A Stubbornly Reckless Party and a Responsible Risk-Averse Party
The central dynamic in American politics has, for some time now, revolved around this contrast. At the national level, Republican politicians are exceptionally stubborn and have a high tolerance for risk in both political and policy decision-making. Democratic leaders are extremely risk-averse in both areas. To use a poker analogy, the Republican party is led by people who routinely bluff on bad hands and are always willing to go all-in. The Democrats are led by people who routinely fold when they have weak hands and generally lack the courage to call bluffs or go all-in, even when they have strong hands.
What we're seeing in the stimulus debate is this dynamic playing out yet again. Despite trouncing the GOP at the polls, taking back the presidency, and adding significantly to their existing majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats made major concessions to the GOP in drafting the stimulus legislation. And after all that concession-making, the legislation is likely to squeak through with a few Republican votes in the Senate and no Republican votes in the House.
The stubbornness of Republican politicians really is remarkable to behold. They are willing to hold up the first major legislation since they were thoroughly beaten at the polls in November, at a time when the nation's economy appears to be in a death spiral and with popular opinion not on their side. If the situation were reversed, if the Republicans controlled everything right now and had just won a major electoral victory, a significant percentage of Democrats in Congress would be lining up to support whatever economic bill the Republican president put forward. The Republicans would not have to make any concessions at all to pick up a few Democratic votes in the Senate, and with just a few token concessions, they'd probably be able to get the votes of at least half of the Democratic caucus.
Moreover, even if the Democrats did put up resistance and threaten to filibuster (which they wouldn't), the Republicans would bring every hardball tactic imaginable to bear before they made any major legislative concessions. They'd mount a non-stop PR campaign to demonize the "obstructionist" Democrats in the Senate and would likely threaten to resort to procedural shenanigans (like doing away with the filibuster) in order to brow-beat a few Democrats into crossing the aisle.
That's just how Republicans roll. Now that they're the minority, their response to proposed legislation is equally predictable. They'll stubbornly oppose everything initially, and the Arlen Specters and Olympia Snowes of the world will demand major concessions and ego-stroking before they cross the aisle to end a threatened filibuster.
I think this experience will be a real eye-opener for the Obama administration. If they thought their major legislative priorities (like health care reform) would easily secure the votes of one or two defecting Republicans, they're wrong. That sixtieth vote is not going to come easy. Specter and Snowe (or Collins or whoever) will demand a lot, probably enough to render the legislation ineffective and unworkable as a policy matter. The Obama administration and the Democratic party is going to have to be willing to go all-in if they want to pass good legislation. They're going to have launch effective PR campaigns and really bring significant political pressure to bear on key Republicans. They're going to have to think outside the box and call bluffs when necessary.
Otherwise, any good legislation is going to be neutered on its way through the Senate.
What we're seeing in the stimulus debate is this dynamic playing out yet again. Despite trouncing the GOP at the polls, taking back the presidency, and adding significantly to their existing majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats made major concessions to the GOP in drafting the stimulus legislation. And after all that concession-making, the legislation is likely to squeak through with a few Republican votes in the Senate and no Republican votes in the House.
The stubbornness of Republican politicians really is remarkable to behold. They are willing to hold up the first major legislation since they were thoroughly beaten at the polls in November, at a time when the nation's economy appears to be in a death spiral and with popular opinion not on their side. If the situation were reversed, if the Republicans controlled everything right now and had just won a major electoral victory, a significant percentage of Democrats in Congress would be lining up to support whatever economic bill the Republican president put forward. The Republicans would not have to make any concessions at all to pick up a few Democratic votes in the Senate, and with just a few token concessions, they'd probably be able to get the votes of at least half of the Democratic caucus.
Moreover, even if the Democrats did put up resistance and threaten to filibuster (which they wouldn't), the Republicans would bring every hardball tactic imaginable to bear before they made any major legislative concessions. They'd mount a non-stop PR campaign to demonize the "obstructionist" Democrats in the Senate and would likely threaten to resort to procedural shenanigans (like doing away with the filibuster) in order to brow-beat a few Democrats into crossing the aisle.
That's just how Republicans roll. Now that they're the minority, their response to proposed legislation is equally predictable. They'll stubbornly oppose everything initially, and the Arlen Specters and Olympia Snowes of the world will demand major concessions and ego-stroking before they cross the aisle to end a threatened filibuster.
I think this experience will be a real eye-opener for the Obama administration. If they thought their major legislative priorities (like health care reform) would easily secure the votes of one or two defecting Republicans, they're wrong. That sixtieth vote is not going to come easy. Specter and Snowe (or Collins or whoever) will demand a lot, probably enough to render the legislation ineffective and unworkable as a policy matter. The Obama administration and the Democratic party is going to have to be willing to go all-in if they want to pass good legislation. They're going to have launch effective PR campaigns and really bring significant political pressure to bear on key Republicans. They're going to have to think outside the box and call bluffs when necessary.
Otherwise, any good legislation is going to be neutered on its way through the Senate.
posted by A.L. at 11:20 AM
12 Comments:
I believe your analysis is only half right. You are right about the politics of it. But politics are only half the story; the other half is policy.
