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 Public Approval Consequences of the Debt Ceiling Debate

JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 29, 2011

The Public Approval Consequences of the Debt Ceiling Debate

BY NORMAN ORNSTEIN

[Guest post by Norman Ornstein:]

 

The “Do Everything” 111th Congress and the “Do Nothing” 112th Congress both have one thing in common: abysmal approval ratings among the public. How can that be? Here is a simple way to explain it. The Affordable Care Act was and is not widely popular—but, if parsed out in public opinion surveys into its individual components, the reaction is very different. Nearly all of the components meet individually with public approval. Now examine the tax compromise achieved by President Obama and Congress in December of last year, the one that extended all the Bush tax cuts until the end of 2012 and sharply raised exemptions while lowering tax rates for estates, among other things. Nearly all of the parts of that deal were widely unpopular—but the deal itself was a huge hit with the public.

In the first case, the seeming contradiction is in the process—fractious, acrimonious, partisan, extended over months of roller-coaster politics and deal-making, all the elements of politics that most Americans hate. The tribal politics in Washington have metastasized into the country, but even most members of the two tribes want the people we elect to come to Washington to get together, transcend the differences, and solve problems. Anything that looks more like mud-wrestling than mature problem-solving through compromise gets a hearty thumbs-down.

And, in contrast, anything that looks like mature problem-solving, even if the parts are questionable, gets a big thumbs-up. Tea Party conservatives are convinced that the 2010 elections were a huge public mandate of support for a radical, cut-government and cut-taxes agenda. The mandate was far more one of trying to get mature individuals to come together and transcend their differences for the public good. That was certainly true of most Democrats and most independents, and a healthy swath of Republicans. But it was not true for the most active share of Republicans, those who dominate caucuses and primaries, and it is the latter group to whom Republican lawmakers are most sensitive.

That public desire to get the people we elect to find solutions explains the new level of public disgust over the embarrassing fandango, extended now for weeks, over the manufactured crisis of the debt ceiling. If indeed the worst case happens (or even if it is a less-worse case,) a lot of voters will be angry. Right now, the ire is mostly directed at those who are taking the my-way-or-the-highway approach: House Republicans. But a truly irate public will take out its frustration more broadly—and, ironically, by aiming first at the “politicians,” the mature ones who actually do believe in compromising to solve problems.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

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

14 comments

I wish Ornstein had sent this essay to Obama four months ago because without the benefit of Ornstein's advice, Obama offered the Republicans a deal that was too good to accept, so they didn't, and now Obama is likely to take the blame, and not only from an irate public as Ornstein suggests, but also from members of his own party who believe the deal he offered the Republicans was indeed to good for the Republicans to accept. I just wrote that sentence and now I'm confused.

- rayward

July 29, 2011 at 8:02am

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

The last sentence gives it away: our voting (and non-voting!) public doesn't much care about politics and just wants stuff to happen. This is why studies show that people are goaded into forming opinions by being polled about matters political. Sure, this is disastrous enough if you have many thousands of public officials and several elections a year at different levels. But it is even worse when you think of the operational implications. Most Americans want government that works, doesn't cost much, and that is relatively invisible in its functionality. When government doesn't work, it's failing them. That's why there are many Tea Party people clamouring for the government not to touch Medicare. And what are the two parties' positions on this? The Democratic Party is pro-government and the Republican Party is anti-government. Ever since the moderation of Democratic ambitions in the 1970s, the Democratic position is that government should do all the things the people want, it should work, and it should be paid for, as we have enough money lying around in the economy to do our consensus national priorities. Republicans take the position that government should be invisible and cost next to nothing. The problem is that, at various times over the past few decades, the American people have tried to assert that they prefer government to cost something and do stuff than to have minimal government: that is, they prefer paying taxes on stuff rather than going without it. The great Republican master-stroke has been to convince people that we can still get approximately the same stuff we want, less fraud, abuse, and excess taxation. Bush's call for his tax cuts could thus only be sold as well as it was in the specific environment of a rosy outlook that darkened somewhat, to provide cover as an economic stimulus. Even then, it was a tough sell, and we now see looking back that people would easily take unmolested optimism and growth over the small boon of tax cuts and large bane of the 2000s economy.

