households of America if the tiny minority of millionaires and billionaires did not also get the same treatment.

Which leads us to the second stereotype: the weak Democrat.

The Democratic Party has been infuriating the American left for years because it appears to be utterly unwilling to fight the Republicans on any issue. The GOP is moving further and further to the right side of the political spectrum, which is dragging what should be the centre to the right. Instead of having a right-left divide, the weakness of the Democratic Party has resulted in a far-right/centre-right divide.

The recent health-care legislation battle is a perfect example. Instead of starting from an absolute position (for instance, a single payer system) and compromising from there, the Democrats started from a compromise position and worked right. The result was a watered-down bill, most of which will not go into effect until 2014.

This tax debate was an example of the same idea. Economists overwhelmingly say that the Bush tax cuts were a major force in the explosion of the national deficit, and that their extension (especially to the super-rich) would only aggravate the problem. Obama could have taken this position and run with it. He could have called the GOP's bluff and told it that the super-rich were not getting their cuts extended and allowed them to filibuster. He would then be able to go in front of the American public and lay the blame at the feet of the corporate-friendly (or more corporate-friendly, at least) Republican Party. They would be responsible for a massive tax rise for everyone, because they wanted to help their already obscenely rich friends and contributors. Now, there is even more fuel on the GOP's "It's Obama's fault for the huge deficit" fire.

Obama has given the Republicans the stick with which to beat him. He claimed when announcing the deal that he would fight the Republicans on this issue, and others, over the next two years.

One question that immediately leaps to mind is this: if he went back on his pledge to fix the American tax system now, what reason is there to believe he won't just do it again in 2012 when the new tax cuts expire? By then, he may no longer be the president. Whose fault would that be? Certainly the Republican political machine and the conservative media outlets will claim responsibility, but honestly the blame would rest mostly on Mr Obama's shoulders.

Yes, we can? Prove it.

Picture: ANDRÉ CARRILHO
Show Hide image

Leader: Boris Johnson, a liar and a charlatan

The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. 

Boris Johnson is a liar, a charlatan and a narcissist. In 1988, when he was a reporter at the Times, he fabricated a quotation from his godfather, an eminent historian, which duly appeared in a news story on the front page. He was sacked. (We might pause here to acknowledge the advantage to a young journalist of having a godfather whose opinions were deemed worthy of appearing in a national newspaper.) Three decades later, his character has not improved.

On 17 September, Mr Johnson wrote a lengthy, hyperbolic article for the Daily Telegraph laying out his “vision” for Brexit – in terms calculated to provoke and undermine the Prime Minister (who was scheduled to give a speech on Brexit in Florence, Italy, as we went to press). Extracts of his “article”, which reads more like a speech, appeared while a terror suspect was on the loose and the country’s threat level was at “critical”, leading the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, to remark: “On the day of a terror attack where Britons were maimed, just hours after the threat level is raised, our only thoughts should be on service.”

Three other facets of this story are noteworthy. First, the article was published alongside other pieces echoing and praising its conclusions, indicating that the Telegraph is now operating as a subsidiary of the Johnson for PM campaign. Second, Theresa May did not respond by immediately sacking her disloyal Foreign Secretary – a measure of how much the botched election campaign has weakened her authority. Finally, it is remarkable that Mr Johnson’s article repeated the most egregious – and most effective – lie of the EU referendum campaign. “Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week,” the Foreign Secretary claimed. “It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

This was the promise of Brexit laid out by the official Vote Leave team: we send £350m to Brussels, and after leaving the EU, that money can be spent on public services. Yet the £350m figure includes the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher – so just under a third of the sum never leaves the country. Also, any plausible deal will involve paying significant amounts to the EU budget in return for continued participation in science and security agreements. To continue to invoke this figure is shameless. That is not a partisan sentiment: the head of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, denounced Mr Johnson’s “clear misuse of official statistics”.

In the days that followed, the chief strategist of Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings – who, as Simon Heffer writes in this week's New Statesman, is widely suspected of involvement in Mr Johnson’s article – added his voice. Brexit was a “shambles” so far, he claimed, because of the ineptitude of the civil service and the government’s decision to invoke Article 50 before outlining its own detailed demands.

There is a fine Yiddish word to describe this – chutzpah. Mr Johnson, like all the other senior members of Vote Leave in parliament, voted to trigger Article 50 in March. If he and his allies had concerns about this process, the time to speak up was then.

It has been clear for some time that Mr Johnson has no ideological attachment to Brexit. (During the referendum campaign, he wrote articles arguing both the Leave and Remain case, before deciding which one to publish – in the Telegraph, naturally.) However, every day brings fresh evidence that he and his allies are not interested in the tough, detailed negotiations required for such an epic undertaking. They will brush aside any concerns about our readiness for such a huge challenge by insisting that Brexit would be a success if only they were in charge of it.

This is unlikely. Constant reports emerge of how lightly Mr Johnson treats his current role. At a summit aiming to tackle the grotesque humanitarian crisis in Yemen, he is said to have astounded diplomats by joking: “With friends like these, who needs Yemenis?” The Foreign Secretary demeans a great office of state with his carelessness and posturing. By extension, he demeans our politics. 

This article first appeared in the 21 September 2017 issue of the New Statesman, The revenge of the left