JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 27, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Fred Bauer warns Republicans that the new method they've pioneered -- using the debt ceiling as a hostage to force policy concessions -- could just as easily be turned against them under a Democratic House and a Republican president:
In passing the Ryan budget, Congress also upped the debt ceiling by a trillion or so, but perpetual deficits mean that the ceiling is coming awfully close, and federal spending is due to break it in early August 2015. So now, in May, the president must go on bended knee to Speaker Pelosi, who demands tax increases as the price for her caucus supporting an increase in the debt ceiling. ...
And what could Republicans say to this?
I appreciate the spirit of the thought experiment. And Bauer is certainly right that Republicans would have no legitimate procedural argument against this tactic, though you can always whip one up if needed.
But is this really a plausible scenario? I don't actually think it is. I could imagine a Democratic Party holding the debt ceiling hostage, but not this Democratic party. It would have to be a far more left-wing party, in which activists have gained greater control and which has largely severed itself from any business influence. The current democratic party lacks anything like the will to power to threaten economic catastrophe in order to force a government mostly controlled by elected members of the opposition to accept its contested policy agenda. And it would require a substantial coterie susceptible to the argument of the default denialists -- a natural fit for the party of supply-siders and climate change deniers, but not a good fit for the moderate coalition that forms the current Democratic party.
James Surowiecki argues that the debt ceiling specifically favors a certain kind of politician:
[B]y turning dealmaking into a game of chicken, the debt ceiling favors fanaticism. As the economist Thomas Schelling showed many years ago, “It does not always help to be, or to be believed to be, fully rational, coolheaded, and in control of oneself” when it comes to brinksmanship. It doesn’t, in short, help to be President Obama. That may be why all the deals that have been taken seriously this season rely much more heavily on spending cuts than on tax increases: the deals represent Republican priorities, because the Republicans seem to be more willing than the Democrats to let the country default.
There's only one party in American politics today willing to try this sort of thing. If history had run a different course, and the Democratic Party had been captured by the ideological descendants of Tom Hayden, and the GOP by the descendants of Nelson Rockefeller, the situation would probably be reversed.
12 comments
I keep thinking of the scene in Blazing Saddles where Cleavon Little holds himself hostage. But seriously, wouldn't Mitt Romney want to put a stop to this nonsense now so it doesn't bite him if he becomes president?
- stanmvp48
July 27, 2011 at 12:08pm
It's preposterous to think that the Democratic Party as currently constituted would hold the country hostage in this manner. If Ron Dellums were party chair, and he reflected the ideology of his troops, then, well, maybe yes. But that would be on a different planet.
- liberalref
July 27, 2011 at 12:10pm
The scenario is flawed from the beginning. "Republicans would have no legitimate procedural argument..." Since when has lacking a legitimate procedural argument stopped this gang? Do they have a legitimate argument that the deficit is Obama's fault? The advantage the GOP has right now is that it has so strongly and unabashedly embraced demagoguery and it pounds home its irrational message until it becomes common wisdom. Hence the media portraying this fiasco as equally the fault of both parties. Remember Boener on Monday looking the camera in the eye and saying Obama "Would not take yes for an answer" for a deal on which he couldn't even deliver his own party's votes. Legitimate procedural argument? Wow, that'll scare those Tea Partiers into sense!
- Ouroboros
July 27, 2011 at 12:11pm
"Legitimate procedural argument," yes. Relying on that bit of nicety to protect us from the Tea Party madness won't sting at all when the Republicans eliminate the filibuster the first day they have a majority in the Senate.
- janus
July 27, 2011 at 12:15pm
jeez, has Chait got this all wrong, if there is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress the Republican President would hold the country hostage himself, threatening to veto any debt ceiling hike that did not have all cuts in them.