- chaitless

July 29, 2011 at 8:22am

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

Our political system reminds me of rams butting heads. When two rams drive their foreheads into one another repeatedly, I think of a female viewing nearby saying, "I'll take the one on the left." That's why we have a two party system. Nothing much is accomplished except that a victor is declared.

- Nusholtz

July 29, 2011 at 8:53am

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

Most "pundits" don't clearly assign responsibility to the right-wing "Tea Party" subversives in the Republican Party. Let's stop this game of "he said, she said" moral equivalency! Obama has failed to clearly explain the issues to the American people. He has failed to lead, set the agenda, and assertively use his power. No wonder there is confusion and people are acting up. Most people don't smarten up in crisis. New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, in contrast, gleefully uses all the powers of his office, often to ill. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have done what they can, but they are not President.

- amidut

July 29, 2011 at 9:36am

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

There is nothing more frustrating than hearing people on television, at the office, wherever, talk about the "politicians" in Washington, as though it was some amorphous, ambiguous group. This tendency is the worst in the mainstream media, who can't accept that plainly obvious facts don't necessarily mean you have a liberal bias. This is about the House Republicans and no one else. I think this was the gist of Krugman's column today as well.

- josh_y

July 29, 2011 at 9:39am

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

rayward: "I wish Ornstein had sent this essay to Obama four months ago..." Huh? This is exactly the kind of middle-of-the-road script Obama has been following, and it's arguably why the president is in the deep water in which he finds himself at present. Ornstein says the public wants politicians who "find solutions", the implication being that as far as the public is concerned it doesn't much matter what those solutions turn out to be. And that's exactly how Obama has governed, like somebody who was trying to find a solution, ANY solution with his chief aim being to answer this undifferentiated demand for problem solving all while paying hardly any attention at all to whether his "solutions" were in line with the traditional aims of the Democratic Party or whether they served any genuine, practical need. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to imply that Ornstein is incorrect about what the public wants from its leaders; I'm saying simply that a leader who shapes his plans to answer this desire for solutions in the abstract, divorced from any specific context or content, is likely to lead us nowhere in particular and in the end to provide us with "solutions" that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

- AaronW

July 29, 2011 at 10:10am

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

You had me going for a second, Aaron. But that last paragraph blew it. Obama has very much been trying to craft a solution with a very minimal amount of line-in-the-sand drawing, but there's nothing abstract or devoid of context about any of this. If you can't appreciate the approach of doing what you can to make the customer happy enough to give you more power to do greater things, that's on you; but I think Obama's strategy of getting through 2012 and winning in November is laudable at this point, and of his most recent dressing down it looks like he's poised the entire party, especially house dems, in a good way. If dems don't regain complete control of congress and maintain control of the White House, you might as well be pissing in the wind for all the moaning you'll be doing about how nothing is getting done.

- GSpinks

July 29, 2011 at 11:04am

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

Ornstein is being descriptive not prescriptive. Ornstein doesn't quite say it, but Obama's strategy was to establish himself as the deficit hawk with his Grand Bargain, knowing that the Republicans would never accept his too good to be true offer, and capture the high ground on the deficit issue going into 1012. If Ornstein is correct, it's a losing strategy because it's the highest profile player, the slugger, who gets the blame when your team loses, not the supporting players who committed all the errors and had all the strike-outs.

- rayward

July 29, 2011 at 11:23am

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

"The mandate was far more one of trying to get mature individuals to come together and transcend their differences for the public good." That represents Mr. Ornstein's wish, not reality. The 2010 election results were blowback from all the government "bailouts," all of which I supported, but all of which infuriated a large chunk of the American people. The Tea Party folks came to tear the place down. Establishment Republicans have told the Tea Party crowd "we're on your side! We're Tea Party too!" because to do otherwise would have torn the Republican Party in half. So now McConnell, Boehner, et al. are tearing the country in half instead. But, hey, they won in 2010 and 2012 looks pretty good too.

