A Perfect Storm of GOP Lunacy is Brewing
(updated below)
Yesterday I read that Newt Gingrich had been summonsed to the Capitol to participate in the House GOP's oil-drilling protest and that he had publicly threatened to shut down the government if the GOP doesn't get its way. I nearly spit out my coffee. Had I entered some sort of time-warp? Was it 1995 again? Holding fake sessions of Congress is one thing, but would the GOP really be crazy enough to try to shut down the government again, especially this close to a presidential election?
Sadly, the answer is probably yes. If you think about the issue of off-shore drilling, it really does have the potential to generate a perfect storm of GOP lunacy. All of the ingredients are there in abundance. First, there's the polling. Regardless of the policy merits of allowing further drilling off shore (and since when do Republicans care about policy anyway?), just about every recent poll has shown overwhelming public support for off-shore drilling. Not only that, but the public clearly connects drilling with the issue of high gas prices, which is consistently at or near the top of their list of concerns. So Republicans see this issue as a huge political winner. But that's not all. It just so happens that this is the rare issue where public sentiment aligns perfectly with the desires of a power Republican interest group, the energy lobby. Big Oil wants more areas opened to off-shore drilling, and they're willing to contribute generously to politicians who push for that policy (just ask John McCain). Moreover, to the extent Republicans have a governing philosophy, this policy fits it perfectly. It's jingoistic (more American oil for Americans!), it involves removing a regulation on industry (regulations = bad), and it promises a solution that doesn't involve listening to environmentalists or conservationists (take that, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter!). And finally, there's the fact that we're now entering the home stretch of a election season in which the presidency is up for grabs and Republicans in Congress are facing the prospect of losing a large number seats.
When you put all those ingredients together, you've got a recipe for Republican zealotry on an unparalleled scale. To put it simply, to a Republican party lost in the wilderness, this issue is manna sent directly from Heaven. It's pure nourishment. It has no downside. No trade off. They can, at once, be zealous populists, do the bidding of their corporate sponsors, and be true to their core beliefs (again, to the extent they have core beliefs).
In light of that, it would be wise for the Democrats not to underestimate the lengths to which their Republican counterparts are willing to go on this issue. That doesn't mean that they should just give in, but it does mean they should consider ways of taking the wind out of their sails. Personally, I think the best approach would be to allow a vote on a compromise measure, something that includes limited off-shore drilling but also lots of good energy policy (such as support for alternative energy and increased CAFE standards). The compromise bill should also include provisions that most Republicans (and particularly their oil industry donors) don't like, such as the repeal of tax credits and subsidies to the oil industry. Such a compromise would likely pass, and if Bush signs it, then the issue would be off the table and a lot of good policy would become law. And if Bush vetoes it, well then he--and not Nancy Pelosi--becomes the person preventing further off-shore drilling. The Republicans will no doubt scream and yell that they're being denied an up-or-down vote on drilling, but that's a much tougher complaint to sell.
If Pelosi continues to deny them any sort of vote on the drilling issue, however, their antics will continue to escalate and we'll soon be faced with a Class 5 storm of GOP idiocy. If that outcome can be headed off, and I think it can, it's probably worth doing.
UPDATE: For the reasons stated above, I agree with Nate Silver. Obama would be smart to sign on to the Gang of 10 compromise.
Yesterday I read that Newt Gingrich had been summonsed to the Capitol to participate in the House GOP's oil-drilling protest and that he had publicly threatened to shut down the government if the GOP doesn't get its way. I nearly spit out my coffee. Had I entered some sort of time-warp? Was it 1995 again? Holding fake sessions of Congress is one thing, but would the GOP really be crazy enough to try to shut down the government again, especially this close to a presidential election?
