We can't handle the truth

LAST NIGHT, President Obama told the nation that he was "pleased to announce" that the federal government would remain "be open for business". He boasted that compromise made possible "a budget that invests in our future while making the largest annual spending cut in our history."

That got progressive pundits howling. Ezra Klein huffed, "If you were just tuning in, you might've thought Boehner had been arguing for moderation, while both Obama and Reid sought to cut deeper. ... By celebrating spending cuts, they've opened the door to further" to ill-advised cuts and "policy defeats later." Paul Krugman huffed, "[I]t's one thing for Obama to decide that it was better to give in to Republican hostage-taking than draw a line in the sand; it's another for him to celebrate the result ... he has now completely accepted the Republican frame that spending cuts right now are what America needs."

Okay, fine. They're still missing the larger political point. Sure, there's room for debate about the advisability of spending cuts. But those concerns are lost on the public. Moreover, the public neither knows nor cares that the Republicans got more of they wanted than the Dems in the budget deal. Ergo, Obama smartly claimed "victory" and spun his message accordingly. Going all Jack Nicholson on us ("You want answers? Kaffee: I want the truth! Col. Jessep: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!") would have been ill-advised.

The Washington Monthly wryly framed it this way: "The president couldn't deliver a national address and say what he might have been thinking: 'Look, I'm not thrilled with how this came together, but I was negotiating with rabid conservatives and didn't want a shutdown. If folks wanted a better outcome, voters shouldn't have elected intemperate children to run the House of Representatives. Don't blame me for your bad decisions.' The candor wouldn't have gone over well. Call it a hunch."

The Monthly is right. Call it a hunch.