Since I took it to Paul Ryan and the Republicans in fairly strong language yesterday, and I suspect I'll not wind up saying nice things about Ryan's budget, I'll back up a bit and say one thing in their defense.
Ryan is taking a fair amount of heat from some liberals because the budget matches the Romney/Ryan campaign plan and because the ticket that ran on that platform lost. For example, Jared Bernstein: "OK…but the thing is, we had a national election on this preference set, and it lost."
I suppose there's nothing wrong with this as a talking point, but really: what else do you expect Republicans -- who after all, retained their majority in the House of Representatives -- to do?
The idea that Republicans should just give up on their preferences because Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney -- by a solid, but hardly overwhelming, margin -- doesn't make sense. For that matter, it's also a very weak argument to claim that an electoral win is a popular endorsement of specific policies.
Granted, winning the (presidential) election entitles Democrats to use that talking point, but it's really not much of an argument. And of course Republicans could choose to change policy preferences after electoral loss, but that's not an argument for why their current proposals, same or different from the old ones, shouldn't be taken seriously.
Elections are not referendums on specific policy.
To the extent that Ryan's "budget" turns out to be based on phony numbers, that's irresponsible and he should be called on it. And it's a big problem -- it's also irresponsible behavior -- if Republicans refuse to negotiate from their policy preferences. But stating those preferences in the first place? Even if they are massively unpopular, it's not irresponsible to state them -- and election defeats don't change that at all.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
In my mind, the worst part of the Ryan budget is the fact that if it doesn't pass the House, members don't get paid. Their very livelihood is tied up with voting for a document they might have reservations about.
ReplyDeleteIt's a sick way to run a government.
"Worst part of the Ryan budget" is tough competition! I'll stick with the ACA Medicare cuts thing; YMMV. But yes, absolutely true.
Delete"And it's a big problem -- it's also irresponsible behavior -- if Republicans refuse to negotiate from their policy preferences. But stating those preferences in the first place?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think those can be disentangled. The context is that Republicans and Democrats are facing repeated negative-sum games--things that neither side wants like government shutdown, debt ceiling breaches, or the sequester. That one of the sides is maintaining a stance that lost an election and is unpopular in polls tells us a lot about who's fault this is.
It would be different if Republicans and Democrats merely had two different approaches to changing the status quo, they could reach no agreement, so the status quo continued. Republicans are refusing to accept the Democrat's proposal AND refusing to sustain the status quo.
things that neither side wants like government shutdown, debt ceiling breaches, or the sequester.
DeleteI disagree. The Repubicans want at least two of those things.
Suppose the Senate had remained under Democratic control but Romney had won and the GOP majority in the House had actually increased. If the Senate Democrats had presented a budget plan calling for massive increases in domestic spending, massive cuts in defense, and massive tax increases for the well-to-do *even as an initial statement of their position* (subject to negotiations), who would take them seriously? How many people would argue that the elections didn't really prove anything about where the public stands on the issues--and that anyway the Senate Democrats had won *their* elections and should therefore have no hesitation in proposing their maximum desires as if their party had swept everything?
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's a matter of semantics, but I don't think anyone's saying that Ryan can't or shouldn't propose whatever he likes. They're saying that the rest of us have no reason to take it seriously. We already knew his plans were stupid, cruel and counterproductive, and now we know they're not even particularly popular.
ReplyDeleteEspecially when Politico is running a headline that says, "Is he serious?" under a picture of the President.
DeleteI'd have a lot more sympathy if the side that won elections actually had the ability to implement its agenda. You can have an unbroachable right to stand on extreme principles, or you can control a few veto points in a Madisonian system, but you shouldn't do both.
ReplyDeleteHeck, at this point, we're nostalgic for the days when all the opposition would do is block the other side's agenda. Now they threaten to bring to system as a whole to a stop.
Delete"Elections are not referendums on specific policy."
ReplyDeleteUnless that's followed by "they are referendums on a series of policies and personnel and party mechanisms," I really don't follow.
Unpopular policies can be useful to the opposition during a campaign when the proposals are unpopular. So I have to disagree when you say elections are not referendums on specific policy.
ReplyDeleteElections can be won on stated policies, too. The republicans have won untold elections on the abortion issue, e.g. In fact I don't think the gop would have as much power today if they didn't have abortion to run against, and, since Clinton's terms, the gun issue.
Anon, let me save our host the trouble of replying to this. What you're reading here is a blog published by a professional (and, I think, exceptionally smart) political scientist. One of its purposes is to counteract the "received" or "folk wisdom" -- your assumptions, for instance -- with what political scientists consider the findings of scientific research. According to them, nobody's ever won a national election on an issue like abortion or guns. Local and maybe state elections, sometimes, but the post above refers to the results of the most recent national / general election. Political scientists overwhelmingly believe that careful research into past election results shows that there are only a very few variables that drive these: mainly the economy (and even there, only two or three factors, like whether average incomes are rising in the election year), also how long the presidential incumbent party has been in office, and of course in midterm elections (which this one wasn't), who is the "out-party" and who is the "in-party."
DeleteAnd that's almost all there is to it. Occasionally a big war or something creates another issue, but almost all the rest of what we read about in the political press -- the qualities of the candidates, their campaigns, their "gaffes," and particular (non-economic) issues like abortion -- are basically just noise and distraction. According to political scientists. I'm just telling you, that's the premise here; take it for what you will.
But you're not saying anything in Ryan's defense - which would be a logically impossible task.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're doing is criticizing his critics, which is a different thing entirely.
Cheers!
JzB
How do you think that it could be done to make the press start to buzz about how the Republicans are missing a big chance to accomplish their goals if they don't start to negotiate a deal?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the press pushes only on the President to make a deal with the Republicans?