Manu Raju has a piece up in the Politico about how the Republicans plan to create fissures in the Democratic Party. In part, this is a no-brainer. On the House side, the Republicans will need to remain unified and find about forty Democratic dissenters to stop anything. On the Senate side, to stop anything, the GOP will have to avoid losing even one member of their caucus or find Democratic defectors. In both cases, that’s a tall order, but the strategy is clear. To be effective as a minority party the Republicans must create cleavages in the Democratic caucus.
Even if the GOP did not set out to use such a strategy it would develop organically because of the power dynamics in Washington. One wise Republican acknowledged as much:
Tom Ingram, staff director of the Senate Republican Conference, said creating a wedge is not a GOP strategy but that one could develop naturally as Obama tries to works with members of a Democratic majority who hold a diverse set of views.
If the Democratic majority devolves into an acrimonious round of finger-pointing, “that’s their problem,” he said.
Anytime power in Washington switches as abruptly and dramatically as it has in the last two years, the party in power will have a lot of young, vulnerable members from districts or states that are used to voting the other way. In a true political realignment, it may very well be the case that some of those states and districts have moved firmly into the other camp and intend to stay there for a long time. But that phenomena won’t be clear until it is ratified by another election cycle and, at the moment, the Democrats have enlarged their numbers mainly through poaching on Republican turf. That means that the Democrats have enlarged their conservative/centrist wing even as the committees have been taken over largely by long-serving liberals from safe districts/states.
One new spectacle we’ll see will warm the cockles of many a Democrat’s heart. Republican moderates will begin to act much like Democratic moderates acted during the Bush years. They’ll say all the right things (to their base) and then vote the wrong way. They’ll cut deals with the White House at their leaders’ expense. They’ll take the pork where they can get it, and they’ll co-sponsor bills to pad their legislative resumes. Of course, they’d like you to believe that they’re doing this as some grand strategy to divide Democrats.
“In our quest to do good policy, we’re going to find a lot more areas of commonality with Obama than we are with House and Senate Democrats,” said one senior Senate GOP aide. “When Obama and congressional Republicans do work together, the byproduct of that is in-fighting on the left.”
There may be some areas where the Obama administration truly cannot muster Democratic majorities (new trade deals could provide such an example) and will need the Republican caucus to help. But, in most cases, the Obama administration will be looking to pick off just one to five Republican senators to cut off debate and allow for the famous up-or-down vote. The Democratic infighting this will cause will be over the conditions under which the Obama administration gathered those handful of Republican votes. If you’re honest, you know that such deals are more likely to create fissures in the Republican caucus.
Most of the remaining Republicans in office are from safe districts/states, and that will provide them will the freedom to remain unified in obstruction up to a point. As a strategic matter, obstructionism will not help them trim Democratic majorities in the near future. In fact, if the Republicans marginalize themselves then the recent Democratic gains may become cemented and the center of gravity (endangered seats) may move even further to the right. But, even if the Republicans don’t follow their strategic interests as a caucus, their individual members will want to have some legislative legacy other than voting ‘no’. Republicans will trade votes for some say-so on legislation passing through their committees.
The GOP is better at opposition than the Democrats, but they’ll find that remaining consistently unified in their opposition is impossible, and they’ll have to pick their battles…just like the Democrats did when they were on the outside looking in.
It is definitely going to be a very interesting time, those first few months after January 20, to see just how Obama and his administration set up the ground rules about debate on all of the pressing issues that are going to be dumped into his lap.
I am much more concerned about how the Congressional Democrats behave than what tactics the Republicans will eventually employ. Any GOP actions will be, like Ingram points out, reactive and not proactive. What they do and how effective they will be in the opposition is entirely dependent on how cohesive a group Obama can put together on his side of the aisle in Congress.
Right now all the “sturm und drang” going on the blogosphere about what might, maybe, could, possibly happen in the early days is kind of a brain exercise and does, at the least, prepare us to more quickly respond to what actually takes place once Obama is in office and able to do, rather than just talk about, real policy.
I am optimistic, but hopefully not overly optimistic, about what will happen. I am so conditioned to Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory that I am reluctant to really contemplate a serious possibility of change. But really, this is the first time in my life that I have even had justification for the faintest hope that real improvements can come for everyone, not just the elite and politically connected in our society. And that is kind of scary, but very exciting at the same time.
I don’t think many people are really prepared for how bad the next year is going to be in this country. We really are just now entering the initial phases of what I think is going to be a seriously distressing time, the likes of which almost none of us have ever been a part of. It is going to take supremely skilled hands, in all areas of our government, to ameliorate the horribly negative impact of a generation of unfettered free market, Republican led greed and malfeasance that has been perpetrated on this country.
It is a very tall order to lead a nation through such a time. I just pray that they are all up to the task. Failure is just not an option. I shudder to think of the results if we do, in fact, fail.
It helps, I think, to do a mental exercise about how, say, Mitch McConnell would go about successfully stymieing Harry Reid on different issues (judges, tax hikes, new regulation, health care, education-reform, etc.)
Without a doubt, it is beneficial. Because that scenario you paint is exactly what will happen.
which scenario? The one in the body of the post?
Democrats getting rolled because of the DINOs in their ranks.
The “Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to screw Harry Reid and the Dems” scenario.
McConnell can count on about 36 of his Senators to be with him on everything. Then he has about 5 that have to be cajoled/threatened to stand firm on filibusters – although this will of course altered by the issue in question.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see many votes where Republicans who vote against cloture wind up voting FOR the legislation/judge/appointment that they tried to filibuster. Folks like Specter, Snowe, McCain will be told that voting against cloture is simply a requirement of being a good Republican.
