How Losing Congress Strengthened Bush's Hand
(updated below)
Chris Dodd's efforts in the Senate today forced Harry Reid to postpone consideration of the FISA bill until another day. That's about as good an outcome as opponents of the bill could have hoped for, and Dodd certainly deserves praise for making it happen.
But let's not kid ourselves. The bill won't be dead for long. The Protect America Act expires in February, and as we approach that deadline, President Bush and various administration officials will claim that if Congress doesn't pass exactly the bill they want prior to the expiration date, we'll all be in grave danger. The media will repeat this claim uncritically and at least half of the Democrats in Congress will soil themselves with fear over the prospect of being labeled "soft on terror." They'll then capitulate and pass the bill Bush wants them to pass (at which point they'll be labeled "soft on terror" anyway). Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
How is it that, time and again, a Republican president with historically low approval ratings is so effectively able to demand and receive the legislation he wants from a Democratically-controlled Congress? Most people in the blogosphere think the answer to this question is pretty simple: the Democrats are a feckless bunch of losers.
That's certainly a big part of it. There's no question that a more competent, more confident, and less chronically risk-averse party would have a better track record in these kind of situations. That said, there are some structural dynamics at work here that, in some circumstances, make it easier for the president to dictate policy than it was when his own party controlled Congress.
Under our constitutional framework, the presidential veto is an enormously powerful weapon, particularly when it is being wielded by a lameduck president who has long ago bottomed out in the polls. The Democrats, even if they were to act in lockstep unity, do not have the votes to override a veto. This puts them in a particularly disadvantageous position when it comes to legislation that, for whatever reason, has to pass.
If no bill needs to pass, the Democrats can simply pass their preferred legislation (assuming there's no filibuster) and use the President's veto as campaign fodder. No progress is made, but at least no affirmative damage is done and maybe someday there won't be a Republican president standing in the way. But when it comes to mandatory appropriations bills and other necessary pieces of legislation, doing nothing really isn't an option. When confronted with a presidential veto, the Democrats must choose either to pass a bill the president will sign or reap the political consequences of doing nothing. Many liberals have counseled the latter approach, arguing that the public will blame Bush for his unwillingness to compromise.
I think that's a little unrealistic, though. Even assuming the Democrats were able to stay unified in message and keep public opinion on their side, there is no reason to think Bush would ever back down. He's not running for anything. His popularity is already as low as it's going to get. He has nothing to lose. In other words, he can afford to wait for the bill he wants, and he will (while blaming the Democrats for all the negative consequences stemming from not passing the legislation sooner).
The same dynamic is at play in the FISA debate. If it hadn't been for the FISA Court's ruling earlier this year (the text of which has still not be released publicly), Congress could afford to do nothing. But, at least according to published reports, the Court ruled that certain foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through U.S.-based switches require warrants before being intercepted. Because all sides agree that legislation is necessary to address this narrow issue, Bush is able to use that need as leverage to demand a FISA reform bill that contains all sorts of other bells and whistles, including telecom immunity. If Congress were to provide him with a bill, like the House bill, that doesn't give him everything he wants, he'd veto it and claim that Congress wasn't providing him with the tools necessary to protect the country from terrorists. He'd hold out for the bill he wants, even if it it means genuinely harming our ability to detect terrorist threats.
What's interesting about this dynamic is that it actually gives the President more power than he had when Congress was controlled by Republicans. When Republicans controlled Congress, the President almost never used his veto pen. The President would try to get Congress to pass what he wanted, but he couldn't very well accuse a Congress controlled by his own party of being "soft on terror" if it failed to give him exactly what he wanted (or failed to pass a bill at all). He ultimately had to sign whatever he got.
But now he has nothing to lose, so he'll veto anything that isn't exactly to his liking and demagogue the hell out of the issue. Perversely, this actually gives him more power to dictate the content of legislation, at least under circumstances when Congress feels compelled to pass something. What a system.
To be clear, none of this excuses the way Harry Reid and other Democrats have approached these issues. If the Democrats ever want to be successful, they have to learn to be more principled and less risk averse. Voters rewards confidence and conviction, not timidity and calculation.
