A reader writes:
Chait’s argument is incoherent. Tax hikes and default would have been very bad for Republican constituencies, but if you believe that all they care about is the zero-sum politics, then it makes sense to assume that the costs would mostly be borne by Obama. But if you believe that, then there is no reason to think that the next round won’t have the same ending. Defense cuts will hurt Republican priorities, but if they see these cuts as a way to defeat Obama—“He would rather put our nation at risk than give up his dream of higher taxes”—then they will be no more flexible in the upcoming super-committee than they have been to date. If they think they can win the presidency and reverse the defense cuts, then the trigger doesn’t actually hurt them. I see another big cave in Obama’s future.
The question is whether the defense debate has shifted. I suspect many Americans are sympathetic to the notion that we have spent too much time nation-building abroad rather than at home, and if Demcrats can make that strong case well, they should be in good shape. Of course, Democrats seem unable to make even the strongest case well, which is why the other lesson of this is that Obama does need to articulate his goals more clearly in advance. He can seize the Bowles Simpson banner now, or cede the initiative again to the far right.
The Dish 