JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 29, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Lots of reports seem to think last night's vote shows that John Boehner is losing "control of his caucus." That's not really correct. Boehner is commanding the votes of about 90% of his caucus. The problem is that, because he's following a GOP-only strategy, that recalcitrant 10% commands vast power and attention.
It's an interesting dynamic because partisan bills are utterly routine, but they usually have trouble in the center of the caucus, not on the extremes. You sometimes have one or two flaky radical members threatening to oppose a partisan bill because their holding out for an impossible, more radical alternative (think Dennis Kucinich on health care.) But they usually cave in the end because the recognize the obvious legislative dynamic. (As did Kucinich.) To have some dozen of the most extreme members of your caucus dissenting from a completely partisan bill is highly unusual.
Still, Boehner's problems with his ultra-crazy faction don't really tell us anything about the major strategic factors in play. The real question is what happens when Boehner ultimately has to forge a compromise with the president and the Senate. He's going to lose a lot more than 24 Republicans. The question will be whether he can still hold onto a majority of his caucus, or at least not so offend a majority of his caucus that he loses his job.
And "ultimately" could be Monday, it could be a December firelit meeting shivering by a fire of old furniture and books while nibbling on the last bit of the White House's canned food hoard, or sometime between.
Update: Here's another example of reporting that badly misdiagnoses the situation. Dan Balz writes in the Washington Post:
House Republicans have spent the past two weeks debating debt-ceiling proposals that have no possibility of becoming law at this time. What they discovered Thursday is that they couldn’t even get a majority of themselves to agree.
Not true. They have a majority of themselves to agree. What they lack is the requisite 90% of themselves. Balz continues:
The changes Boehner has been forced to make to his proposal probably will make it even more difficult for his rebellious colleagues to accept any compromise that comes over from the Senate.
The rebellious colleagues are not going to be voting for a compromise with the Senate. They don't need to. Their votes will be replaced with Democratic votes. Boehner's problem will not be with with two dozen most right-wing members of his caucus, but with the median members of his caucus, who will determine what kind of compromise Boehner can accept.
8 comments
Can anyone explain to me why they are going through this charade of trying to pass a bill that the Senate will vote down? If the point is to show that Republicans have approved a bill to avoid default, but the Senate has failed to act on it, that point was already made when they passed "Cut, Cap, and Balance". What is the point of wasting the last week before the deadline trying to draft and whip votes for a slightly watered-down version of "Cut, Cap, and Balance" that has an equally non-existent chance of passing the Senate? Why not say they already voted to raise the debt ceiling, and the Senate should act on their bill? This is a genuine question, I'm trying to understand the Republican psychology here. Is it because, per Chait's last blog post, House Republican leadership actually thinks it can pass the Senate? I'm sure some of the tea party nuts think that, but does Boehner really think that?
- RerunStubs
July 29, 2011 at 11:36am
Canned food "horde"? Are you claiming that a US government default could lead to inanimate objects developing sentience and attacking the populace en masse? God, that's terrifying. Oh, unless you meant "hoard".
- Shorpe
July 29, 2011 at 11:38am
I think what "control of your caucus" means is not that you can dictate the votes of the members at all times, but that they won't undercut you if you work with them. You know what you can produce the vote for and what you can't, and so you don't find yourself in situations like Boehner did yesterday, where you go out on a limb for a bill and then you look around and see your erstwhile allies sitting there with a saw. Partly it's about being able to twist arms and offer sweeteners, but it's also about knowing your membership. If Nancy Pelosi went to the Democratic House caucus with a bill to repeal Medicare and eliminate capital gains taxes, she would not be able to make 100% or 90% or probably even 20% of them vote for it. This does not mean she is not in control of her caucus. Pelosi knows what her members can be brought to support, and she doesn't waste time on bills they won't back.
- Dausuul
July 29, 2011 at 11:42am
This is the big difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans DO vote as a block, getting 100% of Republicans to do something used to be fairly simple -- vote the way your leader says to vote, or you get kicked off your committee assignments. Such draconian policies are anathema to Democrats, who are much more tolerant of diverging views, even encouraging diverging views. Which is why it's so simple for Republicans to roll them. Your example "repealing Medicare" is a bad one. Medicare does so much good to the electorate it would be stupid to repeal or privatize it, unless you're pursuing some reality-ignoring dogma.
- AllanL5
July 29, 2011 at 12:04pm
correlation does not equal causality. It's not so much that Boehner controls his caucus as that it controls him.
- miceelf
July 29, 2011 at 12:05pm
My point about repealing Medicare is that Nancy Pelosi does not have absolute dominion over her caucus; they are not zombie slaves who vote for anything she commands. But she is still in control, because when she commits to a vote, they deliver. As far as I know, the only time she took a high-profile vote and lost was on the first TARP, when it was supposed to be a bipartisan vote and Boehner failed to hold up his end. I'm not sure I buy your point about Republican and Democratic approaches. Maybe a decade ago, but not for the past couple of years. Pelosi by all accounts does not hesitate to use the iron fist when needed. Boehner's grip on his caucus was shaky when he was Minority Leader (see the aforementioned TARP vote) and remains so today. The same dynamic was at work last night, when Democrats stood united and Republicans fractured. I think it has more to do with personalities than parties. Bush's Presidency was the high point for Republicans of the iron-fist school; his administration was stocked with them and so was the Republican Congressional leadership. But a lot of those people were voted out, discredited, or convicted, and most of them are gone now. I don't think their successors have the same ability to wield the whip. Boehner certainly doesn't, nor does McConnell, and I doubt Cantor would do any better if he became Speaker--he can ride the Tea Party to power, but that doesn't mean he can control them.
- Dausuul
July 29, 2011 at 12:41pm
Absolutely, mice. Cheers to you.
- liberalref
July 29, 2011 at 12:58pm
Bravo, lib. And good day to you. Have a nice week-end. Enjoy the summer. Regards to mom and dad. Thank a platonist today, or an Enlightenment rationalist. Say hi to Sheena.
- roidubouloi
July 29, 2011 at 11:50pm