THE PERMANENT CAMPAIGN AUGUST 3, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

With the passage of the debt limit increase package this week, many political activists and observers have undoubtedly heaved a sigh of relief and either headed off on vacation or refocused their attention on the “normal” business of American politics. Certainly the Republican candidates and campaigns have to be happy to dispose of the daily pressure of monitoring and commenting (or, in the case of Mitt Romney, avoiding comments) on the “debt crisis,” without getting crossways with the hyper-conservative activists that will dominate the early stages of the nominating contest, or saying anything that could fatally compromise them in a general election.
But they’d all better get used to it. The big debt limit vote in Congress, it is increasingly obvious, is just an appetizer for the divisive, voter-alienating struggles it has built into the schedule at key points during the 2012 presidential campaign, making an eventual GOP presidential nominee’s efforts to “pivot to the center” an athletic feat, at best. And as Tea Party activists and other conservatives have made clear in their reactions to the deal just signed, their efforts to force everyone in the GOP to join in future hostage-taking exercises aimed at middle-class entitlements and other targets beloved of voters have just begun.
Indeed, this week’s agreement didn’t really kick the can that far down the road. In September, after the field has finally filled out and been winnowed in Ames, congressional conservatives will be engaged in a savage fight to cut domestic appropriations—complete, no doubt, with government shutdown threats—below the levels spelled out in the debt limit deal. Another provision of the deal requires that when the current “temporary” debt limit is reached, probably around the end of September, the president must request another increase in the limit, which will lead to a “disapproval” vote in Congress and, if it passes, a presidential veto and a veto override vote (all just Kabuki theater, but a noisy and divisive exercise nonetheless). Soon after that, an even bigger battle over the “debt committee” recommendations, and the fallback automatic spending cuts that will be triggered in their stead, will break out, culminating in December when the candidates competing in the early primary states will be in a full-on teeth-grinding frenzy for votes. Both these fights will inevitably involve trade-offs—between entitlement cuts, defense spending cuts, and tax increases—that divide the GOP and the country, and they will force candidates to choose again and again between the views of Tea Party activists—including early primary-state Big Dogs like Jim DeMint—and the general public.
And that hardly ends the gauntlet of fiscal litmus tests. As TNR’s Jonathan Cohn explained yesterday, the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and the next anticipated deadline for yet another debt increase, will coincide at the end of 2012, casting a long shadow over the presidential campaign. Budget guru Stan Collender has summed it up: “[I]t’s absolutely certain Congress and the president, the House and Senate, and Democrats and Republicans will all be fighting constantly over the budget during the next 18 months.”
This rocky road ahead raises a very fundamental question about the long-range strategy of the Republican presidential nominee. It is often asserted that presidential candidates “play to the base” during contested primary contests and then “pivot to the center” once they are playing on the expanded field of a general election. This desideratum is more important these days for Republicans than for Democrats, since the GOP is without a doubt the more ideological of the two major parties (consider the relative power of Blue Dogs and the hunted-to-extinction RINOs, or the eagerness of Republicans to call themselves “conservatives” or even “true conservatives,” as contrasted with the resistance of many Democrats to labels such as “liberal” or even “progressive”).
The “pivot to the center” is a lot easier said than done. It was certainly a major problem for John McCain in 2008, who had to repudiate much of his “maverick” record during the primaries and then struggled to recapture it, with conservatives thwarting his desire for a pro-choice running-mate and disrupting his general election rallies with complaints that he wasn’t talking constantly about ACORN and Jeremiah Wright.
