JONATHAN CHAIT APRIL 12, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Brendan Nyhan acknowledges that the budget deal was shockingly tilted toward GOP priorities. His explanation is that politicians overreact to the effects of wave elections:
Over the years, I've frequently invoked the pioneering research (PDF) of UNC's Jim Stimson and his co-authors on responses to perceived "mandate" elections, which shows that members of Congress tend to deviate from their normal voting patterns in the direction of the election result for some period of time. Stimson was quoted yesterdaysaying that this election did not meet the definition of a mandate:
"[The GOP is] right to be nervous about [the Ryan plan]," said James A. Stimson, a University of North Carolina political scientist and a co-author of the recent book "Mandate Politics." By his measure, the resistance of Democrats who still control the White House and Senate means Republicans cannot claim a mandate any more than Mr. Obama could upon taking office in 2009.
It's true that the 2010 election results have not been accepted as a mandate by both parties like 1964, 1980, and 1994 (the post-WWII cases Stimson and his colleagues identify). In this sense, 2010 was more like 2006 or 2008 than 1994. However, as I'vesuggested before, it's not clear that both parties will ever accept mandate claims in the way they previously did given the level of polarization that now exists. In this sense, 2010 may be something of a "soft mandate," empowering Republicans and pushing Obama and the Democrats to accept deals they otherwise would not have considered. Imagine a world in which Republicans kept the House in 2008 and maintained control in 2010, but the Senate and presidency were configured the same way they are today. Would the GOP have been able to pull off that deal? I'm skeptical.
But you didn't see Republicans reacting this way to the 2006 and 2008 wave elections, did you? Quite the opposite, in fact.
29 comments
When the GOP loses elections, they lay low for a bit, spin to minimize the damage, and plot their comeback. When they win elections, they claim a mandate (e.g., George W. Bush, 2004, and Boner's Class of 2010). Democrats, push back.
- liberalref
April 12, 2011 at 1:43pm
Chait, democrats just don't support a 'take-no-prisoner' attitude, so democratic politicians cannot successfully emulate the republicans. To stereotype, republicans prefer sticking to principles, and democrats prefer seeming reasonable (which means compromising). So the dynamics you describe, with republicans claiming strong mandates when they win, and claiming they needed to be even more purely conservative when they lose, just makes sense for the republican base. Meanwhile, even when democrats win they will claim they'd like to get bipartisan agreement, because it appeals to our sense of being reasonable. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, actually. I think Chait is falling into the trap of not wanting to lose the small battles. Lighten up. If we win a good 2012 budget, all will be good. And if Obama wants to play rope a dope until then, more power to him.
- sokol8
April 12, 2011 at 1:56pm
Huh. From the title, I thought TNR was walking back their hysteria about the mention of simpson-bowles in the washington post. Ah well.
- miceelf
April 12, 2011 at 2:14pm
To Jon Chait: Rush Limbaugh just said on the air (4/12, about 2:10 p.m.) that under the "People's Budget" put forward by the Progressive Caucus of the House Democrats, not only will income over $106,000 per annum be subject to the FICA tax, but that it will be taxed at a rate of 90%. As far as I can tell, he is simply lying about this. Worth a blog post?
- dbell89
April 12, 2011 at 2:21pm
90%? Even for Limbaugh that's a whopper.
- tmmats
April 12, 2011 at 2:25pm
To paraphrase john kyl, rush did not intend that as a factual statement.
- miceelf
April 12, 2011 at 2:36pm
I think the votes in 2008 and 2010 did not necessarily reflect a change in the overall attitude of the American Public as much as it reflected voter turnout motivated by anger at one of the political parties.
- Nusholtz
April 12, 2011 at 2:39pm
Hilarious, mice.
- liberalref
April 12, 2011 at 2:40pm
I think that when a bunch of feckless wimps are locked in a battle with a bunch of deranged ideologues, the feckless wimps lose 97% of the time. I'm with Cohn, I'm trying not to panic, but my husband and I have saying, oh for about 6 mos now, "President Obama's got to take the gloves off, he's got to make the distinctions, he's got get out in front of this..." and so on. I'm baffled, I'm worried, I'm bemused.
- VBKim
April 12, 2011 at 4:53pm
But are you bewitched, bothered, and bewildered?
- roidubouloi
April 12, 2011 at 5:28pm
Let's get real Obama is the wimp in chief. He can’t stand up to anyone who opposes him. Add to that the fact that the Democrats have no coherent socio-economic policy that would challenge the one sided libertarian conservative movement of the right wing and one can’t be pessimistic enough about the future of the gains the fighting liberals of the 50’s and 60’s made in policies that tried to equalize the playing field for all citizens. I hope someone who can stand up for his liberal and egalitarian values challenges Obama in next year’s Democratic primaries. Someone who knows how to fight back when he is attacked in a dark alley by a bunch of “tea party” thugs.
