JONATHAN CHAIT MAY 23, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The conservative movement is geared around endlessly pushing Republican politicians to take more right-wing positions, and to interpret any failure as the result of ideological or political faint-heartedness. (The left has its equivalent, but it's far less influential upon the Democratic Party.) It's therefore pretty striking to see Republican officials leaking to Glenn Thrush and Jake Sherman that they objected strenuously to the party's decision to embrace the Paul Ryan budget:
The outward unity projected by House Republicans masked weeks of fierce debate, even infighting, and doubt over a measure that stands virtually no chance of becoming law. In a series of heated closed-door exchanges, dissenters, led by Ryan’s main internal rival — House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) — argued for a less radical, more bipartisan approach, GOP staffers say.
At a fundraiser shortly after the vote, a frustrated Camp groused, “We shouldn’t have done it” and that he was “overridden,” according to a person in attendance.
A few days earlier, as most Republicans remained mute during a GOP conference meeting on the Ryan plan, Camp rose and drily asserted, “People in my district like Medicare,” one lawmaker, who is now having his own doubts about voting yes, told POLITICO.
At the same time, GOP pollsters, political consultants and House and NRCC staffers vividly reminded leadership that their members were being forced to walk the plank for a piece of quixotic legislation. They described for leadership the horrors that might be visited on the party during the next campaign, comparing it time and again with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to ram through a cap-and-trade bill despite the risks it posed to Democratic incumbents.
It's pretty hard to deny at this point that the Ryan budget has been a political debacle for Republicans, though of course many of them will deny it. The question is what to do about it. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, naturally, urges them to boldly march forward:
[H]aving committed themselves, Republicans will appear (and will be) feckless if they abandon reform only weeks after voting for it. Trying to change entitlements can be agony, but it is fatal to try and fail. The voters will conclude the critics were right.
I think this advice is... sound, actually. Republicans never should have voted on a budget that cuts taxes for the rich while phasing out Medicare and replacing it with progressively less adequate coupons for private health insurance. But now that they're stuck with the vote, they would probably do well to defend it as best as they can. If Republicans start abandoning their budget, then it will be defined as a radical plan that even Reps. X, Y and Z can't stomach. The lack of defenders will make it even less popular.
On the other hand, this isn't a good position for Republicans to be in. It's a terrible position. And the one way out that I can think of is to cut a grand deficit bargain with Obama.
If Obama and the Republicans make a budget deal, that is something the House GOP can use to get past the Ryan budget. Then they can paint it as a conversation-starter -- we forced Obama to come to the table! -- rather than a blueprint for future action. If they cut a deal, then they can say the debt crisis has been addressed, and the radical measures they voted for (in order to call people's attention to the problem, of course -- they didn't want to do that stuff) are no longer needed.
Obviously, a big winner out of a deal like that would be Obama himself, who could take a major issue off the table and demonstrate his ability to work in a bipartisan fashion, and solidify himself amongst affluent independents. There would, however, be a couple huge losers. One is the Republican presidential nominee, who could still run on the economy but would face a steeper climb. The other, bigger loser is House Democrats, who would forfeit what might be their only chance for a long time to take back the House.
I would note that the potential winners here have the power to make the deal happen, while the losers are largely watching from the sidelines. I strongly suspect Obama would like to make a deal like this, but I don't think the House GOP has it in them. But if they want to reduce their exposure to the risk of losing their majority, that's the best path I can see for them.
14 comments
In other words, is Eric Cantor more interested in being House Majority Leader in 2012 or in House Minority Leader in 2012? (I'm assuming that he is not interested in waiting until 2014 or later to take over from Boehner regardless of what kind of deal Boehner gets with the White House, or not).
- wildboy
May 23, 2011 at 1:21pm
You've overlooked something quite fundamental in the Republican Party -- their ability for denial. So, on the one hand, they can abandon the Ryan plan without admitting they're abandoning the Ryan plan. They could even blame it on Obama "There was no way we could get the Ryan plan past Obama, so we had to drop it". And if the Ryan plan is really tarred negative, they can accuse the people tarring it negative of fearmongering -- which they've already done a little of. The Republicans are quite capable of pursuing destructive approaches, then backing away from the approach while denying they ever pursued it. Reagan, Bush-I, and Bush-II have all demonstrated that with Social Security, not to mention Gingrich and even Boehner.
