This is How 11-Dimensional Chess Works

[babylonsister]

I know it's been a burning issue around here.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2013/6/11/12620/6420

This is How 11-Dimensional Chess Works

by BooMan
Tue Jun 11th, 2013 at 01:26:20 AM EST


People make fun of the theory that President Obama engages in 11-dimensional chess. It's hard to adequately explain what the term means because it probably means different things to different people. However, it basically means that sometimes the president uses deception. He may pretend to support something that he actually opposes, or to oppose something that he actually supports. I believe the clearest example of this is his position on Plan B contraception. It's over now. The administration no longer opposes the over-the-counter accessibility of Plan B contraception for any woman, no matter how young. But they went to court to restrict access for young girls, and even appealed when they initially lost.

The unique element of the case was that Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took the unusual step of contravening the Food & Drug Administration's determination that the drug was safe for young girls to take. The president then backed his Health Secretary's decision, despite it being quite unpopular with the Democratic base.

The controversy was magnified when the Department of Justice decided to appeal the case. Yet, the DOJ has decided to stand down now. They could have appealed two more times, but they have decided to comply with the District Court's ruling.

The result is that the policy is correct but the administration has taken a lot of heat from its base. This helped assure that the controversy didn't galvanize Obama's opponents in an election year while never actually jeopardizing the right outcome.

This is how 11-dimensional chess works.

[Laelth]

1. I buy that.

I'd love to see some more examples.

-Laelth

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. I have …

What may be the perfect example … President Obama’s Chained CPI proposal. This proposal was offered in the context of the gop demanding that something be done on “entitlements.” The American people had polled/are polling as tired of congressional grid-lock, with the gop being tagged as the more intractable party – and the left “angry” that Democrats (President Obama) weren’t steadfast/aggressive enough. So President Obama offers to do something on entitlements with the condition that the gop move on taxes - compromise. Predictable, the Left freaks out, cementing President Obama as the party willing to oppose his base in order to break the grid-lock.

No serious commentator believes cuts to SS or Medicare will go anywhere – the Democrats in both Houses of Congress won’t go for it, and the gop, with its base of aging folks can’t go for it; so President Obama placing it on the table conditioned on the gop moving on taxes (something the Democratics want, but the gop can’t do without facing a primary challenge) is a no lose proposition, while cementing the public perception of the gop, once again being the Party of No.

[Laelth]

18. That is a good example.

I have to say, though, as one of those Democrats on the left who is prone to "freaking out" when the President offers to sacrifice some of the progressive gains of the 20th Century, that I'd prefer it if the President's strategy didn't involve a move that was likely to freak me out. That said, if the end result is good, who am I to complain?

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. I can understand ...

but I suspect, without the freak-out of the Left, there gambit wouldn't have worked/be working.

I could go more into why I believe this is a brilliant strategy, but I no longer have the energy.

But that brings me to the one MIS-calculation in the strategy ... This strategy turns on Democratic voters standing fast (as we always have); but as we are seeing, the progressive/libertarian Left is taking all the air out of the room. Democrats used to listen to arguments and decide ... while giving the/any Democratic President the benefit of the doubt. But with the birth/advent of the progressive/libertarian Left (the 21st century naderites) this is no longer the case ... the progressive/libertarian Left has taken to the internets, and in particular - Democratic websites, and effectively convinced main-stream Left/Democrats that Government/politicians are not to be trusted ... ever. President Obama could announce a cure for cancer and Democratic websites would be full of posts questioning why he didn't do it sooner, what "freedoms" we will have to give up to access the cure, or failing that, post after post about how President Obama really doesn't like the GLBT community, hasn't closed GITMO, is in the pocket of the 1%, as evidenced by his giving the ALL the tax breaks and his not prosecuting the big banks.

Here's a discovery walk to take (to support my assertion) ...

