Ah, the debate about whether Republicans are deliberately trying to destroy the nation in order to win the next election, and/or whether it's okay for liberals to accuse them of the same. It's heating up today, with an exchange between Steve Benen and Matt Yglesias, Michael Gerson, and Benen again.
For the most part, I think Gerson's column is overblown and poorly argued, but I do think he has one thing right: conservatives are probably advocating the same policies they would advocate if a Republican was in the White House. Well, more or less. It certainly is true that between the beginning of the recession in late 2007 and the crisis in fall 2008, both the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress proposed little to combat it.
Moreoever, it's good for the nation if the opposition party, well, opposes. Perhaps the policies Barack Obama and the Democrats support are terrific; perhaps they aren't. Either way, it's good that the other party searches for reasons why those policies stink.
I also think it's all too easy to selectively remember the most partisan stuff the other side says to build a narrative of an opposition blinded by crazed hatred of the president. I don't know which one it was, but one of the conservative radio talk shows had a reel (for all I know they still play it) of vicious anti-Bush sentiments. Some of them may have been out of context...I don't know -- but it's not hard at all to believe that over eight years of a presidency, it wouldn't be hard to find a few dozen extreme anti-Bush quotes, and I'm sure the same reel will be just as easy to put together about Obama. These clips were meant to illustrate that Democrats were motivated by blind hatred of the president, but in fact they illustrate little other than that it's a very large nation, microphones are on all the time, and people don't allways express themselves very well.
So, overall, I think Democratic pols should pretty much avoid this line of argument.
Should Democrats bash Mitch McConnell for saying that his top goal is defeating the president? Sure. Should they take it as proof that Republicans will deliberately harm the nation in order to win in 2012? Of course not.
Regardless, the bottom line in politics is that questioning motives is always a bad idea. I'd stick with agreeing with those who note that people tend to believe what it's in their interests to believe, and leave it at that.
Now, at the same time, Democrats surely should be prepared for GOP opposition on everything. Republicans in Congress have clearly chosen a rejectionist strategy in which they oppose (almost) everything using every tool available, rather than trying to bargain for the best deal they can get. And (as Benen notes), there's no question at all here about a conspiracy; Republicans have been perfectly up front, if not always consistent, about advocating some policies and opposing others. Which again means that there's no need to go questioning anyone's motives, or their ultimate goals. Democrats should have no difficulty at all opposing GOP economic plans on their merits and on the nation's experience with them during the George W. Bush years.
(Sabotage -- does it make you think about Bugs Bunny, or Star Trek VI? I couldn't decide, so I figured I'd just go with the one-word header on this one. Feel free to pronounce it the Bugs way, though).
Friday, November 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
'Sabot' is a French word for a wooden shoe. It is said that striking workers once tossed such shoes into machinery.
ReplyDeleteThat's what the word 'sabotage' makes me think of.
Right, I also found it really shocking back when Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle and their colleagues were saying all that nasty stuff about Bush, then blocking all his major bills and appointments... Oh, wait.....
ReplyDeleteI do agree that we shouldn't judge whether the GOP is trying to harm the nation based on what McConnell says about Obama. We should judge this based on whether they're trying to harm the nation -- for instance (the latest of many), by trying to stop the Fed from addressing unemployment despite having no coherent argument why it shouldn't. But as to the duties of oppositions to oppose, that theory breaks down when you've got a system that's designed to work well only if there's some bipartisan cooperation. Give me a straight-up parliamentary system, with few veto points and the election winner actually empowered to make policy, and I'd say, yeah, have at it: Make your best opposing argument and take it to the people. But we don't have that -- we have a system where the opposition can stop the majority's program, then blame the majority for not achieving anything. It's incredibly stupid -- as if we allowed DirecTV to make its sales pitch to Comcast customers after it had dynamited Comcast's fiber-optic lines. "Comcast isn't giving you good service" would not be a legitimate "opposition" argument in those circumstances.
Star Trek, definitely.
ReplyDeleteI think of this book. I think it taught me the word.
ReplyDeleteBeastie Boys actually.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me more of emotional abuse, actually.
