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 The Complex Psychology Of Economic Sabotage

JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 22, 2011

The Complex Psychology Of Economic Sabotage

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Republican opposition to a temporary payroll tax cut is spurring Democrats to accuse them of economic sabotage:

Would Republicans really oppose a tax cut for business that created jobs? This is sort of beyond the pale. So if they'd oppose even something so suited to their tastes ideologically, it shows that they're just opposing anything that would help create jobs. It almost makes you wonder if they aren't trying to slow down the economic recovery for political gain. 

I'm generally uncomfortable with attacks on motive. For one thing, motive is hard to prove. For another, human psychology is such that people rarely act out of conscious venality. Instead they simply convince themselves that what they perceive to be in their best interest is also the right thing to do.

Consider this Mitch McConnell interview about 2012:

I think the President is in tough shape… the President is in a very weak position politically today. We don’t know what it’ll look like in the fall of 201 but today the President’s in a very weak position. And [former Massachusetts Governor Mitt] Romney, just by announcing and getting a wave of press, moved either even or ahead of the President. So I think the President can be defeated. If conditions of Nov. 2012 are anything like they are today, I think he’s got a really tough race on his hands. I’m confident that we’re going to nominate someone who’s going to be a credible, believable alternative. And I think our primaries are – I can’t think of a time when they haven’t nominated somebody who people didn’t feel could handle the job. As long as we do that, and I’m confident we will, then it’ll be a referendum on the President and his performance and if the presidential election were today I think our theme would be: he made it worse.

McConnell is obviously well aware that maintaining a poor economy is the key to his party's success next year. He's a very cynical man, but he's probably not cynical to wake up every day plotting ways to keep unemployment high.

Rather, the question of economic stimulus is always a long-term versus a short-term calculation. You take on more debt for the long term in order to alleviate today's economic emergency. The mainstream economic position has been, and to a somewhat lesser extent remains, very friendly to the view that the current emergency is dire enough to justify taking on more debt to alleviate. But when you change the question to, should we take on more debt to alleviate mass suffering and improve Obama's reelection prospects, then suddenly it's easy to understand why republicans would persuade themselves that no stimulus meets the test.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

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

18 comments

McConnell is rapidly making himself a joke. He keeps saying that he'll only support disasterous policies -- cut Medicare, cut social spending, cut Social Security, but defend the Bush Tax-cuts, defend the Military, defend the rich. And he keeps saying that until we get to the 11th hour of disaster, and then he bends. The only reason he's been getting away with that is that Obama really DOES want to compromise, and so McConnell always has some fig-leaf when he folds. But the more times we go through this exercise, the less credibility McConnell has for the next time. It's rapidly becoming clear he'll say any Tea-Party dogma ahead of an agreement, then become "practical" in the 11th hour.

- AllanL5

June 22, 2011 at 1:22pm

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

Me thinks thou dost contradict thyself. Changing the question of economic stimulus to include political benefits like reelection plays right into your citation from TPM, especially the part you highlighted in bold. I think what you're trying to get at is we can't know for certain they're deliberately sabotaging the economy as an end or a means, or if they're actually aware they're sabotaging the economy. I can't really see how any of that matters, though; it's what they've decided to do, that's what will happen if they get their way, and now we have to respond accordingly.

- GSpinks

June 22, 2011 at 1:31pm

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

But what if Republicans see the economy as having already recovered in the ways they care about? The banks have been saved, there are record corporate profits, productivity is rising, executive compensation is rising, the stock market has bounced back - what bad economy? For many Republicans high unemployment is just an inconvenience, an inconvenience that will help them get votes.

- Attrill

June 22, 2011 at 1:55pm

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

Many commenters here have no qualms about imputing motives.

- liberalref

June 22, 2011 at 1:59pm

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

The Repbublicans drove us here leaving very little gas in the tank. After they were forced to hand the keys to President Obama, the President drove a bit and realized we need gas. "He made it worse," the Republicans point toward the driver from their positions in the back seat and they're not chipping in for more gas.

- Nusholtz

June 22, 2011 at 2:06pm

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

I interpret the opposition to the payroll tax cut to class warfare: what the Republicans want are (more) tax cuts for the wealthy, not tax cuts for the working man. Indeed, a temporary payroll tax holiday for 100% of payroll taxes would almost guarantee that the Democrats would re-take the House and retain the Senate and Obama would be re-elected. Can you imagine: the Democrats offering a big tax cut for most everybody and the Republicans opposing it.