- arnon
April 12, 2011 at 5:30pm
OFFS. Seriously? Why not wait until he actually says what his budget is going to be before we primary him? Oh, no, somebody said that somebody said that he said some meaningless pablum about the need to address both revenue and spending and all of the detailed reporting suggests a relatively progressive approach to the deficit is forthcoming. But, no, if he isn't as strident as we want him to be, well, he's the wimp in chief. I mean, I would be as happy with a President Bachman as arnon would be, but this is the real reason why there isn't more progress.
- miceelf
April 12, 2011 at 6:01pm
miceelf I don't know what you are talking about. Obama compromised with the right wing Republicans instead of taking them on.
- arnon
April 12, 2011 at 6:08pm
No, I don't think Obama is the wimp in chief and I definitely don't think he should be primaried. I appreciate his temperment, I applaud his restraint about attacking his political adversaries, and I have always believed in his ability to play the long game and win. But, but, but...he's got to start drawing some lines in the sand, taking the gloves off, etc., etc. I am getting worried because he is not really making the case to the public about what it means to be a Democrat and what it means to be a Republican and where the different governing philosophies will take the country. The case is there to be made, he's got to start to making it. I'm not hearing it, is anyone else?
- VBKim
April 12, 2011 at 6:17pm
@arnon, are you serious? The only people who should encourage a democratic party primary is the Tea Partiers, as it might give them a shot at Scott Walkering the country, once they defeat a wounded democratic party from severe infighting. Let me guess, you were a huge hillary fan. Get over it. Take yes for an answer. Due to ACA more kids stay on parents' healthcare, people with preexisting conditions will be protected, and there will be more subsidies. Don't like it there's no public option? Guess what? There wasn't a public option either after Clinton failed to pass healthcare. And there wasn't stronger financial regulation after every dem president in the last 70 years failed to do so. Take yes for an answer, and don't empower Ryan and the Tea Party by committing dem party suicide.
- sokol8
April 12, 2011 at 6:35pm
"But, but, but...he's got to start drawing some lines in the sand, taking the gloves off, etc., etc. I am getting worried because he is not really making the case to the public about what it means to be a Democrat and what it means to be a Republican and where the different governing philosophies will take the country. The case is there to be made, he's got to start to making it. I'm not hearing it, is anyone else?" Yes, the Right has been making their case, they have been loud and clear about their intent do away with midicare and social security one step at a tim. If Obama is not a wimp he must at some level either agree with the rightwingers. What other explanation is there?
- arnon
April 12, 2011 at 6:39pm
sokol8 "@arnon, are you serious?" You bet I am. The right wing is hoping to run against a weakling like Obama.
- arnon
April 12, 2011 at 6:41pm
The Republican Party's fantasy - and that of daffy portsiders - is that Barack Obama is a weakling. For those out here who are older than about ten, you will remember Bill Clinton who triangulated, which means compromised. That weakling handily won reelection in 1996. The quality of commentary out here seems to be getting even worse than it was, which was plenty bad already. Soko and mice, you are so right. Only Tea Partiers - and the fatuous Dennis Kucinich left - would welcome a primary challenge to Barack Obama.
- liberalref
April 12, 2011 at 7:18pm
“{For those out here who are older than about ten, you will remember Bill Clinton who triangulated, which means compromised.” Clinton didn’t give in to the Right Wing Republican agenda and allowed the government to be shut down.
- arnon
April 12, 2011 at 7:27pm
@arnon--Let's get this straight: a democratic party challenge would 1. fail to unseat Obama, and 2. significantly weaken Obama, possibly resulting in his losing a republican. The results of a republican president ruling a republican house and republican senate would be Scott Walker for the United States. That's why if I were a Tea Partier, I would beg beg beg people like you to support a challenger. And it's not because I would want to see a "stronger" democrat. And by the way, if passing ACA and financial reform is "weak", then what was Bill Clinton? He failed to pass health reform. Remember? Is that strong? And worse, not only did he fail to pass finance reform, but he REPEALED Glass-Steagall, thereby opening the door for investment banks to spread out across previously closed industries, and helped lead to the 2007 collapse. Is that strong? Is that better than Obama's financial reform act? And am I right about my Hillary guess? Tell me I'm right.