How much harder might the “pivot to the center” be for the 2012 GOP nominee, who will head up a party convinced its recommitment to conservative principles and its partisan militancy won the 2010 midterm elections and now has Democrats on the run? Moreover, in a year where the last cycle’s “true conservative” candidate Mitt Romney has moved significantly to the right but is now considered dangerously moderate, the distance such a “pivot” would have to span appears daunting, if not downright impossible.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama (barring some truly shocking turn of events) will not only have the luxury of avoiding a base-tending primary challenge, but will have pursued what amounts to a general election strategy for the entire span of his presidency. From all appearances, Team Obama has long concluded its ace-in-the-hole for 2012 will be its ability to frighten both persuadable swing voters and unhappy progressives with the specter of what an extremist Republican government might do. Conservatives in Congress and in the early primary states are certainly doing everything they can to help Democrats paint devil horns on their eventual nominee.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
21 comments
On Monday, Mitt Romney will cut, cap, and balance away your Social Security and Medicare, weakening our national defense. Then on Tuesday, he will lay you off, just like he did for years in the financial consulting business. Then on Wednesday, he will flip flop and absurdly try to rationalize it away. Don't worry. If you voted for Tim Pawlenty, he would have owned all of that heresy straight up. This is going to be an interesting Republican nomination. If Obama's campaign is canny enough, he could crimp Republicans for a while. (They look so small!)
- chaitless
August 3, 2011 at 12:14am
If the Democrats can't use stuff like this they are totally hopeless - FAA workers are having to pay to work: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/faa-furlough-congress-reauthorization_n_916322.html Of course this pattern isn't unique to the FAA. Many of us who were formerly employed are now renting space from our bosses, we are paying THEM rent, hoping to make enough over that to scrounge a small profit; and also assuming the tax and insurance burden. So yeah, the Republicans may look small but they have wreaked huge havoc. Check out the stock market, too, not to mention the very real damage to our democratic system.
- Sophia
August 3, 2011 at 1:29am
The extremes on both sides lost to a messy compromise. Praise the Lord. Down the road the Tea Partyers will come to understand that their ideal libertarian society is not to be achieved in this sinful world. Intelligent liberals, and yes, there are some, will admit that without a robust capitalist economy their beloved social programs will go bust. I'm an optimist. I believe that the Land of the Free will find its way back to the Centrist course that served it well under Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Obama still has a chance to join the ranks of the righteous. All his has to do is repudiate his radical leftist base, which after all consists of only about 20% of the electorate. Clinton did it and became a successful president. Is it too late for Obama do do the same?
- bulbman1066
August 3, 2011 at 1:46am
We are still living under the illusion that we are masters of our fate but the world is changing and there are great economic forces at work that are beyond our control. Watch the markets...
- paskunac
August 3, 2011 at 5:56am
THEIR "ability to frighten"? Given the Tea-Party Republican's tendency to deny even the most basic facts? Like "a default wouldn't damage the American economy". Like the Ryan Plan. Like cutting spending in the middle of a Recession. Like repudiating the TARP. One of the reasons the Republican Hostage strategy has been so successful, is that the Republicans are CLEARLY more willing to destroy the American economy in order to get their way, than Obama is. That doesn't depend on the Obama administration's "ability to frighten", that simply depends on how lunatic the Republican Party continues to be over the next 12 months.
- AllanL5
August 3, 2011 at 8:33am
If the Republicans choose to make the Bush tax cuts an issue in the 2012 election campaign, it should work to Obama's advantage. All he has to do is say that he's in favor of continuing them for the middle class and ending them for the rich. The Republicans will rant that the cuts have to be continued for everyone, showing where their true interests lie. Obama will of course hope that the Republicans will thereafter refuse to pass any legislation that doesn't include continued tax cuts for the rich, causing all of the cuts to expire. That's what he and most Democrats in Congress really want in order to raise needed revenue. Bulbman, I hope your optimism is born out by events. However, I would not consider the administrations of Reagan and Bush II to be centrist. Trashing regulations that have kept rapacious capitalism in check and passing huge cuts that benefit mostly the rich and result in huge deficits is not centrist to my mind.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
August 3, 2011 at 8:46am
yeah, fearmongering is just what America needs for another fifteen months...add in SecTreas Geithner resigns, and NO ONE in America will take the job who is not already a convicted felon, e.g., Blagojevich.
- K2K
August 3, 2011 at 9:21am
I still think it's a huge deal that Romney endorsed "cut, cap, and balance" after the debt ceiling agreement was finalized. Even if he tried to shake that position in the general election (and we all know how consistently he flip-flops), it says a lot about the current dynamic within his party. More and more, I'm seeing the timing of the triggers and the super-committee as a potential political win for President Obama.