Sadly, the answer is probably yes. If you think about the issue of off-shore drilling, it really does have the potential to generate a perfect storm of GOP lunacy. All of the ingredients are there in abundance. First, there's the polling. Regardless of the policy merits of allowing further drilling off shore (and since when do Republicans care about policy anyway?), just about every recent poll has shown overwhelming public support for off-shore drilling. Not only that, but the public clearly connects drilling with the issue of high gas prices, which is consistently at or near the top of their list of concerns. So Republicans see this issue as a huge political winner. But that's not all. It just so happens that this is the rare issue where public sentiment aligns perfectly with the desires of a power Republican interest group, the energy lobby. Big Oil wants more areas opened to off-shore drilling, and they're willing to contribute generously to politicians who push for that policy (just ask John McCain). Moreover, to the extent Republicans have a governing philosophy, this policy fits it perfectly. It's jingoistic (more American oil for Americans!), it involves removing a regulation on industry (regulations = bad), and it promises a solution that doesn't involve listening to environmentalists or conservationists (take that, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter!). And finally, there's the fact that we're now entering the home stretch of a election season in which the presidency is up for grabs and Republicans in Congress are facing the prospect of losing a large number seats.
When you put all those ingredients together, you've got a recipe for Republican zealotry on an unparalleled scale. To put it simply, to a Republican party lost in the wilderness, this issue is manna sent directly from Heaven. It's pure nourishment. It has no downside. No trade off. They can, at once, be zealous populists, do the bidding of their corporate sponsors, and be true to their core beliefs (again, to the extent they have core beliefs).
In light of that, it would be wise for the Democrats not to underestimate the lengths to which their Republican counterparts are willing to go on this issue. That doesn't mean that they should just give in, but it does mean they should consider ways of taking the wind out of their sails. Personally, I think the best approach would be to allow a vote on a compromise measure, something that includes limited off-shore drilling but also lots of good energy policy (such as support for alternative energy and increased CAFE standards). The compromise bill should also include provisions that most Republicans (and particularly their oil industry donors) don't like, such as the repeal of tax credits and subsidies to the oil industry. Such a compromise would likely pass, and if Bush signs it, then the issue would be off the table and a lot of good policy would become law. And if Bush vetoes it, well then he--and not Nancy Pelosi--becomes the person preventing further off-shore drilling. The Republicans will no doubt scream and yell that they're being denied an up-or-down vote on drilling, but that's a much tougher complaint to sell.
If Pelosi continues to deny them any sort of vote on the drilling issue, however, their antics will continue to escalate and we'll soon be faced with a Class 5 storm of GOP idiocy. If that outcome can be headed off, and I think it can, it's probably worth doing.
UPDATE: For the reasons stated above, I agree with Nate Silver. Obama would be smart to sign on to the Gang of 10 compromise.
posted by A.L. at 8:15 AM
6 Comments:
sounds like you and Barry are on the same page, anyway.
I agree, with one addition: Democratic leaders should put the entire thing together themselves, then drop it when ready and vote on it an hour later.
interesting, too, and I'd love to think this will be an idea that gains traction in the months and years to come - but if, say, the Democratic congress succeeds in this - that is, giving the babies their bottle in exchange for an overall energy policy that finally hews to the benefit of the people and the planet - that is, if they do what Obama has explicitly said they should - could one not begin to make the argument that Obama's presidency began, effectively, the summer BEFORE he took office. Assuming trends continue - a big assumption, I know, and I hate for us to get ahead of ourselves - but it's not hard to imagine that he will have radically re-shaped American policy toward Iran, toward Iraq, perhaps toward Afghanistan, AND toward energy, such that the sitting President and the leading contender for the Republican party in each case were forced to concede that Obama's proposals and strategies should be the policy of the nation. And he will have done all of that, as a candidate, between the June and September before he was elected.
Forget the first hundred days...
A.L.,
You may find it interesting/funny/horrifying, but that is very close to the energy policy that Paris Hilton suggested in her spoof “campaign ad” response to McCain using her in one of his attack ads regarding Obama. She didn’t mention anything about removing the tax breaks the oil companies enjoy, but the rest is spot on IIRC. Personally, I find it amusing that Pairs Hilton can come up with a better piece of energy policy in two days for a humorous response “ad”than McCain and his advisors have in however long they’ve been working on this.
dh,
indeed, the only thing Paris Hilton got slightly wrong is that she made it seem as if the off-shore drilling would tide us over until the alternative energy sources kicked in. In fact, as BO has pointed out, off-shore drilling would do no such thing. It would simply mollify the imbeciles.
still, not bad for a celebrity.
beats the Kim Kardashian plan, anyway.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home