- AllanL5
May 23, 2011 at 1:30pm
You didn't tease it out, but implicit in your analysis is that Barack Obama should not attempt to cut any deal with the Republicans, Jonathan. The scenario is this: the Republicans have been increasingly radicalizing themselves, driven by the conservative movement, as you write (Grover Norquist, The Club for Growth, CPAC, Fox "News", El Rushbo, The Weekly Standard, National Review, und so weiter), which puts pressure on Republican officeholders to epater le bourgeois. Therefore, Obama will only pretend to want to want a budget deal; the Republican intransigents will take care of the rest. BHO will run on Republican intransigence, plus an improving economy, of course. He will hammer away at starboard tomfoolery - "it's the radicalism, stupid." The prospects for House Democrats will improve under this scenario. Expect more GOP infighting and sit back and enjoy it. John Boehner might even be thrown under the bus. The Democrats will not take back the House but they will pick up a substantial number of seats, improving their position on the Hill. They will hold the Senate. The Republican nominee in 2012 will go down in flames. BHO will be reelected. And then it will be on to the next battles, the subsequent questions: will a chastened GOP become even more epistemically-closed and radical or will Thermidor set in? The latter will happen at some point, it is just a matter of when.
- liberalref
May 23, 2011 at 1:37pm
I'm not convinced. First and foremost, any currently elected rep will have to answer for their vote to slash medicare; I think the electorate on both sides is making quite clear that there is no excuse; advantage Dems. Secondly, any rep who works on a compromise will be branded a traitor and challenged from the right; disadvantage incumbent. And these two things do not offset; in fact I would expect a lot more contests next fall like the special election in new york right now. The democrats would have to work hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at this point...Pelosi might have to lend out her extra pairs of cajones and a couple of vertebrae to hold things steady, but it can be done.
- GSpinks
May 23, 2011 at 2:05pm
I don't think the GOP Presidential candidate is a loser if a grand bargain gets struck. There is NO way a Republican can beat Obama with Ryan's plan being the center of his domestic philosophy. I think Obama wins either way (although its probably a bigger win if he can get a deal done). I do think House democrats would be the only real loser in a deficit deal.
- Archon
May 23, 2011 at 2:05pm
The problem is, the ACA is already doing what the Ryan plan attempts to do. Meaning, the ACA is intended to control the cost increase of Medicare/Medicaid. Except the ACA also guarantees everyone access to health-care, which the Ryan plan does not. And the ACA is not based on Free-Market Wishful Thinking, which the Ryan plan is. And the ACA's cost savings is not predicated on the idea of throwing people under the bus -- which the Ryan plan is. Basically, there is NO WAY Obama can "compromise" to accept any part of the Ryan plan while preserving the ACA -- nor is there any reason he has to. Well, except for the reason that the Republicans can threaten to hold America hostage (AGAIN) for the debt-ceiling raising. But Obama must say no to that. And NONE of this is about winning votes, or who controls Congress or the White-House. ALL of this is about what is good policy going forward for the American People. We lose sight of THAT at our peril.