- maxhencke
August 3, 2011 at 9:39am
How many voters actually know what cut, cap, and balance is? How many will remember by the fall of 2012? For almost every persuadable voter, basic economic developments during the fall of 2012 are going to more important than voting records on an old debt deal.
- propjoe
August 3, 2011 at 10:33am
Propjoe, Obama just needs to tell voters that "Cut, Cap and Balance" means the Ryan Budget, which means Vouchercare with a dollop of Social Security privatization. That pretty much takes care of it for many voters.
- wildboy
August 3, 2011 at 11:15am
Out of the long list of potential GOP nominees, you selected herman cain as one of the four to portray? (I mean, he's only slightly less plausible than Pawlenty, but that's not saying much).
- miceelf
August 3, 2011 at 12:34pm
Wildboy: I take your point. Let's just hope we're not in a double-dip recession, or we'll probably get another crazy election like 2010 in which voters put nihilists into Congress. The idea of someone like Rick Perry in the White House scares the hell out of me. Also, all Romney does is pivot. He doesn't appear to understand that some people dislike this about him.
- propjoe
August 3, 2011 at 12:45pm
"Radical leftist base?" What "radical leftist base?" What Bulbman thinks is "radical left" are simply people who support worker's and women's rights, Social Security and other economic safety nets that keep the bottom from falling out and also, provide a huge ongoing stimulus to the national economy - and - oh yes - we radicals do think the world is round and the environment - air we breathe - health of the oceans - biodiversity - is important because if we don't have a healthy planet we will all die. So please give me a break.
- Sophia
August 3, 2011 at 1:16pm
bulbman says "I'm an optimist. I believe that the Land of the Free will find its way back to the Centrist course that served it well under Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. Obama still has a chance to join the ranks of the righteous. All his has to do is repudiate his radical leftist base, which after all consists of only about 20% of the electorate. Clinton did it and became a successful president. Is it too late for Obama do do the same?" First as DaveyD indicated I wouldn't call Reagan or Bush 2 centrists either. Not with the executive dismantling of common sense, science, and socially beneficial regulations to placate their hard-right base, massive tax cuts for top earners, and binge spending. I find it absurd that you imply Obama has having kowtowed to his "radical leftist base" for the last two years. I'm not sure if you even bother to wander into the radical left landscape (TNR websit does not count) in order to understand they have repudiated Obama for being way too centrist already and a DINO. Quite frankly, I'm not optimistic that the Land of Free will return to its "Glory Days". Each fading generation thinks that their past was somehow so much better than today. Well it wasn't and it's not going to get better. People need to realize that trying to practice Reaganomics for 30+ years has pretty much ensured that America will continue it's slow demise and slide into a thriftstore version of a second rate country through the hollowing out of America for profit. Since the Right has convinced Americans that any form of self-investment that is not a direct handout, tax break or tax loophole that benefits big business and ultra-wealthy, is some sort of anti-American socialism, people are convinced that rebuilding or reinvesting in our country is morally wrong. Then we sit and wonder why jobs move overseas, water wells are poisoned, the working middle and lower classes suffer from wage deflation and stagnation, the infrastructure of our country is in a shambles, and we're being outpaced in the science and technology fields while we spend our time debating that modest tax increases are the death knell of America. America is and should always be an evolving "ideal" of what America "is". Instead we've let ourselves become sclerotic and myopically focused on the 'what was' instead of 'what could be.'
- singlspeed
August 3, 2011 at 2:17pm
Let us not misunderestimate the ability of the GOP to spin reality from whole cloth. They'll most certainly stand up and claim to be "moderate" or "centrist", as well as "reasonable" and "adult". I caught a snippit the other day of someone, I think Boehner, claiming just these kinds of things; and claiming all the drama was just politics as usual and disavowing rumors of gridlock and intransigence. They won't have to actually pivot to the center, being republican means inventing the reality you want people to believe.
