Yesterday I said that I have no idea why Andrew Sullivan thinks that now is absolutely the only possible time ever to tackle debt and deficits. Well, it looks like he’s provided one:

To coin a phrase, how long, O Lord, how long? We have a divided government, we just had an election in which one side campaigned on too much spending, we have a very pragmatic president able to explain the dangers we face, and a debt that grows every day. But nooo. Let’s get the GOP to lead.

And let’s not fool ourselves. The president has just asked the opposition to do his work for him. He should be careful what he asks for. If the GOP actually proposes cuts in Medicare, real tax reform, and some of the proposals in the Bowles-Simpson report, there will be many independents and fiscal conservatives who will take a second look.

He seriously titles this “If Not Now, When?” which is not only a cliche but it suggests the obvious answer, which is in a little while. Let’s say after unemployment hits 7%. There’s so much solipsism and self-delusion here that I fear I’m not up to the task of unpacking it all. But I’ll try! For starters, let’s go with the low hanging fruit: “If the GOP actually proposes cuts in Medicare, real tax reform, and some of the proposals in the Bowles-Simpson report, there will be many independents and fiscal conservatives who will take a second look.”

Really? Independents will be more inclined to vote for Republicans if they cut Medicare and other popular programs? Like the “independents” who voted Republican after the GOP demagogued the Medicare Advantage cuts in the Affordable Care Act? Or the independents who overwhelmingly say they want Medicare to not be cut? Enacting unpopular cuts is the way to the peoples’ hearts? I think not. As for the other stuff, I have no particular beef with tax reform, but if it happens Republicans will insist that it be revenue-neutral–eliminating loopholes in exchange for lower rates, basically–so that they don’t have to be accused of raising taxes. So, expecting significant deficit decreases from that process is unwise. And while there were some strong elements in Bowles-Simpson on health care costs and defense spending, among others, it’s not like those are slam dunks either with the public. Sullivan claims to be speaking for indies and fiscal cons, even though the polls suggest that he’s mostly just speaking for himself.

Ultimately, I think the reason why Barack Obama has not submitted a proposal to slash Social Security benefits, scale back the role of government in public life and hike taxes on the middle class is because…he doesn’t want to do those things! He’s on the liberal end of things, and to expect him to as an opening bid concede virtually the entire thing to conservatives is silly. Obviously, I think that we’ll have to deal with these problems (though merely saying we haven’t dealt with them for some time doesn’t mean that we must deal with them now), and that will probably involve making some compromises I won’t like all that much. So it goes. But I don’t like the idea that Obama, by dint of being president, should automatically ignore what his supporters (and presumably he himself) envision the government doing, instead that he should abandon the notion of a more generous state just because. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s one hell of a Straussian argument: a wise statesman who goes against his supporters and does something unpopular with the public is basically the neocon grand slam, and it’s based on the idea that the people aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for them. There’s just something here that strikes me as arrogant–it reads to me like Sullivan’s really just angry because Barack Obama isn’t doing what Sullivan wants Barack Obama to do. I’m sure the HuffPo set can sympathize.

Also, I’m a bit more hesitant to note this (I really like Andrew Sullivan. I do!) but he’s written four separate posts about Mitch Daniels in the last two days. Daniels evidently gave a speech at CPAC that has gotten a lot of conservatives buzzing, and to be fair he’s actually demonstrated a willingness to consider things outside the box of conservative dogma in order to deal with the deficit. Still, basically anointing someone the savior of conservatism based on one speech seems premature, especially since Daniels was the OMB head who wrecked the Clinton surplus in the first place with the first round of Bush tax cuts. I guess it just makes me think of Sullivan’s fancy for Paul Ryan that ended in acrimony, as well as his evident falling out of favor with Barack Obama that just occurred. I’m beginning to think that Sullivan increasingly can’t manage caution or gradation in his estimations of people: either they’re great, would-be saviors of America as we know it, or worthless frauds who we should all be ashamed of ever having had any hope in. Maybe he’s always been this way, but for some reason I’m more exhausted by it than usual. By comparison, the restrained optimism of a Daniel Larison on the same topic is quite refreshing.