- AlanVann

July 29, 2011 at 11:24am

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

Is Obama’s failure to find unity among the factions in Congress disheartening? Certainly. Is it a failure of leadership? I’m not so sure. I see him trying to form a more perfect union, but I also see a country that in fundamental ways is not united and is not moving in that direction. Watching the president trying to herd cats is not a pretty sight. But is it fair to demand that he lead the cats? Was the succession of the Confederacy a result of Lincoln’s failure to lead? My fear is that in this republic we get the government we deserve. Right now we appear to the rest of the word like a nation of spoiled children who want the benefits of government without the responsibility of paying for it or even paying attention to what it’s doing. I fear it can’t change without significant pain.

- Ouroboros

July 29, 2011 at 11:59am

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

Ouro. Much of the South seceeded BEFORE Lincoln took office!! As I've been saying for months: The implications of many articles and posts is that the choice is between a failure to raise the debt ceiling by failure to pass a BHO-advocated and/or approved compromise bill and economic disaster. That's a false dichotomy. All the compromise plans I've seen to date to avoid a debt-ceiling crisis near-guarantee an economic crisis in 6-12 months. That is, these "compromise plans" to increase the debt ceiling guarantee a long Great Recession at best, 2nd Great Depression a good possibility. And honestly blamable on BHO as much as the Repubs. A recession/depression in a liquidity trap is a big problem. A debt ceiling crisis is real, but less serious and more easily fixed. It is, at least in its origin, a politically manufactured crisis rather than a long-time-in-producing economic crisis---- eliminate the debt-ceiling law is one such quick-fix solution. Or invoke the 14th Amendment. Or, if the markets react negatively and the Repubs blamed at least as much as BHO, that may also convince the Repubs to agree to a clean debt increase bill [I agree it may also convince BHO to advocate any horrendous compromise---which will still result in very few of you saying BHO is part of the problem and should be challenged.] Even bankruptcy (if you have your own currency) is better than a Great Recession/Depression (Google: Argentina). There are no quick-fix solutions to a Great Recession or Depression. And > 9% unemployment this time next year near-guarantees a Dem disaster-- not just for BHO (Google: 538, Ned Silver). A disaster that may get blamed on "progressive policies" and last a generation--and a disaster that vreally results from Hooverian economics advocated by Repubs, BHO, and some Blue-Dod-Dems. All must be challenged politically asap. Hence, from everything I'm seeing and hearing, y'all better pray the debt crisis negotiations fail to produce a "compromise solution" pushed by BHO. The cure is worse than the disease it purports to fix.

- drofnats1

July 29, 2011 at 12:11pm

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

Drof: My point is that no leader can lead a rabble bent on destruction. The technical problems of dealing with the economy are huge, as you point out, and you may be right on every point. But there are a lot of people in powerful positions who will declare you wrong on every point. Because the political problems are even bigger than the technical problems, and they depend on an electorate that is misinformed and does not agree on a common set of priorities or even share a common vision of what America should be. Invoke the 14th Amendment and sit back to watch the impeachment hearings. In the meantime the downward spiral continues.

- Ouroboros

July 29, 2011 at 12:47pm

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

Epistemically-closed Republicans are shutting down our political system.

- liberalref

July 29, 2011 at 1:07pm

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

There will always be argument about which decision is the right one, especially in highly technical and somewhat ephemeral fields like macro-economics. The problem now is that as a country we have entirely lost our ability to make any major decision. Dealing with the Tea Party is like dealing with suicide bombers and rules that assume people care about self-protection or the economic welfare of their country no longer apply. There are no good choices now, only less bad choices, and we have a big problem making any choice at all.

- Ouroboros

July 29, 2011 at 1:11pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close