SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why Conservative Republicans Keep Rebelling Against John...

POLITICS DECEMBER 24, 2011

Why Conservative Republicans Keep Rebelling Against John Boehner

The House GOP’s initial decision to reject the extension of the payroll tax cut was a bone-headed move. Indeed, it was impressively masochistic in the way it brazenly violated not only public opinion, but also the will of Republicans in the Senate, the vast majority of whom voted for the bill. But while Congressional Republicans were violating all manner of political common sense, that’s not to say that they weren’t following any sort of political logic at all. It just happens to be a logic of a particularly twisted sort.

One of the dominant factors motivating the decisions of rank-and-file right-wing House Republicans—and not just freshmen—is their lack of trust in Speaker John Boehner. They like him, but they just don’t believe he’s a dependable defender of their interests and beliefs. Those suspicions aren’t entirely groundless. Yes, Boehner has gone out of his way to cultivate the most conservative members of his caucus—every time he has hit an impasse, his first move is to the right, to accommodate them, not to the middle to replace some of them with willing Democrats. But the Speaker has also shown a penchant for compromise that right-wing House members can’t abide.

The first negotiation he conducted with President Obama was over the fiscal 2011 Continuing Resolution, which he billed as a sweeping reduction in spending with nearly $40 billion cut from the year's collective appropriations. But it turned out in the cold light of day to be something else entirely, with only a fraction of a fraction of the cuts occurring in the remainder of that fiscal year. Next came the Speaker's negotiations with Obama over a "grand bargain" on deficit reduction as the debt limit approached. No matter that Boehner extracted a range of concessions from the president, including cuts in discretionary spending and on Medicare—the package included a tax increase which conservative Congressmen deemed unacceptable. So when the Speaker appeared to again sign onto a deal laden with compromise—this time over the payroll tax cut that extended it for only two months, while including the main concession conservatives had demanded, action on the Keystone pipeline—those conservatives noisily rebelled.

Boehner’s trust gap is exacerbated by the fact that the rest of the GOP House leadership has been undermining his credibility as a negotiator. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor noisily dropped out of the debt limit negotiations the minute the tax issue was raised, saying it was above his pay grade and had to be carried out by the Speaker and the President—only to immediately disavow the agreement that Boehner and Obama reached. On the payroll tax negotiation, Boehner had no choice but to cave to aggrieved Tea Party members, lest he risk again having Cantor abandon him, leaving him exposed to right-wing attacks.

Ultimately, the root of the problem may lie in the stark lessons that the Republicans elected to Congress in 2010 seem to have drawn from an earlier cohort of conservative Congressmen—those that Newt Gingrich lead into the majority in 1994. Today’s Tea Partiers recognize that they share a similar governing philosophy with their forebears, but they believe almost uniformly that the Gingrichites sold out too quickly, blinking unnecessarily when the political heat got turned up. The conclusion many have drawn is that Gingrich made a huge mistake when he gave in after the disastrous government shutdown at the end of 1995—if Republicans had held out, lashed themselves to the collective mast and weathered the storm of public disapproval, Clinton would have caved and they would have succeeded at rolling back the welfare state.

There is, of course, zero evidence for this thesis, but that doesn't matter. Some of this group will come back to DC in January believing that Boehner and sellouts like Mitch McConnell and John McCain have just repeated the error of 1995. That will make John Boehner's task even more difficult as he moves to negotiate a new deal on the year-long extension of the payroll tax cut, and will compound his difficulties as he considers other key decisions, including the looming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. For Boehner, the nightmare will not only continue, but deepen.

Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a weekly columnist at Roll Call.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 6 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

6 comments

I wondered why Ornstein referred to the Tea Partiers who oppose Boehner as "conservatives," and then I saw that he works at AEI. Politicians who refuse to compromise in the slightest are not conservatives. They are wingnuts, with the emphasis on NUTS. They disgrace America and what it stands for. Our nation became great because of compromise. If you can't compromise, get out of America--we don't want ya. How's that for compromise?

- magboy47.

December 26, 2011 at 2:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And it's an even worse nightmare for the Washington establishment, whose self-appointed task of maintaining the fiction that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties becomes near impossible. Indeed, the establishment has become so confused that it maintains a double fiction, that there's not a dime's worth of difference and what we need is a centrist president to resolve our vast differences. Both of those postions cannot be true, at least not at the same time. Yet the establishment, the Washington Post in particular, insists on both positions simultaneously, something that even their critics must admire for dexterity. Of course, the Post's response to Republican intransigence is to pretend that it doesn't exist, that the Republican House's position on issues, such as Ryan's Medicare proposal, are merely slight modifications, that opposition from the "people's House" to the "people's tax cut" (i.e., the payroll tax cut) is not really opposition at all but merely part of politics to get the upper hand in negotiations to make those slight modifications, not an indication that House Republicans are extremists who both wish to dismantle the safety net and give special interests with lots of money control over the government. Ornstein is making the valid point that the Republican House is extreme, that Boehner's troubles derive from that extreme, and unless and until Boehner conforms to the extreme (rather than the other way around), he will continue to lose support among his Causus. For that, we can be thankful, for it might even expose the lie of the Washington establisment especially the Washington Post.

- rayward

December 26, 2011 at 7:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Until the vote in 2012, the Republicans in the House get to pretend whatever they want was meant by the 2010 elections. After that, 25 seats are the difference between that pretense and reality.

- Nusholtz

December 26, 2011 at 8:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's important here is not all this political maneuvering. What's important here is that needed bills and policies -- Keynesian stimulus, regulating Wall-Street -- are being impeded and in some cases reversed. These are not the actions of responsible legislaters. These are the actions of dogma-driven ideologues, trying to 'starve the Government' while the nation suffers. You've made a good analysis -- this IS a continuation of the Gingrich approach -- but Gingrich had to RESIGN as Speaker of the House after his debacle. Having the Tea-Party Republicans "double-down" on their already horrible bets is NOT a good thing. Though hopefully it will reveal to the American electorate that their Orwellian wording hides a completely corrupt and destructive ideology. America can then vote otherwise.

- AllanL5

December 26, 2011 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whether the wingnuts fail depends on whether BHO and the Dems hold firm in opposing anti-Keynesian measures. They haven't to date and tout their compromises as good for the country. That enables to wingnuts.

- drofnats1

December 26, 2011 at 9:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who are the dogma driven ideologues? Surely it's the Democratic leadership, which prefers to continue the game of expanding government at the expense of the private economy until the system collapses. Europe played that game and its economy is on the verge of collapse. Liberals, like the Bourbons of old, have forgotten nothing and have learned nothing.

- bulbman1066

December 31, 2011 at 12:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close