Party Dynamics
The other day Steve Benen wrote the following:
I'm quite confident that in this hypothetical scenario, the GOP would have absolutely no interest in seeking bipartisan support for the policy. Quite the opposite. As they did during the first six years of the Bush presidency, the GOP would actually insert provisions into the bill that Democrats don't like in order to minimize the number of Democrats willing to support it. Why share the credit, after all? Sadly, despite their best efforts to scare away Democratic votes, numerous Democrats would line up to vote for the GOP bill anyway.
If you doubt any of this, you really haven't been paying any attention to politics over the last decade. Anyone who claims that the parties are mirror images of each other is a fool or liar. Republicans and Democrats just don't approach politics in the same way.
Conditions will never be more favorable for the Democrats than they are right now. And yet there is a real chance that they will fail to pass their signature policy. And this is because a number of Democrats in the Senate are reluctant to even step up to the plate to end a Republican filibuster--on a key Democratic initiative with widespread popular support and an electoral mandate behind it. I wonder if Republicans realize how lucky they are. I doubt that any majority party in history has ever made it easier for the opposition party to stay relevant.
It reminded me of a conversation I had the other day with a friend of mine about an alternate universe. Imagine, my friend said, there was a Republican president, working with large, obstructionist-proof Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The Republican president's approval rating was about 60%, and he'd just won a popular electoral mandate on a key issue, which Republicans have prioritized literally for generations.To further add to the hypothetical, imagine that the policy in question was supported by roughly 75% of the public and had virtually no political downside once inacted.
What are the chances, my friend asked, that Republicans would accept the importance of "bipartisanship" in shaping the policy? What are the odds that GOP leaders would make a series of concessions to Democrats, and tolerate Republican centrists who were toying with the idea of siding with the minority party?
I'm quite confident that in this hypothetical scenario, the GOP would have absolutely no interest in seeking bipartisan support for the policy. Quite the opposite. As they did during the first six years of the Bush presidency, the GOP would actually insert provisions into the bill that Democrats don't like in order to minimize the number of Democrats willing to support it. Why share the credit, after all? Sadly, despite their best efforts to scare away Democratic votes, numerous Democrats would line up to vote for the GOP bill anyway.
If you doubt any of this, you really haven't been paying any attention to politics over the last decade. Anyone who claims that the parties are mirror images of each other is a fool or liar. Republicans and Democrats just don't approach politics in the same way.
Conditions will never be more favorable for the Democrats than they are right now. And yet there is a real chance that they will fail to pass their signature policy. And this is because a number of Democrats in the Senate are reluctant to even step up to the plate to end a Republican filibuster--on a key Democratic initiative with widespread popular support and an electoral mandate behind it. I wonder if Republicans realize how lucky they are. I doubt that any majority party in history has ever made it easier for the opposition party to stay relevant.
posted by A.L. at 3:11 PM
10 Comments:
If anyone can explain Evan Bayh's behavior, I'm all ears. What the hell is up with that guy?
Quiddity: I have believed since the election that, with the Republican Party going the way of the Federalists, shrinking into a regional party, minister-driven, and addicted to paranoid conspiracy theories -- some Republican cospiracies do, in fact, date back to the Federalists, such as the Illuminati one -- that Bayh is positioning himself as the potential leader of a new center-right party to take up the position vacated by the Republicans.
As for the main post, has anyone noticed that Obama's 'bipartisanship' is not 'let's find a compromise' but 'come, work with me on something we both want, and if you have any suggestions, I'll listen." (As he did with Coburn on governmental openness.)
He's made the Republicans a series of offers they could -- and he knew they wuld -- refuse, thus putting themselves more and more out of the possibility of having any impact.
Prup: That's an interesting notion, that Bayh might lead a center-right party/faction of some sort. I agree that the Republicans, presently constituted, are on the ropes.
We'vre read that there are no Republican Representatives from New England. But take a look at all that's north of Virginia: (R's/total-reps)
Maine: 0/2
Vermont: 0/1
New Hampshire: 0/2
Massachusetts: 0/10
Connecticut: 0/5
Rhode Island: 0/2
New York: 3/29
New Jersey: 5/13
Delaware: 1/1
Maryland: 1/8
That's 10 Representatives out of a total of 73. I don't think that Democrats had an equivalently weak position in the (now) Republican stronghold of the South.
