What we have in Washington is something of a political death spiral. It’s a little complicated to understand, but bear with me. In this morning’s Politico we’re treated to the following choice quote:
“Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?” said one senior House Republican aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter freely. “I just don’t want to co-own the economy by having to tout that we passed a jobs bill that won’t work or at least won’t do enough.”
You need to think carefully about this quote. Implied in its logic is the idea that House Republicans can avoid any ownership of a bad economy if they continue to refuse to take any meaningful action to improve it. They can stonewall the president and the public will simply blame the president. The Republicans actually believe this. To see why, let’s go back to Mike Lofgren’s piece from two weeks ago. Remember that Mr. Lofgren is a career Republican staffer who resigned in disgust after the debt ceiling debacle. He explains the Republicans’ strategic thinking on obstruction:
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
Why does this work? Lofgren explains that, too.
There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters’ confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.”
To this I need to add that plenty of quite well-informed voters have a rather inaccurate impression of the presidency’s legislative powers. If the president can’t get Congress to do anything on the economy, it makes him look weak, but that is only because the executive branch’s control over the legislative branch is quite limited in our constitutional system. The Republicans’ obstruction may make them less popular than a skunk at the prom, but it brings down the president’s numbers, too. Ultimately, they’ll argue that if the president can’t persuade Congress to act, the people need to find a president who can.
It shouldn’t need to be said, but this is obviously putting raw politics ahead of helping people find a job. In a just world, the House Republicans would be severely punished. Yet, they sincerely think the benefits of hurting the president outweigh the benefits of putting people to work. They think a weak economy and an ineffectual president are better for them politically, and that they’ll win even though no institution in America is less popular than the Republicans. They think proving that the government doesn’t work will benefit them in the long-run, too. Why trust government to do anything if they can’t even pay their bills on time?
Yet, congressional leaders in the Republican Party are not quite as convinced that they can get away with blowing off the president’s American Jobs Act. They can read the polls and they know the people are fed-up with their obstruction. They know a motivated president has a big megaphone. They want to pass something, even if only to avoid getting blasted for intransigence.
Here’s where the death spiral comes in. Because two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the job House and Senate Republicans are doing, the GOP doesn’t stand a chance in next year’s elections if the president is popular or the economy is noticeably on the mend. Their only chance is to continue to chop away at the president, keep as many people jobless as possible, and hope that the “pox on both their houses” narrative is the dominant one with the electorate next year.
The president is “on the ropes,” but so are the Republicans. As a result, there’s a split in the GOP. Boehner and Cantor want to work with the president and pass at least some parts of his plan. But RNCC Chairman Pete Sessions, who is responsible for recruiting House candidates and keeping control of the House, is less conciliatory.
“To assume that we’re naturally for these things because we’ve been for them does not mean we will be for them if they cause debt, if they [have] tax increases and if they take money from the free-enterprise sector, which creates jobs,” said Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, who heads up the House Republican campaign arm…
…“I have great respect for everybody in Republican leadership,” Sessions said. “I found what the president said to be out of balance; … It’s fair to give any [proposal by the] president [a chance] out of respect to him, but also we need to look at the substance.”
Of course, the president has asked Congress to fully pay for his jobs package, so it shouldn’t cause any increase in debt. The Republicans are against the jobs bill because they’ve made themselves so unpopular that they’re relying on people hating the government, the president, and the Democrats almost as much as they hate the Republicans. Yet, they’re not united on how far they can push that strategy. It’s worked for them so far. It’s worked tragically well.
Before we get too complacent about the President’s prospects, consider that Joe Lieberman and Mark Warner as part of “approximately two dozen Republican and Democratic Senators” are going to be pushing on cutting spending sooner rather than later. Lieberman I understand. He’s a lame duck. But Warner and the other Democrats are committing political suicide. A “senior Democratic aide” at the meeting said that Obama’s jobs plan was DOA. That was before the President gave his speech. Can’t we get nitwits like that fired–first for undercutting the Democratic strategy and second for having loose lips? Show me a Republican senior aide who isn’t always on message.
And while the Obama rocks-Obama sux war is going on in the progressive blogosphere, Ralph Reed, Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptist Convention, and ooodles of other well-funded religious fronts for the GOP are lining up evangelical pastors to turn out the vote next year with the wedge issues being abortion and gay rights. “Forget your economic woes folks. Step up and do the Looorrrrd’s work by voting GOP.”
Hopefully, President Obama’s schedule this week is all out on the road selling the American Jobs Act in Republican districts.
Can’t we get nitwits like that fired–first for undercutting the Democratic strategy and second for having loose lips?
What is HolyJoe? DLC! What is the President? DLC! Who enabled Holy Joe? The President!! What is Warner? DLC/Turd Way. And before you tell me that the President has no power over these two jokers, that is completely false. Remember the ads the DNC ran in Nebraska for Bad Nelson after the Cornhusker Kickback fiasco?
The job of the DNC is to protect incumbents. Incumbents are major contributors to the DNC. That is regardless of who the President is.
