We can't blame Rahm, after all

By Adam Serwer

The left has long targeted Rahm Emanuel as the primary reason the White House continues to trade away core liberal priorities in the quixotic quest for bipartisanship. But Rahm is now long gone. And the White House continues to lead with its chin.

It would be nice if we could say the White House has been fighting with Republicans over an extension of the Bush tax cuts for top earners, but in reality it's more like they've been meekly not surrendering. Then yesterday, in advance of negotiations with Republican leaders over the way forward, the Obama administration inexplicably announced a pay freeze for federal workers.

Not only is such a freeze bad policy in the middle of a recession caused by low aggregate demand, since federal workers are consumers like everyone else, but it reflects a longstanding pattern of preemptive concessions to conservatives without securing anything in return. Even if, as Ezra Klein suggests is a possibility, the freeze was meant to preempt an even harsher attack on federal workers from Republicans, it still could have been used in exchange for something tangible.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker-Elect John Boehner have already announced their intention not to compromise. So the president has just made a goodwill gesture towards people who bear him no good will and who have no intention of offering any quarter whatsoever.

Prior to Rahm 's departure, he was a favored target of liberals -- including sometimes myself -- who felt as though he was responsible for the White House preemtively moving to the right at the slightest sign of political turbulence. Now that we don't have Rahm to kick around anymore, it's clear that this is just how this White House and this president operate. It bodes ill both for the economy and an administration whose political fortunes are ultimately tied to its revival.

Adam Serwer is a staff writer at The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.