I'm not sure that Republicans will disappear, but they could be a regional party, cooperating/coordinating with a "centrist" third party (headed by someone like Bayh). That might work in the House, but it won't bring presidential victories.
BONUS FACT: Even in Virginia, it's 6 Democrats, 5 Republicans.
Evan Bayh and his ilk base their thinking on this logic: nobody has lost an election for being "not liberal enough" since the 60s.
That's part of it.
The other part of it is that, thanks to DLC-"centrist" thinking, which has created influence streams (so to speak) from banks, insurance comapanies, pharmaceuticals, etc., to a good number of Democratic Senators.
So, Senators like Bayh think that, as long as they get contributions from the plutocracy, they'll still be able to win elections based solely on incumbency. Whereas, if they go against corporate America, the negative ads will come out.
The ultimate answer here is that the Democrats and Republicans are really quite different organizations.
"That's 10 Representatives out of a total of 73. I don't think that Democrats had an equivalently weak position in the (now) Republican stronghold of the South."
Democrats, on a state level, are frequently quite strong in red states. Many red states have Republican governors and red states always have a solid leavening of Democrats in state and local government.
However, unless those Democrats represent urban constituencies (typically more liberal/cosmopolitan than rural districts despite the crushing every day reality of poverty for most rural Americans, and typically containing minority voters legitimately concerned about Republican country club elitism), there is not fundamentally much difference between them and a Republican from the same district on many issues.
It's important to remember that there are a few reasons for this. First and foremost is the litmus test. A pro-choice, pro-gay rights conservative will be branded as a liberal by Republicans regardless of his position on welfare, the economy, or medical care. So a pro-choice conservative is more likely to be a Democrat than not. Southern and Midwestern rural whites, despite the fact that many more of them are on social services than urban or suburban whites in more economically advantaged regions, are likely to be very hostile to liberal policies on programs like welfare, food stamps, or medical care despite the fact that many of them are taking advantage of these programs. I live in a mostly rural area on the TN/VA border and many of my neighbors vote to cut their own public assistance benefits. Under these circumstances, it's very difficult for a genuine liberal Democrat to be elected unless he is in an urban district.
It's a testament to the amazing party discipline of the Republicans. Their authority-based morality lends itself to voting as a bloc.
As for the Democrats, I read somewhere that:
'The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.' :^)
Thus, a liberal outlook lends itself to judging individual pieces of legislation on their own merits rather than as a litmus test or as a test of party loyalty or discipline.
I estimate that a 60% Democratic majority is therefore equivalent to about a 51% in practice.
This isn't really all that hard to understand -- health care reform is up against a multi-million dollar a day lobbying effort, and anybody who votes for meaningful reform knows that:
a) The gravy train of campaign contributions from the insurance, pharmaceutical, medical device and "health care" industries will dry up for them, and flow in a torrent to their opponents;
b) They'll also face well funded attack ads;
c) Their stock insurance and pharmaceutical stocks won't do as well, and they won't have the same opportunities for big-money lobbying jobs once they leave office.
They're just hiding behind the fig leaf of "bipartisanship" because they don't really want to do this anyway.
They're just hiding behind the fig leaf of "bipartisanship" because they don't really want to do this anyway.
Great observation, Cervantes—the best explanation I've seen so far of the Democrats' despicable behavior. Indeed, it may be worth asking whether Obama himself really wants to change the current system, or if it was all just a pretty campaign promise. It wouldn't be his first flip-flop, that's for sure.
In fact, I recall Gingrich and Delay making the comment that when a bill had Democratic support, it wasn't right-wing enough, and they would continue to add provisions until they brought Democratic support to a bare minimum.
Seriously, after the Repubs had Obama gut the stimulus then voted against it unanimously, I think Obama should have dropped the pretense. I'm a bit frustrated that he's still playing that game.
Is Obama still playing "rope-a-dope" with the Republicans? If he is, maybe its time he landed the knockout?
What are his chances in 2012 (given the halo is slipping) without a meaningful healthcare measure?
At least, his contradiction of Rahm Emanuel was an indicator there may be steel behind the velvet.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home