Nor is this an attempt to excuse Congressional capitulation on telecom immunity specifically. As I've explained previously, I think the politics are all on the Democrats side on this issue and that their usual timidity is even less warranted under these circumstances.
UPDATE: Reading Glenn's post this morning, it occurs to me that my post above is a little too fatalistic and cynical. Though I'm skeptical that the Forces of Good will ultimately prevail on this issue, progress has been made lately, thanks almost entirely to the efforts of bloggers, groups like the ACLU, and a few key Democratic politicians (most notably Senator Dodd). Now there is at least some chance that the President won't get everything he wants on this. That's good news and we should keep pressuring the Democrats to do the right thing on this issue.
Chris Dodd's efforts in the Senate today forced Harry Reid to postpone consideration of the FISA bill until another day. That's about as good an outcome as opponents of the bill could have hoped for, and Dodd certainly deserves praise for making it happen.
But let's not kid ourselves. The bill won't be dead for long. The Protect America Act expires in February, and as we approach that deadline, President Bush and various administration officials will claim that if Congress doesn't pass exactly the bill they want prior to the expiration date, we'll all be in grave danger. The media will repeat this claim uncritically and at least half of the Democrats in Congress will soil themselves with fear over the prospect of being labeled "soft on terror." They'll then capitulate and pass the bill Bush wants them to pass (at which point they'll be labeled "soft on terror" anyway). Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
How is it that, time and again, a Republican president with historically low approval ratings is so effectively able to demand and receive the legislation he wants from a Democratically-controlled Congress? Most people in the blogosphere think the answer to this question is pretty simple: the Democrats are a feckless bunch of losers.
That's certainly a big part of it. There's no question that a more competent, more confident, and less chronically risk-averse party would have a better track record in these kind of situations. That said, there are some structural dynamics at work here that, in some circumstances, make it easier for the president to dictate policy than it was when his own party controlled Congress.
Under our constitutional framework, the presidential veto is an enormously powerful weapon, particularly when it is being wielded by a lameduck president who has long ago bottomed out in the polls. The Democrats, even if they were to act in lockstep unity, do not have the votes to override a veto. This puts them in a particularly disadvantageous position when it comes to legislation that, for whatever reason, has to pass.
If no bill needs to pass, the Democrats can simply pass their preferred legislation (assuming there's no filibuster) and use the President's veto as campaign fodder. No progress is made, but at least no affirmative damage is done and maybe someday there won't be a Republican president standing in the way. But when it comes to mandatory appropriations bills and other necessary pieces of legislation, doing nothing really isn't an option. When confronted with a presidential veto, the Democrats must choose either to pass a bill the president will sign or reap the political consequences of doing nothing. Many liberals have counseled the latter approach, arguing that the public will blame Bush for his unwillingness to compromise.
I think that's a little unrealistic, though. Even assuming the Democrats were able to stay unified in message and keep public opinion on their side, there is no reason to think Bush would ever back down. He's not running for anything. His popularity is already as low as it's going to get. He has nothing to lose. In other words, he can afford to wait for the bill he wants, and he will (while blaming the Democrats for all the negative consequences stemming from not passing the legislation sooner).
The same dynamic is at play in the FISA debate. If it hadn't been for the FISA Court's ruling earlier this year (the text of which has still not be released publicly), Congress could afford to do nothing. But, at least according to published reports, the Court ruled that certain foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through U.S.-based switches require warrants before being intercepted. Because all sides agree that legislation is necessary to address this narrow issue, Bush is able to use that need as leverage to demand a FISA reform bill that contains all sorts of other bells and whistles, including telecom immunity. If Congress were to provide him with a bill, like the House bill, that doesn't give him everything he wants, he'd veto it and claim that Congress wasn't providing him with the tools necessary to protect the country from terrorists. He'd hold out for the bill he wants, even if it it means genuinely harming our ability to detect terrorist threats.
What's interesting about this dynamic is that it actually gives the President more power than he had when Congress was controlled by Republicans. When Republicans controlled Congress, the President almost never used his veto pen. The President would try to get Congress to pass what he wanted, but he couldn't very well accuse a Congress controlled by his own party of being "soft on terror" if it failed to give him exactly what he wanted (or failed to pass a bill at all). He ultimately had to sign whatever he got.