ReplyDeleteOne partner tries to work things out, compromises half way, creating a new status quo which gives significant benefit to the other who doesn't try to compromise and meet half way. Then it repeats. And we keep dividing the distance in half.
At some point, the arrow has to hit the apple. And that's abusive.
I think of this more as a tactic in the political war than anything else. Republicans sure don't hesitate to question the patriotism of dems when it suits them. I don't think it's wrong to question their motives.....moreover, I think dems would be derelict in their duty if they did not!
ReplyDeleteconservatives are probably advocating the same policies they would advocate if a Republican was in the White House.
ReplyDeleteNo, they're not, and you don't have to guess (or trust Michael Gerson). You can just look back at last time the GOP controlled Congress and the White House. What happened? Taxes were slashed and spending rose. In other words, economic stimulus. Something that, apparently, is anathema to GOP legislators when a Democratic president stands to benefit from an improved economy.
So, overall, I think Democratic pols should pretty much avoid this line of argument.
Let me get this straight: Democrats should avoid accusing Republicans of deliberately refusing to do anything to help the economy because .... talk radio blowhards can splice together soundbites of Democrats expressing hatred of George W. Bush? Huh?
If you are suggesting that the economic sabotage theory is a distortion of the GOP's true position, that it comes from quotes taken out of context, then you really haven't been paying attention. How else do you explain an entire party uniformly opposing any stimulus during the worst economic downturn in decades? How else do you explain imploring the Fed to ignore its mandate to reduce unemployment?
Moreoever, it's good for the nation if the opposition party, well, opposes. Perhaps the policies Barack Obama and the Democrats support are terrific; perhaps they aren't. Either way, it's good that the other party searches for reasons why those policies stink.
This is just political science gobbledygook, completely divorced from any real-world application. The fact is, we trust our elected officials to make judgments about what policies are best. We don't elect them so they can blindly oppose whatever the other party puts forward (or "search for reasons" to oppose them).
Andrew:
ReplyDeleteYou can just look back at last time the GOP controlled Congress and the White House. What happened? Taxes were slashed and spending rose. In other words, economic stimulus. Something that, apparently, is anathema to GOP legislators when a Democratic president stands to benefit from an improved economy.
Is it your impression that the economy improved 'last time the GOP controlled Congress and the White House'?
I pretty much agree with Andrew above on the substance - that the GOP is choosing political gain over the national interest as even they would perceive it if not blinded by pure partisan interest. See Chait on how they've moved the goalposts on HCR over the decades as Dems have moved right to meet them. See Andrew above on stimulus. Above all, see Dick Lugar on New START. Jonathan, your own cheerful acknowledgment that they've chosen rejectionism rather than negotiation as a strategy proves the point, unless you believe that the party elders really believe that stimulus in the face of a depression-in-the-making is bad (see: candidate McCain: $400b stimulus, before the worst hit); that the auto industry should have been left to die (see: initial Bush bailout); that reducing the vast number of uninsured is bad (see: Romneycare, Republican plan of 1994); that mutual nuclear arms reduction and monitoring Russian nukes is bad (see: Lugar, Baker, Kissinger et al, McCain until 2 weeks ago); and that reassuring American Muslims and Muslims worldwide that the U.S. is not at war with Islam and does not consider al Qaeda representative of Islam (see: George W. Bush). You might argue that mostly Republican "moderates" are represented above, but that's part of the point: the party has squeezed out borderline rationality as it's rendered itself captive to the Fox screamosphere. You could call the constant rightward skid "sincere" as lunatics increasingly take control, but those Republicans with some grip on reality-based policymaking have constantly let the talk show hosts be their puppetmasters.
ReplyDeleteAs for the political strategy of attacking motives: it should be used sparingly, especially by the president. Highlighting hypocrisy (or stupidity) by comparing past with present stances and leaving voters to draw their own conclusion should be very much part of the arsenal, though.
To jeff -- you don't want a parliamentary system.
ReplyDeleteThat would NOT create two parties for which the Dems would be the larger.