There is an aspect of analysis of Obama that reminds me of the Kremlinology during the Cold War. This detail or that detail is supposed to be definitive proof of what Obama’s real political philosophy is.
This superficial analysis is dividing the progressive movement at the very moment when the conservative movement is setting up GOTV efforts to benefit the GOP nominee — even if that nominee is Mitt Romney.
That is why conservatives keep relentlessly plodding on while progressives engage in a circular firing squad after each victory. Where exactly is the supposed disunity in the GOP at the moment?
My point still stands about the senior aide. He was not helping the Democratic Party, not even the DLC wing of the Democratic Party.
Presidents in general have no power over chairs of Congressional committees. Those chairs know that they can outlast any President.
Holy Joe is a vindictive man who lost a Democratic primary. His political philosophy has very little to do with his actions now. And he is a lame duck. His sole aim is to be cast in history as the father of the Department of Homeland Security.
Warner is an opportunist who wants very much to be President–so much so that he sucked up to progressives at one of the early Yearly Kos/Netroots Nation conferences. He has proven to lack a consistent or persistent political philosophy. Sort of a Democratic Mitt Romney.
The DNC action in Nebraska did have the effect of getting Ben Nelson’s vote for the ACA, which ensured its passage.
I don’t feel sorry for Obama one bit. Yeah, he’s on the ropes and everyone knows it. The part that you carefully leave out is Obama put himself there with his bullshit Bipartisanship Uber Alles strategy that still soldiers on unabashedly. Each time I hear another jejune yet erudite Obama speech the same phrase undoubtedly comes up: “on a bipartisan basis.” Nobody I know wants to hear that shit! I know that you applaud Obama’s “only adult in the room” shuck-n-jive but The People could give a damn. And then the “jobs jobs jobs” bill is larded up with Republican giveaways such as tax cuts and it’s then “paid for” not with bold action against our bloated, parasitic war spending (I refuse to use the Republican frame of calling it defense) but with slight payroll tax cuts. Tax cuts!? An extra $1,000 per anum in my pocket. Wow! Gee, thanks, Obama! Now let’s contrast that pocket change with what Obama’s golfing buddies and Wall Street friends get in bonuses for no work while I worked my ass off? Oh yeah, they got the unmitigated winfall of keeping those storied bonuses and the Obama nee Bush tax cuts! His cowardliness in not wanting to be seen as going for another bite of the stimulus apple is apparent and embarrassing.
And this routine about there being no bipartisanship in DC is so much hogwash that I want to scream. Most of Obama’s “accomplishments” have been bipartisan: more war, tax cuts, “entitlement” damaging, mandated corporated health insurance reform (i.e., a tax), whistleblower persecution, liberal bashing and debasing, ecology standards reductions, and more.
From my perspective, Obama and the Republicans are working together hand-in-hand with great efficacy. The difference is that the Republicans are playing the game much better than the alleged 11-dimensional-chess master.
“Nobody I know wants to hear that shit!”, you say. Perhaps that’s true. This is a big country–you should get out more. Readers and participants on the Booman Tribune are a tiny minority of a mere sliver of the population that actually reads and writes about politics on the internet. Funny, Booman is making trenchant points here about how radical the opposition is and how difficult it is to reach the vast number of low-information voters. It must make your life easier to so readily blame the guy in charge. But such blanket condemnation (as opposed to reasoned criticism) does nothing whatsoever to deal with the actual situation we face.
I assume that you are inclined to be scientific. So it puzzles me why you place so much stock in personal anecdotal evidence.
Like Atrios, if I were a Republican, I’d just say that we should pass Obama’s bill so we can see what a big failure it will be.
Whatever remaining respect I had for Republicans was exhausted during the debt ceiling debate, when Republicans speculated anonymously that a fiscal crises would hurt the President more than them, and therefore they could afford to push hard.
All good points, but the GOP didn’t get here overnight. They’ve been moving in this direction for at least a generation, and it crystallized in the Bush Administration. By the early months of 2009 it was becoming clear that the GOP, instead of moderating after their devastating losses in 2006 and 2008 was going to double down on extremism and obstruction instead. And yet Obama governed as if the GOP were good faith, honest conservatives that would be willing to work with him to pass his agenda. He and his political advisers countered extreme partisanship with post-partisanship, and as a result the country has been pulled even further to the right ideologically and Obama’s approval ratings have tanked as a result of “losing” so many of these hostage standoffs that the policy gains of his first two years are in danger of being undone.
Obama isn’t to blame for the GOP mutating into the destructive beast that it is today; he is to blame for not doing a better job of forcing the GOP to pay a greater price for their tactics. I have no problem with his “centrism” or neoliberal slant- it comes as no surprise and Presidents must govern from the center. But if he loses in 2012 it will be because he just got plain outplayed in the game of politics. It’s that simple.
I still don’t quite understand how you convince Mitch McConnell to forego the filibuster by yelling at him, or how you get John Boehner to release his hostage by being mean to him. You yell, they still say no. I’ve been over this a thousand ways, from procedure, to quoting Republicans, to mathematics, to demonstrating how much more vulnerable most Republicans are to primaries than to defeat in the general.
