I criticized Obama for not embracing the Bowles-Simpson plan and not "tackling hard choices the responsible, post-partisan way." Benjamin Dueholm counters:
In a parliamentary system, I think Andrew's case would make a lot of sense. Despite what a lot of people seem to think, a system with fewer veto points and more party discipline leads to greater democratic accountability and some strong incentives to govern responsibly. So if Bowles-Simpson is the government's policy that's one thing, if it's a partisan actor's bargaining position it's quite another.
And that's the thing: Obama can't unilaterally opt-out of any partisan politics or Washington games. He needs partners, and those prospective partners will have ideological, electoral, and demographic reasons to oppose him no matter how earnest and post-partisan he tries to be. Those reasons need more attention. Partisanship and Washington games are not bad moral habits. They're inevitable when you have well-sorted, demographically distinct parties who regularly compete in elections, and especially when you have a political system like ours that builds in incentives to extreme position-taking rather than responsible governing.
I understand this pragmatic position; but I also understand the occasional need for a president to take a stand, and define the debate, and clearly embrace the broad outlines of a solution. He needn't have endorsed every line of Bowles Simpson, but since it was his commission, he should, in my view, have backed it far more forcefully in his SOTU. Even Ezra now sees my point. But the whole strategy will be judged soon enough. I hope Obama meep-meeps us again. No: I pray he does. Not just for him, but for all of us, including Republican voters, who will also be sideswiped by the economic disaster if we end in failure.
Meanwhile, as Brian Beutler helpfully outlines, the Democrats could still scuttle any breakthrough. Snatching defeat from victory is, arguably, their specialty. But the details matter. And we don't really know them yet.
The Dish 