Obama Starts Off as a Radical, but Ought to Compromise on the Economy

I observed in earlier posts that Obama will either govern as a radical and suffer the consequences, or try to compromise and reap the benefits. I explained that he could govern as a radical when he does not need to compromise, such as when no legislation is required.

So far, through executive orders, which do not require legislation, Obama is governing as a radical. Obama has suspended military trials, initiated the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, and limited interrogations of suspected terrorist detainees to methods no harsher than the ones publicly listed in the Army Field Manual (of which al-Qaeda is aware and already has trained its members in resisting). The liberals have claimed that the Bush Administration policies Obama has overturned were harming the image of the U.S. around the world. Instead of defending our image by defending these policies, the liberals have proposed overturning them because they disagree with the policies substantively and are only raising concerns about our image as an excuse. Their views reflect the belief that terrorism is a rational response to our provocations, as opposed to the belief that terrorists hate us because they accept an immoral ideology that promotes the killing of "infidels." Thus, Obama has sent a signal of weakness to the terrorists. It remains to be seen, however, if he will exercise his prerogative to issue waivers for his order on interrogations.

In addition, Obama has ordered that federal tax dollars be given to organizations that promote abortion abroad. In short, Obama is demonstrating his radical priorities by protecting the supposed rights of foreign suspected terrorists but eliminating the fundamental right to life of innocent foreign children.

The economy provides an opportunity for Obama to demonstrate nevertheless whether he will compromise on legislative matters. He has the votes from the Democratic majority in Congress to pass the massive economic stimulus plan he proposes. Republicans are offering their support for a stimulus plan if Obama includes tax cuts for businesses and investment to spur economic growth more quickly than his proposed infrastructure projects, and reduces some of the $825 billion in spending Obama proposed.

One example of overspending Republicans cite in particular is the so-called "tax cuts" for the poor and lower middle class who already do not pay income taxes. The lower classes would receive tax credits, which is the equivalent of welfare. Indeed, a majority of all Americans would pay no income taxes, which means that they could outvote the tax-paying minority to continue to give themselves benefits without having to pay any taxes at the expense of those who produce most of the wealth.

Obama is tempted by the support of the Democratic Congress to get his plan passed quickly without any compromise. The problem is that if the plan does not work, he will appear to be less popular than bipartisan support would suggest, and he would have no bipartisan cover if the plan does not work; the GOP would blame Obama and the Democrats for the failure of the plan Republicans had opposed, at the cost of a massive increase in the budget deficit. But if Obama compromises, he would benefit politically, while the economy would improve, which, in turn, would further benefit him politically. Republicans could share in the credit, just as they did with Bill Clinton, who had learned the hard way after earlier enacting his massive tax increases and deficit spending without any Republican support.

Conservatives should apply pressure on Congress to force Obama to compromise for the good of the country.