And yet … it’s hard to see this strategy being really successful. If Reid can keep his caucus together on cloture votes, he only needs to pick off ONE of these Republicans. And let me tell you, Reid can dangle much greater rewards before these GOP senators than McConnell can. Every Senator has a pet issue (remember Jim Jeffords and the Vermont milk industry) that can be exploited if Reid plays it right.
I don’t have much faith in Reid’s leadership, but I have to think that Obama will make up for his deficiencies. If Reid can’t change minds, Obama will.
A fine analysis, Except Reid is a Republican and will do his all to do their bidding. Unless he is replaced we will get one phantom filibuster after another.
He and Lieberman will give the other Republicans cover.
nalbar
About the only area where Harry Reid will be a problem is on nuclear energy, and I’ll probably agree with him on that.
I hope you are as right on this analysis as you were 7 months ago on Obama’s chances of winning the election.
But like you said, I’m a battered spouse, and until they show they will stop hitting me, I won’t have any faith in the likes of Reid and Polosi.
nalbar
…with 41 votes will be incredibly difficult. Especially if Obama and Reid tell the Democratic caucus (as they should) that voting for cloture is a requirement of remaining in good standing. Vote with us on cloture, then vote how you want on the up-or-down vote.
I really do wish that we could convince Olympia Snowe to become a Democrat, but hopefully she will be one of those Senators that Obama can rely on to help break filibusters.
If filibusters remain a serious problem, I’m in favor of changing cloture to a 55-vote threshold, or getting rid of it altogether.
That said, I predict that the GOP will have more success with 41 Senators than the Democrats had with 45 Senators. And that’s really quite a sad statement, pointing to the spinelessness of so many Democrats for the past eight years.
Exactly right. How many times did we see a Democrat vote for cloture and then vote against the the bill? Then they tried to tell us that they voted against the legislation. Sometimes they did the opposite, voting against cloture because of ‘concerns’ with this or that feature of the bill, but then voting for the bill because, e.g. ‘you gotta support the troops’.
These are the ways that Republicans will seek to gain cover from their base on the one hand and the broader electorate on the other.
Ultimately, none of it is effective.
I don’t think the Republicans will be able to sustain more than one or two filibusters against judges because all Obama has to do is get Specter, Collins, and Snowe to sign off on judges and he will prevail. Casey and Ben Nelson are pro-life, but they will not oppose every judge that is pro-choice.
Only the most threatening legislation to Republicans (e.g. Employee Free Choice Act) is likely to unite Republicans in opposition. Even then, the GOP will need southern Dems like Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor to cross-over because Republicans like Specter and Voinovich won’t want to cross labor.
I think it may be easier in some cases for the Republicans to pull over forty Blue Dogs in the House to block or poison bills than it will be for McConnell to wage a successful filibuster.
This is a very optimistic analysis.
Remind me again: when the Congressional Democrats were on the outside, what battles exactly did they pick and choose? I’m having trouble remembering any. I certainly don’t remember any around Supreme Court appointments, the war in Iraq (getting in or getting out), PATRIOT Act, any of the myriad abuses of Bush Administration power…you know the list. And with two years of a Congressional majority, they picked exactly one battle: raising the minimum wage. An issue the phrase “low-hanging fruit” was invented for.
What gives me hope is that Obama is likely to pursue a forceful agenda (as he must, given the messes we’re in, largely as a result of above) and that he knows and has surrounded himself with people who know how Congress works. But Republicans have a much better congressional record of sticking together in contentioous votes – in or out of power – because they, much more than congressional Democrats, tend to have core principles they will not violate. Reid & Pelosi’s only core principle seems to be not risking their precious power. Here’s hoping they, and their caucuses, can be motivated by the risk of pissing off the White House if they don’t start standing for something.
I’m no big fan of Obama – his policies are likely to be far too corporate and centrist (in the sense of accommodating Republican phobias) for my tastes. But I think he’s our best hope of whipping the congressional Dems into shape. Otherwise, the Republicans won’t have to do any work at all to render the Democratic majority ineffective; the Dems will do it themselves.
I see people say stuff like this all the time. But I want to know what it means in some context. Any context will do.
Like, the ‘universal’ health care bill. How will:
a) Democrats fail to pass it in the House
b) the Republicans successfully filibuster it in the Senate?
Now, if I were Boehner, I’d try to poison the bill with everything I could think of. Amendments to eliminate malpractice, malpractice attorneys, etc. etc. Find surface-level stuff that is unpopular and try to get something ridiculous passed that no one can support. Go after the Blue Dogs on cost offsets. You get the picture. I don’t see it working, but that is the only way to go about it within the confines of House rules (public relations is a whole different ball of wax).
As for McConnell, he’ll need to filibuster it, or pass poison pill amendments. But the Dems can overcome some poison pills by stripping them in conference. He’ll need 41 votes in the end, and that means convincing every last Republican to vote against cloture. Nahgonnahappen. Which Democrat is going to vote aganist health care? I can’t think of one. At worst, someone like Carper or Bayh might ask for amendment to salve their budgetary conscience or to make it all go down a little easier for the insurance industry.
But take you pick, Geov. Take any major piece of legislation (stimulus, stem cell research, education reform, etc.) and tell me how the Republicans are going to stop it. Because I don’t think they can.