It would create at least 4 parties of which progressives would without a doubt be the tiniest.
Moderate Republican -- first
Moderate Democrat -- second
Conservative -- third
Liberal/Progressive -- last with under 20%
To Andrew and ASP.
So how has accusing the Republicans ( or their reverse ) of dirty deeds been working so far?
Well lets see.
Republicans have a low approval rate.
Democrats have a low approval rate.
So what that gets us is a government controlled by the group that is DETESTED the LEAST.
Now trying to govern, when the majority think you a bunch of incompetent, self-righteous, insulting boors -- just not as bad as the other side is pretty much a recipe for complete failure.
And that is what we are at right now.
It does not MATTER which side wins.
The majority of the population thinks the winners are A**HOLES!!!!
Which means no leeway, no trust, nothing but succeed now, RIGHT now, or you are fired.
And since they really didn't like you ... why are you bitching that they decided you actually DO stink worse than the other guys?
****
This is the price of negative campaigning. It works to get you elected.
But after a few cycles it makes it so NO-ONE can govern.
Cause EVERYONE is hated.
You go negative, they go negative. The people decide which is the least negative ( Reid or Angle? ).
The election ends and all the negative stuff sticks around with the winner.
Who by the way does NOT have to forgive you for calling into question their religious beliefs or their honesty or their integrity.
Which means your co-workers HATE YOUR GUTS.
And neither side wants to talk with the idiot who said all those personal things.
And neither SHOULD.
Because they ( both sides ) are just vulgar insulting chumps.
And you get a total change of power every 2-6 years.
Bank on this.
The Republicans are taking back the Senate.
With 2012 being 22 Dems to 11 Reps and 2014 being 20-13.
The only questions are will the Republicans take it over in 2012 or 2014 and whether they will get to 55 seats.
But if they keep up the negative bombardment -- come 2016 we will be back at the reverse.
*****
The worst thing that ever happened to this country was when Marketing Gurus where hired by campaign staffs.
Because the principle of marketing is once you bought it is yours.
Spending 1 year pointing out the differences makes it hard to govern because governing is about what is similar.
brand differentiation wins the market share ( election )
Brand differentiation pretty much guarantees failure at governing unless you put the other brands out of business.
And a single-party system is NOT what we are looking for in America.
Chromehawk, there are ways to prevent the splintering of parties in a parliamentary system, like making candidates post deposits and setting high threshholds for how well a party has to do before it wins any seats. Also, a partliamentary system doesn't necessarily have to have proportional represetation; the British system has single-member districts like the U.S. House, which has tended to limit the parties of government to just two until very (very) recently.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, my point is, it needs to be clear who's responsible for policy if the idea of "oppositions are supposed to oppose" is going to work well in practice. Our current system doesn't provide this.
Definitely Beastie Boys, though I'm happy to be reminded of Star Trek VI.
ReplyDeleteIs it your impression that the economy improved 'last time the GOP controlled Congress and the White House'?
ReplyDeleteOf course not. But it is beyond debate that, the last time GOP controlled all levers of government during a recession, they seemed to have no problem with government stepping in to help increase demand.
What has changed since then? Other than which party stands to benefit from an improved economy?
"I don't know which one it was, but one of the conservative radio talk shows had a reel (for all I know they still play it) of vicious anti-Bush sentiments. Some of them may have been out of context...I don't know -- but it's not hard at all to believe that over eight years of a presidency, it wouldn't be hard to find a few dozen extreme anti-Bush quotes, and I'm sure the same reel will be just as easy to put together about Obama."
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know who was talking in that conservative talk-radio reel, because in my experience it's obscure college professors and no-name bloggers on the Left vs. congressmen, senators and top-rated radio and TV hosts on the Right.
"Now, at the same time, Democrats surely should be prepared for GOP opposition on everything. Republicans in Congress have clearly chosen a rejectionist strategy in which they oppose (almost) everything using every tool available, rather than trying to bargain for the best deal they can get."
The (almost) is critical. It would be OK if they opposed (almost) everything. They don't. They oppose EVERYTHING.
Rick Massimo