The problem has never been post-partisanship.
It’s a difficult thought experiment, I agree, and a more partisan approach from the start could make us worse off. I admit that.
But I think if you’re in the White House in February 2009, you’re getting no love from the GOP on your stimulus even though its half tax cuts, Judd Gregg laughs in your face when you offer him a plum cabinet spot to instead serve as Capo in McConnel’s obstructionist mafia, your view of the world should start to shift. You resolve: no more chasing bipartisanship unicorns- people want results, not bipartisanship. You then do a few things differently:
-You create a blue ribbon pannel of elder statesman for institutional reform, have them come up with a dozen or so minor institutional reforms that collectively add up to a lot and when we have 60, you pass that package and then say that you’ve delivered “institutional reform” and that you’ve “changed the system.” That’s change you can believe in.
This is just a sampling, I think if we run a lot of pass decisions through the lens of seeing the GOP for what they are, rather than what Obama wanted them to be, and things play out differently. I don’t know enough about of our failures on climate change policy, but my hunch is we got Baucus’d in that game as well. Sure, you can say its “lessons learned” etc, but the GOP showed their true colors early on; none of this should have been a surprise to Obama’s advisers.
those are good suggestions, but let’s start with the stimulus. He needed three Republican votes to pass that. Was he going to get stabilizers in the bill when just voting for what he got forced Specter out of the party? Just so you know, Pennsylvania doesn’t allow independents to vote in primaries, which is why Specter had to choose between saving the economy and remaining a Republican.
And if the president had been really mean about the stimulus, it wouldn’t have passed, he would have been dealt an early defeat, the stock market would have dropped a couple thousand points, and he’s have to come back asking for less.
In retrospect, they wasted time playing footsie with Chuck Grassley. But, you know what? They never had 60 votes until late September anyway, so even if Baucus had produced a bill in July, they couldn’t have passed it.
The biggest fuck-up was not placing a high priority on the Fed. I’ll agree with that. But that was priorities, not post-partisanship.
The truth is, Obama was dealt a horrible hand and he stabilized the economy, saved the automakers, saved the financial sector, passed health care reforms, passed banking regulations, enacted a shit-ton of other beneficial legislation, delivered on gay rights, and killed Usama bin-Laden. The only thing he hasn’t been able to do is overcome a Japanese nuclear disaster/tsunami, Euro insolvency, a goddamed uncappable BP oil-well leak, and an opposition that won’t consider Keynesian solutions. The hole in the economy was too big to fill, and he isn’t getting any lucky breaks either.
I’d stop doing the GOP’s work for them by calling him weak or naive. He’s neither. If anything, he’s too aggressive with our civil liberties and with his foreign policy.
I don’t think Obama is weak or naive, rather his pragmatism and desire to govern inclusively are poor-matches for the times we live in. Besides, I rarely voice my criticism outside of this blog, which is pretty much the only place I comment on. My friends and neighbors, mainly GOP-leaning or anti-Obama won’t talk to me about politics because they prefer to bitch about Obama without anyone there to correct them or push them on their assumptions.
If I have any criticism of Obama its not that he’s a bad leader, its that he may not have been the best leader for one of those hyperpartisan periods in this country that we run through from time to time. And I’m well aware that my criticisms are basically the equivalent of throwing spit balls from the cheap seats. If I think I’m “good” at politics than I should go practice it and work my way up; otherwise, I should keep my peace.
The fact your neighbors won’t talk to you about policy is a tell. I’ve seen it in my friends who are strongly GOP. I put up a policy link on FB, and I get back comments about Obama, who is not mentioned in the article. They’re in SC; I know their current situations and understand that the problem isn’t policy; it’s Obama himself. And that there has to be sufficient trust in Obama among other people locally who are not so hardcore in order for them to realize that they have been had by the folks who have been feeding them information.
I’ve mentioned before what Jackie Robinson had to go through and how he desegregated the restaurant at the Municipal Airport in Greenville, SC. There were so many Dodger fans in the area (who’d support the Yankees in SC?) that there was not a murmur of opposition. There was a news article, and that was it. But Robinson had built up trust over 14 years in the Dodger organization.
The initial response to Obama’s jobs speech showed that there might be that sort of trust now after two and a half years. We will see how Obama does on the road.
Republicans: Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.
So ends today’s lesson.
Anthony Weiner’s old district is on the verge of electing a Republican. The strategy appears to be paying off. May God have mercy on us all.
Winning is pretty much always better than losing, but if the Dems lose Weiner’s old seat I wouldn’t take it as anything more than losing a marginal district in an off-year special election. Correct me if I’m wrong New Yorkers, but isn’t Weiner’s district one of the most heavily Republican districts in the city?
No, it’s heavily Democratic in registration, but it’s also heavily Jewish, passionately pro-Israel, and convinced that the Democratic candidate is no friend of Israel (and that President Obama wants to hand the Jewish state over to the Palestinians).