- sokol8
April 12, 2011 at 7:37pm
Clinton lost both houses of Congress despite a recovering economy (much lower unemployment than 2010,) rode the tech bubble to re-election, and never spent a penny of his political capital to advancing progressive ideas, basically co-opting more moderate versions of GOP ideas. He championed a lot of the deregulation which enabled the financial meltdown of 2008. His record looks good now only in comparison with what came after. Many of us supported Obama with the idea of getting something better than "Republican lite", someone who could bring that "adult conversation" about the proper roles of government in supporting the middle class, and not just more reinforcement of Reaganite conventional wisdom. In 2008 (as in 1980) there was a real opening for a different narrative to replace a clearly failed paradigm, and the opportunity was lost. (Yes, yes, ACA made it through, thanks to Pelosi and Reid, IMHO; but it remains quite unpopular and vulnerable to reversal or legislative sabotage, and with it all it's still speculative as to whether or not it will really reduce costs.) We can speculate all we want about what Obama will propose for the budget, and what he will eventually be forced to accept, because he has never set any parameters as to what his principles are. He has never controlled the terms of the issues, and approaches every problem at a political disadvantage. Somehow, he manages to turn an advantage to a disadvantage (see Bush tax cuts.) I think many of his supporters are very disappointed, with some reason.
- stanalama
April 12, 2011 at 8:04pm
The problem with Obama is he is letting these bullflop meta-narratives sink into the public as truths. Look, we know the GOP can lie with impunity. They have no problem doing it. Look at Kyl when he was caught. When they repeat, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." I wish Obama would hit back. The overwhelming majority of Americans are not adverse to higher taxes on the rich at least (I want Clinton rates on everyone.) When I see Jeb Henselring talk about "cutting up Obama's credit card" and see that this liar voted for every big deficit busting policy of the last 10 years, I wish to GOD someone was calling them out! If not Obama then who? We keep getting rolled because when you are fighting with people like Grover Norquist, reasonable doesn't win.
- MikeB.
April 12, 2011 at 9:09pm
Excellent followup, soko. S. 1, @ 0. Oh please, stan. Barack Obama compromised on the tax cuts in order to get extended unemployment benefits and hence a second, unacknowledged stimulus, which may even help Obama get reelected. The armchair "leaders" are at their keyboards beavering away, unfortunately.
- liberalref
April 12, 2011 at 9:12pm
Speaking of triangulation...Is Obama the point between the Ryan plan and some plan put out by House Dems? I think it would be good tactically to have a plan to the left of Obama at least as an alternative.
- MikeB.
April 12, 2011 at 10:18pm
sokol8 “@arnon--Let's get this straight: a democratic party challenge would 1. fail to unseat Obama, and 2. significantly weaken Obama, possibly resulting in his losing a republican.” Maybe so, but it’s up to Obama. If the man gets some backbone and starts fighting back I’ll be for him. If he keeps on acting like a doormat, then he is going to lose anyway.
- arnon
April 12, 2011 at 10:30pm
"Speaking of triangulation...Is Obama the point between the Ryan plan and some plan put out by House Dems? I think it would be good tactically to have a plan to the left of Obama at least as an alternative." Yeap.
- arnon
April 12, 2011 at 10:31pm
Yes, liberalref: "unacknowledged" stimulus. Everything he does is "unacknowledged", from the original stimulus (which included tax cuts, again forgotten,) to the real cost-reduction efforts of the ACA), to the rescue of the financial sector and GM. Because he doesn't control the narrative. Good policy decisions are lost without good messaging. Who's going to remember an "unacknowledged" stimulus from 2010 in 2012? Reagan made poor policy choices, but had terrific political instincts. He changed the way Americans felt about government, and paved the way for a near permanent GOP majority (that apparently even Bush couldn't screw up.) Obama seems to be the anti-Reagan: he has made some good policy decisions, but allowed them to be painted as failures, demoralizing the Democratic party base along the way.
- stanalama
April 12, 2011 at 11:03pm
I subscribe to the strength of the "Obama controls the party and he's always very scared of looking too liberal and always wants to look like Mr. Reasonable Compromiser Post-Partisan-Fairy-Land" theory. I mean com'on, he's demonstrated this again and again and again and again and again and again...since the primaries. For better or worse that's a huge part of his strategy, and this should have been obvious since the primaries.
- RHSerlin
April 13, 2011 at 6:28am
Oh for pete's sake. If Reagan was a political genius and Obama is a naif, why is Obama doing better in terms of appproval than Reagan was at this point in his trajectory as president? Between the HillaryIs44 people and the Kucinaci, I swear...
- miceelf
April 13, 2011 at 7:46am