I’ve written extensively in recent weeks (for example, here) about a structural political problem that Donald Trump has that is going to prevent him from successfully getting legislation passed through this Congress. A simple formulation of the problem is that Trump ran against the current iteration of the Republican Party but adopted a strategy even before his inauguration that depends on his ability to move his agenda with 100% Republican votes. I don’t want to reiterate that argument here, at least not fully, but it now appears that he and many of the people closest to him are beginning to realize their error.
This is why we’re seeing a lot of stories come out about a split between a populist nationalist wing led by Steve Bannon and a more pragmatic wing that is led by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, his daughter Ivanka, and his director of the National Economic Council, Gary Cohn.
One simple way of understanding this is that Kushner, Ivanka and Cohn are realizing that they’re going to need Democrats to do much of what Trump promised he would do. To the Bannon wing, such an assertion is nonsensical. He made promises the Democrats have no interest in helping him keep, and he should stick to the agenda that attracted his base to him in the first place. Running to the Democrats is a betrayal.
But this is just a right-wing version of the unfair criticism President Obama often faced from his left-wing base. If you don’t have the political power to do something either because your own party is too divided or because your political opposition is too united, then whatever that something is is not going to get done. At least, it’s not going to get done in the form in which you promised that it would.
Democrats, from the ivory towers of think tanks down to the unions halls, all agree on the urgent need for infrastructure spending. The knowledgable among them know that going another four or eight years without major investments in roads and bridges and health and education and technology is a recipe for further wealth disparity and disenchantment among their previous supporters in the hollowed out non-urban parts of the country. They want a big infrastructure bill not to help Trump but to help themselves and the American people. But they have no interest in passing an infrastructure bill that takes the form of what Trump initially proposed, and they won’t help pass that kind of bill. What Gary Cohn, for example, understands is that the Republicans won’t pass the infrastructure bill that Trump proposed, either, so the only way anything is going to get done is to make an approach to the Democrats.
I’ve argued that it’s too late to do this, and that Trump has essentially screwed the pooch in two ways. The first is that he took what was already a toxic campaign (and campaign result) and ramped it up once he came into office. The Democrats can’t afford to work with him now even if they wanted to, and they don’t. The second is that Trump is now vulnerable to congressional oversight to such a degree that he can’t afford to split his own party or turn a significant portion of them against him. He needs a united and enthusiastic Republican Congress to run interference on investigations that threaten to take down his presidency.
For both reasons, the pivot that the so-called New York Democrats want to make is doomed. They may get a chance to try, however, because the Democrats will listen on infrastructure and perhaps on some iterations of tax reform, too.
But before we can get to this next act in the play, the Republicans must first avert a government shutdown or resolve it after it takes place. And this is an inflection point in Trump’s administration. If it can only be resolved with Democratic votes, it will endanger the Speakership of Paul Ryan and the loyalty to Trump of the Republican base and congressional caucuses. In normal circumstances, without all the ethical and possibly criminal vulnerabilities Trump is already exposed to, this would be a welcome and rational realignment in Congress that would allow him to govern as a hybrid politician. In some ways, this is how Arnold Schwarzenegger saved his governorship after a rocky start.
But California Democrats had far fewer reasons for keeping Schwarzeneggar at arm’s length than do the Washington Democrats to eschew cooperation with Trump. And Schwarzeneggar didn’t have or need Republican control of the legislative committees to protect him from being impeached.
There is now a new genre of articles appearing about Bannon-supporting Republicans who are disillusioned with Trump’s pivot to the Democrats (even though this pivot is still in the theoretical stage), but these folks are suffering from the same delusions as many of Obama’s early critics, who couldn’t understand why he hadn’t closed the prison at Guantanamo or passed a bigger stimulus or enacted comprehensive immigration reform or moved faster on gay rights. A president can be guided by policies and principles but he or she must ultimately find a way to work within the power structure and political climate that exist not the ones he or she might wish exist. Some promises cannot be kept, and others need to get put low in the queue. Compromises have to made for anything to happen at all, and some results will be flawed as a result and need to be revisited by ensuing administrations.
Republican intransigence hurt Obama simply by making him look naive to promise that he could change how Washington works and find partners across the aisle. Donald Trump looks bad for a slightly different reason. He said he was an expert dealmaker and that many of our problems could be addressed quickly and surprisingly easily with his kind of leadership skills. That’s already looking like a bad joke as a set of promises.
What’s he realizing, too late, is that the deals he needed to make precluded him from going with an all-Republican legislative strategy. And, the need for Democrats meant that he was going to have to abandon his hard right promises.
The logic of legislating is forcing itself upon Trump now, but he’s too weak, tainted and vulnerable to recover from his initial miscalculations.
And no matter what he does, succeed or fail, his base is going to feel disappointed and betrayed. That’s the cost of living in a fantasy world and putting your trust in someone who promises you the impossible.
Yes, but will The New York Times keep running stories like this all the way until January 20, 2021?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/us/politics/trump-policy-conservatives-rush-limbaugh.html
It’s already changing. Yes, there’s that article in the NYT’s, but there’s others in this same news cycle that emphasize the opposite. You can, of course, find both kinds of people. There will be more of the latter as time goes on.