- blackton
July 27, 2011 at 12:49pm
There's another ingredient in these hostage situations: The hostage-takers, or their base of support, need to be convinced that what will happen if the majority has its way would be so wrong or so disastrous that almost any means is justified to stop it. So the scenario is not so much radical Dems vs. moderate Republicans. It's to imagine what might happen if the Rs controlled the White House and Senate, and the Dems controlled the House, and the Rs pushed to repeal Social Security or declare war. Would the Dems hold the debt ceiling hostage then? Or for that matter, look at Wisconsin, where a Dem minority in the State Senate brought the entire legislature to a halt over collective bargaining rights. What WON'T a minority do to stop action they consider disastrous?
- LBarbash
July 27, 2011 at 12:56pm
Maybe blackton. But given the trajectory we're on it won't be long before the scenario comes through as Fred Bauer describes it. Point is, even if we get a relatively moderate Republican pres this time, what kind of Democrat Congress are we likely to have after Obama's bitter defeat? I think Chait's right that THESE Congressional Democrats probably wouldn't pull the gun, but the next ones probably will. This cat is out of the bag, and unless we do something rational with the debt ceiling law, or even better the obvious flaws in the system that are driving us progressively further into hyper-partisanship, it's going to be all hostage-taking all the time.
- Robert Powell
July 27, 2011 at 1:00pm
Reposting a comment I made on another posting by JC last night: In the end, it's about balls. Republicans have them, Democrats don't. We gussy it up by calling it decency, the right thing to do, compromise, etc., but in my 20 years living in this country, the one constant has been that whether they are in power or not, Republicans stretch the envelope as far as it will go and then some, and Democrats are the exact opposite - incompetent when in power, and too easily cowed by threats when not in power. Clinton years, we had Starr and impeachment, Bush years we had "if you are against Bush, you are anti-American", and thus the Iraq war, and with Obama we have, "you make us rich or we make you dead". It's a republican strategy when in power to ensure that only legislation that will get minimal Democratic votes get passed, whereas Democrats keep trying to move the goalposts to accommodate Republican demands when in power. Why wasn't a more liberal version of ACA passed, and why wasn't it done faster - Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency, ffs. Because we had Democratic senators who wouldn't allow it. That's how incompetent the Democratic party is. Sure, the Republicans have had tactial defeats - the 1995 shutdown rebounded against the Contractors for America, they lost in 2006 and 2008 ... but compared to where we are now vs. 20 years ago ... what a fantastic victory the Republicans have won, by being able to steer the discourse to where it is now. P.S.: I'll bet that the next time Republicans control the Senate, they'll do away with the filibuster.
- NR409654
July 27, 2011 at 1:14pm
If the Democrats are the "adult" here, isn't it sometimes the job of the "adult" to take the spoiled child out back and whip his ass until he can't sit anymore? Where is that "adult" in this whole foolishness? I fear NR has it right about the lack of gonads in the current DP configuration.
- cspencef
July 27, 2011 at 1:22pm
One more observation. It was only a short while ago that forcing the country into default as political leverage would have been unthinkable, much less "legitimate procedure." Now it is spoken of as status quo standard operating procedure. This is the perfect illustration of how the Rs have been able to define the debate and how we cannot expect them to be restrained by any notions of legitimacy, except as they define it. Legitimate? The election of GWB by one vote on the Supreme Court is legitimate and failure to support him as Commander in Chief is treasonous. The election of BHO is not legitimate because [fill in the excuse du jour] and anyone who helps him succeed at anything is guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy. However...I am not arguing that Dems just need to have more balls and behave more like fanatics. That would feel good in the short term, but would prove destructive in the long run. The Dems need to be better than the right-wing loons, not more like them. But I do wish they would start using more Carville-type rapid response communication and stop allowing the wingnuts to define the terms of the discussion. The big argument right now should be about how much to spend on infrastructure, not how much to cut from food inspection.
- Ouroboros
July 27, 2011 at 3:41pm
If only the Dems were mastermind German baddies.
- IggyPop
July 27, 2011 at 4:56pm
Ouro, I am not arguing that Democrats need to become Republicans. I'm saying they just need to act when they have power, and they don't. It's very easy to define what they're against (the Republicans make it too easy to do that). Not very easy to define what they want to do. It's almost like they're afraid to articulate what they stand for, and act on it.
- NR409654
July 27, 2011 at 6:58pm