- rayward

June 22, 2011 at 2:56pm

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

"McConnell is obviously well aware that maintaining a poor economy is the key to his party's success next year. He's a very cynical man, but he's probably not cynical [enough] to wake up every day plotting ways to keep unemployment high." Forgive me for differing, but I think he's every bit that cynical, and so is every other member of the GOP rogues gallery on Capitol Hill.

- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old

June 22, 2011 at 3:36pm

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

Rayward, Remember payroll taxes all but don't exist for the GOP and their "think tanks." Remember Ronal Reagan cut taxes because he cut income taxes at the top. The increase in payroll tax doesn't count. So that is why Michelle Bachman can say something like 50 percent of Americans don't pay taxes. Remember payroll taxes do not exist unlike the income tax, but especially the estate and capital gains tax because those two affect her bosses.

- MikeB.

June 22, 2011 at 3:39pm

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

I would agree with Davy. McConnell is a special type of piece of sh-t unlike say a Bill Frist who was GOP Senate leader at one time. We have all seen McConnell tell obvious lies in interviews about taxes or how seniors should love the Ryan plan. Does he really believe this nonsense? I can't believe it. I think also unemployment is a weapon to be used. Has any of these GOP Senators come up with a plan for unemployment if they really cared beyond yet more tax cuts for the rich?

- MikeB.

June 22, 2011 at 3:41pm

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

Look at the bunch of you, imputing terrible motives to all of these Republican patriots after having been admonished by the liberal reformer. Shame!

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2011 at 3:46pm

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

Rayward and Mike B., the payroll tax cuts under consideration are for businesses, not individuals. Chait, you're conveniently forgetting that tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are bedrock conservative beliefs. I can't believe you're attributing this hypocrisy to studied consideration, no matter how twisted. And why does McConnell look like the Nazi Major whose face melted when they opened the Lost Ark?

- polcereal

June 22, 2011 at 3:58pm

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

Roid: it's particularly ironic of Libref to make such an admonishment since he spends so much time on attacking the character, intelligence, and motivations of other posters rather than dealing with the substance of the arguments at hand.

- Curran1

June 22, 2011 at 4:10pm

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

Quite so, curran.

- roidubouloi

June 22, 2011 at 6:37pm

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

I think Attrill is onto something. Unemployment is way to prevent inflation, which as we all know is the really important economic issue of our time. I suspect payroll taxes don't get the same attention from the GOP as income/capital gains/estate taxes, as the people who pay paytoll taxes and vote GOP (like most wage earners) don't really notice them. Or they believe it's going into a social security account with their name on it, as opposed to general revenue (I've had people show me their annual SS statement to "prove" this to me). And they're not really paid in any great measure by the elite and primary donors. Thus unlike those taxes that are noticed by people important to the GOP reductions in payroll taxes won't get them much politically, so if they can stick it to the incumbent over them why not? And after all, if you went around cutting payroll taxes, then you'd have to raise those taxes paid by important people otherwise that debt thing might get out of control.

- Nari224

June 22, 2011 at 6:49pm

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

Denser than lead division (again): Denominating people ideologues and Manichaean is descriptive and is not imputing motivation. How did any number of you people even manage to get through college? J. Chait spends a great deal of time attacking Republicans but not much time at all - as he mentions here - dealing with what motivates them. Not that you would know the difference, C., but when I oppose people here it is mostly on ideological grounds. And quite often, I note hypocrisy. There is a lot of that from any point on the political spectrum, because ... well, people are people. I quite imagine that I would enjoy the company of any number of you who I have tangled with. I have repeatedly invited Dr. Bombay who lives a bit northeast of me over for dinner and claret with my wife and myself. I get the sense from reading replies from him that he is almost afraid to come here. This is rather reminiscent of members of the Bed-Wetting Party.

- liberalref

June 22, 2011 at 9:42pm

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

Not that you would know the difference, C., but when I oppose people here it is mostly on ideological grounds Then I can only recommend you change your password lib, as it appears that a fairly sanctimonious individual who delights in commenting on others or posting at best tangential statements has hacked your account and is doing his/her damnedest to imitate your writing style. I look forward to your rectifying this situation so that we can return to enjoying your arguments over ideology.

- Nari224

June 23, 2011 at 8:30am

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

I've often wondered in these threads to what extent Republican adherence to ideology, even when in conflict with rather obvious facts and evidence, reflected true belief or political posturing. And while I still think it's an interesting question, I think it's academic. GSpinks wrote "I can't really see how any of that matters, though; it's what they've decided to do, that's what will happen if they get their way, and now we have to respond accordingly." As long as their actions remain immutable, they have to be voted out regardless of motivation.

- dsimon

June 23, 2011 at 10:10am

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

precisely, dsimon.

- GSpinks

June 23, 2011 at 12:14pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close