Repatriation tax deal with corporations for off-shored profits will be irresistible, I should think.
Don’t really see how Dems stop that.
Plenty of Democrats are on board with that. How the GOP gets there though could be a problem for people like Schumer. We’ll see.
Unfortunately he is doing major damage with executive orders combined with alterations to the guidance for implementation of policy. EPA being a prime example.
On destroying the natural world, the “conservative” movement is united. It’s one of the areas in which they can pass legislation (that and their War Against Women, wherever located). Indeed, approving these environmental rule rollbacks is about all Repubs have accomplished so far.
There’s always the federal courts, but Roberts’ Repubs have been very hostile to EPA and the environment and the latest conservative activist masquerading as a “Justice” surely won’t be pro-environment, since his Mommy was one of St Reagan’s seminal environment-haters.
We live in the era in which the last wisps of the natural world will vanish. Humans of the future will reside on an entirely different planet than their ancestors.
The ultimate oxymoronic agenda?
Certainly moronic.
The assumption is that Trump is driven, to a significant degree, to actually pass legislation. I’m not sure that’s true. If he can get praise via another means …
(I’m also not sure if shoehorning in a few paragraphs of ‘Obama’s only legislative flaw was that he was too willing to reach across the aisle,’ like some kind of job interview ‘my shortcoming is I’m too dedicated’ nonsense, is more than bait. I’ve long wondered if your understand of the Obama administration has changed at all, given the current situation, and I suppose you just answered that. It was the best of all possible worlds.)
An important piece by Dayen has slipped under the radar–as criticism of corporate-friendly Dems seems to do. If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing when it has a chance of success, no?
Importantly, there is a nasty sting in the tail when a regulation is turned back…it cannot be changed without Congressional action the next time.
“Fixing most of the broken rulemaking process will require Congressional action. But presidents can change the OIRA component of it as they see fit. They can trust the experts they install at the regulatory agencies to properly balance economic effects of regulations with the public interest. In other words, as president, Obama could have done something to rein in the delays to his rules. He didn’t, and Trump is picking them off one by one as a result.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2017/04/04/How-Obama-Opened-Door-Trump-s-Greatest-Accomplishme
nt-So-Far
From The Hill…http://thehill.com/regulation/326812-window-closing-for-congress-to-roll-back-obama-era-regulations
“Since the start of the new Congress, Republicans have used this obscure law from 1996 to repeal 13 regulations that were finalized between June 13, 2016 and January 3, 2017.
Of those, President Trump has so far signed eight into law. Before Trump took office, the CRA had only successfully been used once before, in 2001.
Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress have vowed to roll back Obama regulations, particularly those dealing with the environment and financial reform, as well as overhaul the regulatory process.
Oh, Obama surely thought that Clinton would prevail, and that these late term regs were safe. Every prez loads up on late term regs as far as I can tell. Too much waiting ’til the last minute in government, as in all things.
But yes, this is terrible because these Trump-wrecked provisions can now no longer be re-enacted without passing an actual law. So, for example, states are now able to deny Planned Parenthood funding in perpetuity should they wish, likely dooming that organization. It will now be a Blue State organization only.
What is infuriating is to note that a Dem prez signed this EZ reg-gutting ability into law. Great thinking, Bill. Wonder which party was more likely to enact substantial regs on corporate actions?
If you’re taking that bait then you deserve an aquatic Darwin Award.
I keep saying the same thing over and over: pass legislation? He doesn’t fucking know what legislation is. He doesn’t understand the basic “Schoolhouse Rock” bill-becomes law” mechanism, he doesn’t understand three-branch-of-government civics. He doesn’t understand any of it. He’s a fucking idiot.
What he does understand is capitalizing (literally) his own narrative of success, which is a little vicarious thrill we’re supposed to get from his endlessly-repeated nasty story about how he won and everybody else lost and “How sweet it is” (and “You’re fired.”)
That’s why this situation is so infuriating: because decades of bad TV (of every kind) allowed millions of desperate Americans to convince themselves that not knowing what you’re doing is a plus; that education and hierarchies are frauds because the complicated world is actually simple; that “a businessman” can do anything.
But any sentence that has Trump considering “legislation” (how it works; what it does) is a fantasy. The Health Care bill didn’t interest him in the slightest: he didn’t know what was in it; he never talked about it; all it meant to him was “a win.”
Don’t ignore the fact that in addition to being “too weak, tainted and vulnerable” to recover, Donnie BS is too stupid and incompetent to pull off anything that requires subtlety, finesse or even cooperating with other people.
“… he and many of the people closest to him are beginning to realize their error.”
I don’t believe it was an error in the logical sense. These guys don’t think like that. They are opportunists, they go according to what will win them the immediate advantage. By ruthless pursuit of short-term advantage they won the nomination and even the election. They figure they’ll worry about the consequences later, if there are any consequences.
That’s how they got where they are now. They don’t realize their “error”. They best they can do is to realize they are in trouble and need to figure out some winning scheme to get out of it, whatever it involves.
