Marvel, if you will, at this statement from the President:
"I'm not willing to see 2 million Americans who stand to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home or their car or suffer some additional economic catastrophe." -link
How has it come to pass, in modern times, that a threat to create human misery of this magnitude has political currency in American politics, enough that it can be used to as a bargaining chip for a compromise?
when people ask for more "fight", it is to reject wholesale this frame of the debate, to stir up public opinion with persuasion, with public diplomacy, to make it harder for opponents to bluff and more likely for them to feel the need to back off, no?
Why the "I", there? Does the President believe that the GOP "earned" a mandate to create this kind of misery, based on their mid-term election success?Last, consider the timing. It implies that America cannot make hard choices during hard times. In order to deal with hard times, we have to 'compromise', we have to pass out $140 in income and estate tax-breaks-cum-debt-spending, over 24 months, in order to get maybe $80 billion in unemployment compensation, over 13 months. (Figures are my own guesstimates, but should be in the ballpark).
So, when people ask for more "fight", it is to reject wholesale this frame of the debate, to stir up public opinion with persuasion, with public diplomacy, to make it harder for opponents to bluff and more likely for them to feel the need to back off, no?