- AllanL5
May 23, 2011 at 3:20pm
"The left has its equivalent, but it's far less influential upon the Democratic Party." You see this is why you could never be a mainstream journalist. A mainstream journalist would have left off that last part, the "but it's far less influential upon the Democratic Party". First off, it clunks up the writing. "The left has its equivalent." Is so much more terse and crispy, and "good" writing style is so much more important than not misleading about very important things. And second, how dare you say the two parties aren't equally at fault! Just because it's actually true that one party is vastly worse than the other you're going to be "unbalanced" and not call them equivalent! Sorry Jonathan, you're just unfortunately too concerned about little things like conveying important truths in a non-misleading way. But there is hope, see: http://crookedtimber.org/2011/05/22/reality-based-journalism/
- RHSerlin
May 23, 2011 at 4:31pm
- So, Republicans have discovered when a large majority in the house passes a budget it can be a curse after the initial bragging with their base expires. It's not as simple as walking back, there are fifty of more seats who won because they promised these draconian measures. They all have to contend with Primary Inc. in '12, their current vote or any compromise will be will be attacked. A compromise can't fix the problem the GOP has in the house but it isn't too late for a deal to benefit Democrats in the Senate without caving to the right. If I were dealing with leadership? Ask for concessions outside the budget, demand action on energy or immigration. Smoke them out on issues they'd prefer to postpone or let them twist in the wind.
- michaelg
May 23, 2011 at 4:33pm
NY-26 might send a smoke signal that will scare those Republicans who had wanted to stay the Path. If so, i expect JC's predictions to happen, if not, I expect those stubborn Republicans to dance to the tune of a different drummer all the way to the election.
- Nusholtz
May 23, 2011 at 4:36pm
Chait again comes to one of my long-standing conclusions . It would be nice if we had a Democrat running in 2012. It currently looks like we'll choose between a Reagan Republican and a LaRouche Republican. Best small hope is for the Repub crazies to end up not voting for raising the debt ceiling--- and the resulting crisis results in voters taking it out on BHO, Republican incumbents, and many Dem incumbents. BHO as prez with a Repub House and probably a Repub Senate is a disaster with a decade of dire economic consequences.
- drofnats1
May 23, 2011 at 4:40pm
Not that the clueless dro would ever be hip to it, but gridlock might not be at all bad for the economy. Presidents have far less impact on the economy than uniformed people think (the dros of the world).
- liberalref
May 23, 2011 at 5:03pm
Nush, I'm really kind of hoping the Republicans don't get it; and I think that's the most likely scenario if they win the seat. Even if they do, apropos of a previous article, would the GOP decide to stick to it's hard-line guns, drop the obstructionism, or finally admit to diverging opinions on the issue. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what any of them think behind closed doors, or how they feel, or how much of any of that information is leaked to the press; what matters is the legislation they vote for or against, and there's no mistaking that vote.
- GSpinks
May 23, 2011 at 5:31pm
NY 26 has (D) Hochul presently in the lead over (R) Corwin. If Hochul wins then that, more than anything else, will help ensure a Romney nomination. Because of Romneycare Romney can not be tagged with the Ryan plan. Romney need not say anything but his message will be: vote for me or face the apocalypse as Seniors abandon the Republican party. here is what he said: “I applaud Rep. Paul Ryan for recognizing the looming financial crisis that faces our nation and for the creative and bold thinking that he brings to the debate. He is setting the right tone for finally getting spending and entitlements under control. Anyone who has read my book knows that we are on the same page.” He said absolutely nothing. And my point is that if Corwin loses this will satisfy the Republican base. Later on he will come out with his own plan which he will promise is in the spirit of the Ryan plan but won’t be. In other words, he will be classic Romney, he will talk out of both sides of his mouth. And again, people will buy it because they know if they stick with Ryan they will be doomed (if Corwin loses because of Ryan non-care) At this point the only hope for down ticket people on the Republican side is Romney, they will back his play and platform, I think all of the other Republicans, in order to wn the nomination, will stick with the Ryan plan.
- blackton
May 23, 2011 at 5:40pm
here is my list of unofficial campaign slogans Obama “Yes, we sort of kind of” Bachmann “Not as crazy as she looks or sounds” Romney “Yes, I know I am plastic but you really don’t have any other choice” Gingrich “The 3rd…or is it the 4th time is the charm” Cain “Cain is able” (I know it ain’t mocking but it is too easy to go with this) Paul “hm…what?” Huntsman “the other and human Mormon” Johnson “New Mexico is too a state” Pawlenty “hey, everybody, look over here, hello…anybody?” Ah well, time for class, have to amuse myself between lessons.
- blackton
May 23, 2011 at 6:17pm