All evidence is that Republicans sincerely believe that the sort of stimulus the Democrats are proposing would be disasterous and that only tax cuts will do any good. When you believe that you are desparate, lonely holdouts against disasterous policy, the effect necessarily has to be to stiffen your spine.
EL, I hear you, but the Dems always cave even when they know they are right on a policy level. Being right on policy never sufficiently stiffens their spine. Plus, I don't really think too many Republicans believe that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. That's just something they have to say because it's what they're constituents want to hear.
Well, I agree about the Dems needing more spine, but not about the GOP not believing what they say. I think you underestimate the degree to which "Spending bad; tax cuts good" has permeated their brain and become the sum total of their policy thought.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that this will all end up being described as "The best we could do." Which ultimately will be considerably less than what is actually needed to succeed and prevent an economic disaster. If this is truly a catastrophe that we're confronting, then I think our President should begin talking nuclear option to the Senate and stop the partisan quibbling immediately. He should pull back on the current proposal and offer up his own in the nation’s best interest.
I think the disparity between EL's argument and AL's argument is not that great. It's more a matter of how deeply we want to get into the motives of Republicans.
Republican brashness (or "stubborn recklessness", if you prefer) may easily come as a natural bi-product of their inability to see their own flaws. So, they may see the stimulus package as being sincerely wrong, but that's only because they have no concept of where they've gone sincerely wrong over the years. And the inevitable result of that blindness is their current behavior.
A normal lawmaker would look at the last eight years of war and domestic decay and think to themselves, "What role did I play in helping to create this disaster?". Asking this question would make it very difficult to argue that tax-cuts are the solution for it--given that tax-cuts have been the modus operandi over the last eight years. And if that lawmaker were sincere about protecting the welfare of the public, a change of course would be the natural solution.
Assuming their recent behavior is truly well-intended (which is still in question), the current crop of Republican lawmakers appears to be utterly incapable of such self-reflection. Either way, the result is the same: irresponsible disregard for their constituents.
A "strong spine" can easily be acquired through willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
This is a pretty good and thoughtful analysis. The Dems have a reputation for being weak (in general). They have been "letting" the Republicans control the message. Sadly, "letting" them is merely their inability to get tough and get out in front of the message.
The Dems still face a mediascape where the center-left not to mention left-wing position is not reliably given voice in debates. We never fail to hear, however idiotic, the right-wing position, and the go-to commentators in the MSM continue to be drawn from the ranks of the center-right and right wing.
This environment naturally gives the republicans the confidence to "bluff" with weak hands. (I've also come to the conclusion that many of the GOP elected officials are in fact quite stupid and actually believe that tax cuts are the solution to each and every problem.) It also means that the Dems always feel they need strong hands in order to play even.
i agree with slag.
The sad thing is that if the plan that finally gets through Congress doesn’t work, the Republicans will say “Of course it didn’t work. There should have been more tax cuts.”
Republicans had their way for six of the last eight years, and it was a disaster. Obama says the right words about not heeding the failed policies that got us into this mess in the first place, but it’s not translating into action. It’s totally wrong to let two or three “moderate” Republicans gut the stimulus plan we need.
Hello AL,
I hope you're doing well, and they're not working you to death.
In my view your characterization is fundamentally inaccurate. It is not that the Democratic leadership is so "risk-averse" that it will not go all-in on a strong hand. They have repeatedly folded on strong hands.
On another issue, A.L., I'm wondering when, or if, you will drop the Obama pom-poms and again become a critical blogger. Any chance that might happen?
I'm with CO. Both in his wishes for you, A.L., and in his assessment of the political situation. I'd go further and assert that, but for an accident of party affiliation, I think a fair number of Democratic party representatives are more in sympathy with the Republican agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy, privatization of the sources of wealth, and dumping the risk on the rest of us than they care about the increasingly polarized society we live in.
We can look at the current situation as a "prisoner's dilemma". If the two parties work together, they may, together, turn the economy around. If the R's rat out the D's, they lose what? The D's still may be able to turn the economy around, but with it will take longer -- which is to the R's advantage, since they're in safe seats (even though it's not to their constituent's advantage, there's very little likelihood that they'll lose their seats.) If the D's (or some of them) side with the R's, the economy stays rotten for longer, which, for quite a few, is not a problem -- they're in safe seats, too.
You see the Republicans (and blue dogs) taking risks. I don't. Not with their own futures. What happens to the rest of us is clearly not of great concern, as we don't vote for them anyway. I don't see any signs of the usual Republican voters in GOP states turning Democratic in numbers.
Actually, in the chaotic politics and equivocal shrieking that has come about in the US (and now Israel), the political scene appears to obey Boltzmann's laws (see: dog-and-fleas) than anything deterministic.
Hate to be a cynic, but the actions of the Democrats is perhaps best understood if you assume that they are in fact largely closet Republicans or at least, Democrats in Name Only who are committed to helping the same people the Republicans are defending.
How else do you explain the ease with which bankers can get hundreds of billions while the auto industry is looked at like Untouchables.
My guess is that the Ivy Leaguers on Capitol Hill feel a lot more comfortable with folks working at Goldmans than people working the line in Detroit and it clearly shows in how they vote.
Representative Democracy is an anachronistic system of government that was designed to protect the interests of the Have's, not the Have Nots.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home