Go back to DU's archives - start in May 2008 and walk through and compare the thread titles through until January 2012. Then, look at the thread titles since ... I think you will find a trend (and be able to identify those promoting the tread). And then, for good measure ... go to a rightwing website (I know that'll be tough) and take note of the perjoratives that appear there ... that also appear here (like "Obama cheerleaders/fans/zombies, "Obots" and, my personal favorite, "BOrg&quot .

I don't believe that this is a coincidence.

Personally, I think if the internet were to go down for about 18 months, Democrats (and America) will be fine.

[Laelth]

33. Very interesting post.

Here's what I can say. I can't speak for the entire progressive/libertarian Left, but I can tell you what I have seen since I arrived at DU in 2004. DU has always been critical. DU was born at a time when it was entirely appropriate to be critical of the government. Then, DU spent 8 years, united, in its resistance to the Bush cabal. Being critical is just about all DU knows how to do. Now that our party controls the White House, DU is still critical. Laudatory threads are boring. Plus, there's still plenty to criticize. In my opinion, Democrats have never "stood fast," as you say, when we are in power. I hated NAFTA (and said so). I hated Clinton's destruction of AFDC (and said so). I hated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (and said so). I hated Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagal (and said so). I hated the Commodities Futures Act of 2000 (and said so).

This criticism of Democrats from Democrats is nothing new. It may be self-destructive. I'll grant you that possibility. On the other hand, it may be necessary to resist the Party's drift to the right. It is important, to many of us, to resist creeping fascism. Whether conservative policy is advanced by Republicans or Democrats, many people feel the need to resist conservative policy. I am glad that the President knows this and can use it to the advantage of us all. It's unlikely to change any time soon.

-Laelth

[zeeland]

23. Yes,more examples would be appreciated. The states that have decriminalized

the use of medical marijuana, continue to face raids and prosecution by
the Federal Government of it's citizens in compliance with state law.

The War on Drugs is a abysmal failure by every measure unless supporting
the prison-industrial complex and similar programs is the Administrations
goal.

Once the tax revenues generated by states like WA. and CO. along
with profits from the public companies on Wall Street invested in the
industry become common knowledge, the DOJ's aggression will end.

The Administration either fully underestimates the bad blood it has created in
several Blue States, or they prefer to keep the above mentioned programs
operational and keep building their 40 million $$ prison complexes.

[on point]

2. If the analysis is true, then it demonstrates lack of leadership backbone

If false, it demonstrates a right of center viewpoint.

It does not in any case demonstrate wisdom

[phleshdef]

3. Fuck "leadership backbone". Thats just a bunch of pious, naval gazing bullshit.

Getting things done and winning the politics of it is the best outcome. That's just the way things actually work in this country, in the real world.

[Cha]

5. Exactly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Thank you …

Some would rather look tough and lose everything than appear back-boneless get any some, if not most, of what you want.

[Recursion]

10. The real world isn't a Sorkin script, though

"Backbone", "fight", and words like that don't really mean anything. The masses will not come thronging joyfully to our side because the President gets angry on TV.

[WeekendWarrior]

22. Change "right of center" to "liberal"

and you sound just like a Republican: Obama never does anything right.

[DCKit]

4. Yeah, 'cause making more terroists, making more enemies is the solution.

You fucking assholes.

[babylonsister]

7. Huh? Wrong thread. nt

[Cha]

6. Interesting theory, booman..

thanks babylonsistah~

[Jamaal510]

8. If there's one thing Obama seems to be good at,

it is thinking strategically and long-term in order to get things accomplished and to box his political foes in a corner. We all know that he is no ideologue, but by him trying to reach out to the GOP as much as he has, it shows many Americans how extreme today's Republican Party has become, and that the Democrats have been the mature ones in this conversation.

[Sunlei]

9. good post.yes,I like the way this turned R wall opposition into over the counter for all without ID

Similar with healthcare move through the SC.

