So the talks are broken down again. It's not exactly a surprise; the odds have always been good that any deal, whether it's a Grand Bargain or something like the clean McConnell that gives the GOP only symbolic gains, will happen at the last minute. Remember, almost all of what we're seeing is either bargaining, spin, or some other form of posturing or misinformation. That's not bad -- but it is what it is, and there's no point in pretending that it's anything else.
Meanwhile, in a post over at the other place earlier today, I pointed out that the eventual deal, should there be one (and sooner or later there will be some sort of deal) will wind up a lot closer to the Democrats’ ideal position than to the GOP perfect spot. I owe an explanation for that, so here it is, in three parts.
The first is the most obvious. President + Senate > House. Republicans may have the most recent electoral triumph, and that may give them some advantages (what would be called intangibles in the sports world – often because they don’t exist). But the bottom line is that control of one branch of Congress is a much worse bargaining position than control of the presidency plus a majority, albeit a slim one, in the Senate.
The second is easily overlooked but terribly important: Democrats have the status quo on their side. The US political system makes change hard, and movement conservatives want an enormous amount of change. Mostly, Democrats just have to block it. Democrats, of course, do want quite a few changes of their own, few if any of which they’re going to get anytime soon, but those changes are nowhere near the magnitude of those in the Paul Ryan budget or current GOP-endorsed version of a constitutional amendment.
And third is that popular opinion just isn’t on the Republicans’ side. The story here is complicated if we’re talking about small shifts from current levels of government – most people report wanting a smaller government in the abstract, but most people also think that most individual government programs should be larger. There are a lot of different ways to interpret that reasonably, anywhere from arguing that the public is with the Democrats when they want to modestly increase the size and scope of the federal government, or with the Republicans when they want to pare it back a bit. But the public clearly wouldn’t support socialism, and it clearly doesn’t support repealing the Great Society and the New Deal. That puts public opinion far closer to where the Democrats are (since, just to point it out, even the putatively socialist Bernie Sanders doesn’t actually appear to favor government ownership of much more than health insurance).
Put it all together, and we’re certain to get something a lot closer to Henry Waxman’s or Tom Harkin’s or ideal world than Rand Paul’s or Paul Ryan’s.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'd say your headline is a fairly meaningless statement. Based on your analysis, the only reason why the end point will be closer to the Democrats' position is because the Republicans have staked out a position so far to the right that they have no chance of finishing closer to the mark.
ReplyDeleteBy this logic, the same Democrat win would be converted to a Republican win if only the Democrats would endorse communism.
Paul nails it. Your conception of "winning" doesn't make sense, because the parties can set their win conditions to be anything they like, regardless of whether such a thing is politically feasible -- or even logically possible. It's deceptive: yes, maybe Republicans think they've lost more than the Democrats have lost, but the Democrats have gotten a substantively less progressive deal if the Republicans had been closer to the median and had won as a result.
ReplyDeleteThe only metric that makes sense is how far along the spectrum of realistically possible outcomes the final deal will be. And by that metric, Democrats are getting absolutely rolled.
No, I don't agree. I don't think they're staking out negotiating positions; I think that's what they really want. It's their real ideal position. And they're not going to get anywhere close to it.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm saying, though -- it doesn't matter what they really want. They could demand 70 trillion in deficit cuts and a unicorn and would therefore lose every negotiation from now until the end of time. But if, in doing so, they pulled the final outcome further to the right on the scale of plausible outcomes, they've actually come out better off for their efforts. It's a winning move for them, regardless of whether they're lucid enough to recognize it as such.
ReplyDeleteThat's only good for Democrats if you define Democratic success as the inverse of the disappointment experienced by House Republicans. Which would be deeply silly.
Where I disagree is on your 2nd point. The "change is hard" mantra is a shorthand for "we have a system with a heck of a lot of veto points." The difference here is what the "status quo" is in this case. The "status quo" involves writing and passing a law. In a very real sense, the GOP isn't trying to change the status quo; they're rejecting a routine norm of passing these things. The forces of sanity want to DO something; that's hard.
ReplyDeleteBut, as our host has pointed out, the debt limit will get passed. It may be difficult. It may be after a cataclysm. But it'll get done. My bet is that it'll even get done before Aug. 2nd.
ReplyDeleteWhen the debt ceiling increase does finally get passed, attaching big changes (which are almost necessarily crappy from a progressive standpoint) will be hard. I think the most likely outcomes would be a clean McConnell or a smaller nip and tuck plan. In my opinion, the former would be a clear win for the WH while the latter would be less than ideal, but acceptable.
So let me get this straight: because the package of spending cuts will follow Democrat priorities, that's a Democrat win? Here's an alternative way to describe spending cuts following Democrat priorities: liberal fingerprints will be all over it.
ReplyDeleteIn predicting a Democrat 'win', in perceiving that this one is not gonna be like previous crises that stick to the President, we must keep in mind that 07/22/2011 is irrelevant; what matters is what voters think next summer, when the pain from cuts is setting in and the time to choose the next President is nigh.
Cuts aligning with liberal priorities means that Obama and co will be choosing the cuts, yes? Including cuts to entitlement and other popular programs? Cuts that will cause real pain to swing voters in the summer of 2012? And this is a win because down-the-road voters will not think of their present suffering but rather remember right-wing negotiating weakness, travelling in their wayback machine? Further, there won't be any demagoguing between now and then, for which the Democrat-oriented 'solution' is the equivalent of handing the right a baseball bat with which to hit the left over the head?
Occurs to me tonight that, because the modern left has flimsy ideology (i.e., believing in govt support for the fallen, as opposed to churches et.al., and a few other progressive things, but basically all else same as the right), they approach events like debt ceiling negotiations with an emphasis on tactics, and very little focus on strategy.
As always happens to those who prioritize tactics over strategy, the Dems will gloriously win the battle and stupendously lose the war.
A Democrat "win" should not depend on the Republican degree of crazy, no matter how sincere it may be.
ReplyDelete"Democrat" is not an adjective, people.
ReplyDeleteAnon - I'm laboring with below average intelligence. Please give me a break.
ReplyDeleteJon, if you're talking about the "ideal" Republican position, at what point does the goal of "defeating Obama" become a substantive, desired position? I know the opposing party is supposed to work against the president, but it seems like with today's GOP, it's become a pathology that's the driving force behind their staked ideological positions.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of funny how taken for granted it is around here that really, really wanting an opposing party's president to fail is somehow this new thing that Republicans have invented.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, yes, I know, you probably all believe that it's been taken to "new heights" now or something similarly self-serving. Anything to turn policy differences into something more easily and fundamentally condemn-able.
If the Asian markets start to tank in some 23 hours, I imagine there will be a lot of Republicans trying to rub their fingerprints off this looming (self-inflicted) disaster, just like that bold patriot "Anonymous" above me.
ReplyDeleteHang Seng and Nikkei up early, and futures off less than 1%.
ReplyDeleteYou were saying?
Correct previous Anonymous: Hang Seng and Nikkei down, but also only around 1%. Either way, hardly Armageddon.
ReplyDeleteEven funnier is that the author of this blog has been saying for weeks now that the Republicans have no chance of winning this, and yet Ezra Klein, Eliot Spitzer, and Marc Thiessen have all written pieces today saying the GOP has won.
ReplyDeleteGOP has won by just making the rising of the debt ceiling one of the biggest issues. I don't really remember the last time they raised it, everybody just didn't care.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question: No doubt they will come to a compromise but what will happen if they wanted to raise it again and again in the future? Some countries have already stopped buying the dollar.
The Republicans will lose because they think they can win without the right stuff.
ReplyDelete