Anybody with an IQ above room temperature, if they bothered to think about it, would realize that the political combination Trump wound up with was not sustainable.
War is the likely answer. Donald Trumper, War Prez.
Will there be an (undeclared and unauthorized) war on the Korean peninsula in the next 2 days? 10 days?
Heckuva job, incompetent white electorate! (Another group that does not have the ability to realize their error….)
I agree. I reluctantly voted for Hillary, despite my concern about her hawkishness, but I hoped that if Trump won he would at least reduce the tension the neoliberals have created with Russia. Well, he hasn’t succeeded in that, and they’re still trying to foment a shooting war there. At the moment the forces available could not conduct a war, but they sure could start one.
By the way, to make things a little simpler — I don’t believe there is any “pivot to the Democrats.”
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/13/15281232/trump-pivot-sessions-cohn
Thanks for the link.
I think there may be a great deal of cognitive dissonance happening.
You link is a re-enforcement of Boomans point, that Trump has done things that make working with Democrats impossible…..certainly what Sessions will do is a case in point. But Trump more than likely believes he can easily convince Democrats to buy into what Trump feels are reasonable offers….but are in reality basic right wing nuttery. He (Trump) does not live in the real world.
Here is an example of how that family is beyond all hope (politico link). Ivanka thinks she can bring progressive organizations on board, all the while sitting down the hall while Daddy attempts to eviscerate women’s health care.
They literally have no clue what they are doing…even when it comes to outreach.
.
This must be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, since the only other possibility is the intentional clownification of Ivanka by her Doting Daddy.
Any progressive organization meeting with any Trump family member has an executive director that needs to be fired…
Sometimes you have to take the meeting. This incident was fairly early…before Ivanka got a formal position. So you take the meeting. But now? Probably not…because you will be used as a marketing prop.
Have you ever seen such a family? Every single one….every one…would be a black sheep in any other family. The sons going around shooting shit and grafting third world countries, the son in law being a frat boy wanker, and the daughter being a chip off the ‘ol block grifter. It’s like some bizarro version of the Beverly Hillbillies
With the scripts written by Ayn Rand.
.
simile:
Thanks for the link. It quotes Ivanka’s oft-cited response to the charge of being complicit: “I would say not to conflate lack of public denouncement with silence.” Her misuse of “conflate” as essentially “a cooler-sounding synonym for ‘confuse,’ see http://galleyproofs.blogspot.com/2008/09/usage-tip-conflate-vs-confuse.html, confirms her quintessential phoniness.
One plus up for Gary Cohn. Larry Kudlow doesn’t like him. Way to go Gary.
Infrastructure spending is about the only thing I can think of that will help rural counties. The decline there reflects the results of the recession, and what few industrial jobs there were are gone. It is not clear this reflects NAFTA or foreign trade or rather the need for a reliable and sufficient work force. Small factories are inefficient and may not succeed. Companies tend to consolidate them in more populous areas. The recession forced change.
Infrastructure spending is now proposed as a mix of public and private finance. So does that mean we build a road or bridge or airport and then let private companies run it for profit? I wonder how we will all feel about that as we pay the tolls.
Trump-style “infrastructure program” means:
They may be realizing it, but Trump doesn’t, and so it probably doesn’t matter. It’s probably impossible anyway, as you say.
An important point about infrastructure is that infrastructure spending is not necessarily a good thing. The American Society of Civil Engineers has a proposal for infrastructure repair which calls for 2.2 trillion in spending to prevent 1 trillion in losses. Seriously. Net, every dollar they’re proposing will cost society 60 cents – in their forecasts, which are certainly optimistic.
The problem is the vast majority of “infrastructure” in any bill we’ll get is auto-oriented (mostly highways and bridges) and we already have more of that than is economically efficient. Sure, we can do more “pave paradise and put up a parking lot” but that won’t do us any good in spite of being quite expensive.
That’s a very good point. The 1980s taught us how easy it is to fuel a building boom, in that case downtown office buildings, with easy money, with results that were not an unalloyed public good. I can’t see most Republicans in Congress voting to spend trillions of dollars in direct federal spending for infrastructure — after all, Obama got less than $900 billion through even when the Dems controlled Congress — and the public-private mix that Republicans want will result in regressive taxes and tolls that will make it more difficult for poorer people to use the projects that result.
Almost all of that is a delayed maintenance penalty. Which makes your premise false, because it is an incomplete either or proposition. Either you spend 2.2 Trillion dollars restoring and repairing the infrastructure of America, or it all falls apart and costs us a trillion dollars from it’s collapse.
What your numbers don’t mention is that 1 trillion is just the cost of the collapse. It will then cost even more than the 2.2 trillion to restore capacity to the current levels in new projects and clean up. And none of that 1 trillion in loses takes into account the human cost via number of people that will just die because of infrastructure failures.
Those engineers are fairly smart people. In this case they are recommending 2.2 Trillion dollars to be spent to save us from 1 Trillion in loses because it’s the right thing to do in overall costs including monetary costs.