And I think bulbman makes my point about spinning reality from whole cloth perfectly.
- GSpinks
August 3, 2011 at 2:38pm
If we didn't have a right wing bogeyman to blame for everything and to scare our children with, what would be do? In fact, there's an abundance of "riches." The John Birch Society is (apparently) still functioning. I am not sure about the "Posse Comitatus." I am not sure if the tea party teapot is boiling over, or melting their pot. Of course, the right needs to have bogeymen, bogeywoman, or bogeytransgenders. There are "fellow travelers," "socialists," "secular humanists," "godless atheist nihilists" for those who need a triple strong poison latte), and so on. There is no such thing as a "centrist," "moderate," "reasonable," or "adult" [stealing from GSpinks), or if there is, he/she/it lives at the North Pole and comes down your chimney in Santa's bag on Christmas, Halloween, Ramadan, and Kwanzaa.
- skahn
August 3, 2011 at 5:12pm
For all the mis-steps in the debt ceiling debate / deal, doesn't this now make the GOP part-owners for the continuing poor economy? Can't Obama and the Dems point to this deal that was forced on them by GOP hostage takers as one of the reasons the economy is so sluggish? I realize this would not actually be the case, but it would seem it could resonate with the public in the same way the GOP can make a hundred other fallacies resonate (death panels, the stimulus destroyed the economy, etc, etc).
- RobertW
August 3, 2011 at 7:01pm
RobertW articulates the one bright side to all this: the GOP is clearly seen, I think, as the bad guy here, by most sentient beings in America. When people start reading about the FAA staffers paying to work, and other absurdities, and also when they take a good look at the falling markets, and the lousy economic data, and realize that "we" have been wasting months with this malarkey instead of helping this country go back to work, and when the true cost of this bs hits in the form of a huge hit to the economy, I think the voters will blame the Republicans. But so what. By then how many lives will have been destroyed?
- Sophia
August 3, 2011 at 7:24pm
Does anyone here really believe that the Dems have the ability to portray to the American people the true color of the GOP? I don't. I mean, the current GOP radicalism has been with us now for years, but they still keep winning elections and most political battles. They control most state legislatures and governorships. Even when they control only one branch of the federal govt, as they do now, they still manage to force what they want upon us. And it's mostly due to the inability of Democrats to make them pay for their extremism. I don't see this ineptitude of the Democrats improving anytime soon. All we do is throw temper tantrums and sit out elections, meanwhile, our Democratic leaders, in turn, only whine about Republicans. God help us.
- scrubby
August 3, 2011 at 10:42pm
Scrubby: I share your lament about the ineptitude of the Democrats in getting the majority of the electorate to see the true nature of the GOP. It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with any intelligence, but then you have to remember that half the population has an IQ of less than 100. No matter how egregiously the Republicans behave, they always manage to whip people up to vote for them with the usual tactics: warnings about socialism and the loss of our liberties and constant references to "Obama's job-killing agenda." Plenty of people also vote Republican against their own economic best interests because they hate social programs ("They take my money and give it to spics and niggers!") and/or because they associate the Democratic Party with feminism, gay rights, and other issues that drive them up the wall. Those people are unreachable. They'll vote Republican no matter what. I know two people like that. They hardly have two dimes to rub together, but they vote Republican in every election because of their opposition to the social safety net, even though they will soon become recipients of Social Security and Medicare—go figure. But they've also bought into the "Obama is a socialist" canard. Anyway, for all other Americans, let's just pray that the Republicans are getting so extreme that their spin machine will no be able to counter their radicalism. It's our only hope.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
August 4, 2011 at 9:50am
DaveyD: I'm afraid it will take another decade of Republiscum extremism before those of the Joe-the-Plumber ilk get there fill of drinking swill while the finacial classes use them for footstools before there's even a glimmer of "Hope", not to mention "Change"; unless it's the small-change wages that the average Joe is pulling down out here in middle America ("you want fries with that?"). No, at this stage i think it's up to Obi-Wan, he's our only hope...
- bonsaibush
August 4, 2011 at 3:02pm