But now he has nothing to lose, so he'll veto anything that isn't exactly to his liking and demagogue the hell out of the issue. Perversely, this actually gives him more power to dictate the content of legislation, at least under circumstances when Congress feels compelled to pass something. What a system.
To be clear, none of this excuses the way Harry Reid and other Democrats have approached these issues. If the Democrats ever want to be successful, they have to learn to be more principled and less risk averse. Voters rewards confidence and conviction, not timidity and calculation.
Nor is this an attempt to excuse Congressional capitulation on telecom immunity specifically. As I've explained previously, I think the politics are all on the Democrats side on this issue and that their usual timidity is even less warranted under these circumstances.
UPDATE: Reading Glenn's post this morning, it occurs to me that my post above is a little too fatalistic and cynical. Though I'm skeptical that the Forces of Good will ultimately prevail on this issue, progress has been made lately, thanks almost entirely to the efforts of bloggers, groups like the ACLU, and a few key Democratic politicians (most notably Senator Dodd). Now there is at least some chance that the President won't get everything he wants on this. That's good news and we should keep pressuring the Democrats to do the right thing on this issue.
posted by A.L. at 10:54 PM
9 Comments:
the Democrats need to collectively grow a pair.
From Ted Kennedy's website and today on the Senate floor. Or yesterday.
"Think about what we’ve been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity, no new FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies. The President’s insistence on immunity as a precondition for any FISA reform is yet another example of his disrespect for honest dialogue and for the rule of law."
I note that Congress' numbers are even lower than those of Bush, and so that part of the argument applies to both parties--neither have much to lose in terms of public opinion.
Caving-in to Bush has been tried, and it doesn't work. It doesn't bring the democrats glory, political gain, respite in public opinion, a break from the press, quid pro quo from the administration. They gain absolutely nothing, aside from truly horrible and harmful new law.
Just for the sake of variety, I still harbor the dream that congress will not give the President exactly what he wants, every time, and instead give him what is sufficient to address the very small and easily fixed problem with FISA.
And when he vetos, simply hunker down and go to the next problem. Like condemning Move-On, or naming tuesday "National Rhubarb Day". It's not as if Congressional numbers can get any lower.
I think if the Dems keep it simple:
It's not about terrorism, it's about amnesty for the phone company.
and repeat that ad nauseum, that message will resonate with the voters. Note: use amnesty instead of immunity. Ignore whatever the other side says, and just keep repeating the above mantra. Eventually the other side will have to address amnesty, where they are extremely weak.
A.L.,
I was unable to watch the news last night, so I asked several people, and nobody seems to have seen anything about the filibuster threat on the news.
I tried going to the MSM news pages, but there was nothing about it there either (the big story being about the Natalie Holloway case.)
I know Chris Dodd will never win the nomination and even if he did the embrace of the netroots may still be the kiss of death in the general election. But do you think if he gets a big enough following we could get the next President (assuming the Democrats win) to name him at Attorney General? Because I'd settle for that.
Dodd for Senate majority leader.
AL for AG.
AL,
I really have a hard time understanding your argument.
For "Must Pass" legislation, specifically in the case of the FISA "Update", if the Congress passes a bill containing no Telecom Immunity coupled with oversight provisions, and then the President Veto's the bill, why is that a poor reflection on Democrats?
It would seem to me that the correct response after these events transpire is to say over and over and over and over "We did our job, the President Vetoed it!"
I know the "News" Media will start out saying something like, "Well you knew it would be Vetoed?" But, if the Senators and Representatives stand up and argue what they did was right, the President is wrong, and any danger increase resulting from it is the President's fault, eventually the talking heads will have nothing left but to look at reality.
It will take time, and there will be weeks if not months of misinformation to counter. But it can be done if the Congressmen stick to their resolve.
Laws originate in Congress. If Congress did not originate, then Bush would have nothing to veto. E.g., war funding. But this approach has NEVER been used, and Biden claims it is only veto-laden legislation than can pass muster.
The real reason democrats are ineffective is that they've played "constituent" politics for so long, they have no governing theory for the whole country. At least Pelosi dropped her speech acts of "constituents," but her scheme shows it still prevails.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home