The medicaid corruption, state corruption, and those doing business with druglords, countries like Iran, those doors are closing.I think through the bank records, mandates and the courts this is what the Rs are upset about today.

[lame54]

11. So he's actually FOR not putting pot-smokers in prison?

[JoePhilly]

12. I just think he thinks strategically more

Than tactically.

Tactical victories are often short lived and are easier to have reversed.

Strategic actions are often not very sexy. But they help set a foundation that can last.

[Doctor_J]

13. this is complete bs

The president somehow helped this become law by fighting it?????

Honestly, the koolaid drinkers' minds are getting wackier than Fox nation.

[cali]

21. beyond ridiculous and pathetic. worthy only of scorn. sheesh.

[Myrina]

14. Really? He has time to formulate all those head games?

I'd rather have a President who called it like he saw it, did what was right and didn't try to mind-fuck the rest of the country (including everyone else in DC).

[Sognefjord]

15. We used to have that kind of president when we had a democracy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Point to ONE. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. Here

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. That doesn't seem to help your case ...

Let's see ...

You hold out a CinC that used the atom bomb of yellow people and sent troops to invade another country of yellow people. And you on the progressive/libertarian Left wish to castigate President Obama?

Alrighty then.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Actually,

the racist Japanese at that time (who were also working on an atomic bomb) attacked Pearl Harbor and killed Americans whether they were White or Black.

Here was one of them:


If the racist Japanese at that time didn't want to risk death, they should not have attacked the United States.

In 1948, by the way, President Truman abolished racial discrimination in the armed forces and began the integration of the military. I'm not a person of color (except when spending time in the sun), but I've known a great many brave Black Americans who served with honor and pride in the military.

Because the Japanese would not give up their military ways and unconditionally surrender (and also stop developing their own atomic bomb), Truman had to make a decision. His decision to drop the two atomic bombs saved the lives of a great many Marines whose lives would have been lost with an invasion of Japan. I've known Black Marines and Black ex-Marines. I don't know a single one of them who considered Truman's decision to be wrong or racists.

The Japanese have reformed their ways. If they had not been forced to unconditionally surrender, they would not have done so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. I wish you'd work ...

half as hard to not criticize President Obama as you do to dream up this b.S. ...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

32. What I've said about President Truman is factual.

In 2008, I campaigned for Obama, donated to help get him elected, and voted for him.

To the extent that he has undermined Contitutional guarantees, adopted Republicans for his Administration, adopted Republican-type policies, bailed out banksters, and continued to have policies which ship and keep manufacturing jobs in foreign countries while undermining our economy, I'll criticize him whenever I want, thank you very much.

[babylonsister]

20. So now he's mind-fucking everyone?

I imagine he'd rather just be President and do the right thing; unfortunately, that doesn't work in today's environment with the other side opposing him on everything. He has no choice but to be creative; I am happy he's smart enough to get some stuff done despite all the naysayers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. has there ever been such a creature? n/t

[lunatica]

19. Politics is always 11-dimensional chess

but like in 1-dimensional chess, not all players are thinking far ahead and with multiple possible outcomes carefully thought out. Half the game of chess is luring your opponent into thinking you're making moves with a single purpose in mind. Then when he thinks he has you it turns out you were just waiting until he unwittingly exposed his King and you win the game.

That's politics. Only it's 11-dimensional.

[GoneFishin]

28. If he repeals the patriot act, closes guantanamo, stops spying on citizens, etc ... then I will

be first to admit that I too could not see enough moves ahead to understand 11 dimensional chess.

But we have heard this meme for years now. And I cannot identify one instance when the interests of the 1% were at odds with the 99%, and the 99% received much more than lip service.

Lets see what happens with Keystone XL for example. I believe that decision has already been made. My reasoning is this : If there was a chance that the decision was going to go against the pipeline then the lobbyists would be visible everywhere making their case. But it is relatively quiet right now. I believe that is because it is already a done deal.