JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 25, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The psychology of victory and defeat is a remarkable thing. A week ago, the Democrats were perceived to have an enormous political problem. Their agenda was stalled in Congress. There was a mass groundswell of public anger they had to contend with.
Suddenly those problems have been flipped on their head. Now Democrats don't have a problem because they can't pass anything, Republicans have a problem because they're obstructing everything. Whereas right-wing grassroots activism represented a public backlash against the Democrats, it's now seen as an extremist element that discredits the GOP. Political reporters are starting to construct a seamless narrative connecting the over-the-top rhetoric from GOP and conservative leaders, the unusual acts of obstructionism and legislative retribution (like canceling unrelated hearings as revenge for health care reform), and sporadic vandalism and threats of violence. For example, see Dana Milbank's column today.
The fundamental reality has not actually changed very much. It's just that the success of health care reform has made most people see the flip side of the exact same situation. Of course, a change in perception carries very real consequences. Bob Corker is now upbraiding his Republican colleagues for refusing to negotiate a bipartisan financial reform bill:
[Corker] also took an unusually public swipe at Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the banking committee, faulting him for failing to engage more seriously with the Democrats in the past. "We could have already had a bipartisan bill passed," Corker complained. "It would have been better, in fairness, had Senator Shelby been negotiating a bipartisan bill last September, October, November. I think we could have already had a bipartisan bill passed if that did occur. It didn't occur."
Instead, Corker said Republicans now confront Democratic officials who "are emboldened, the testosterone and other juices are flowing" after the enactment of the health-care bill.
Chris Dodd says Republicans are regretting their brick wall strategy:
Dodd (D-CT) told reporters this morning that "The health care thing kind of changed the atmospherics around here."
"I think, frankly, there are a number of Republicans who went along with the strategy of 'just say no' who were never really happy with it, but if it worked they would go along," Dodd said. "They saw it fail. And now they've had enough of it. and they really want to be involved in crafting things."
We should keep a couple things in mind here. Just as the emotion of the moment exaggerated Democrats' panic and fear of action, the emotion of the moment is casting the Republican strategy in the worst possible light. It's not exactly a parallel situation, because Republicans are far less responsive than Democrats to mainstream media narratives. Still, Republicans are going to consider the strategy of refusing to engage Democrats in a different light in the wake of passing health care reform than they would have if the Democrats had fallen a few votes shy in the House.
The implicit calculus in the Republican approach has always been a trade-off between politics and policy. By refusing to negotiate over health care, Republicans helped themselves politically by delaying the bill and making it partisan, which was McConnell's plan. The downside was that they forfeited a chance to alter the substance of the bill, a failure that will have long-term effects. Matthew Yglesias calls this approach "disastrous," but I think this overstates the case. The Republican strategy failed at influencing policy, but succeeded at maximizing their political success. If Republicans had engaged the process and Obama had signed a bipartisan health care bill in September, the bill would probably be very popular, Obama would be more popular, and the GOP would be in line to gain fewer seats in November than it will now. The downside of the Republican strategy was always there -- it's just that when Republicans were winning, nobody wanted to focus on it, and those of us who did were usually laughed at. Now everybody is focusing on the downside and ignoring the upside.
Finally, Democrats ought to learn the correct lesson, which is that reciprocity is generally the majority party's best approach. A strategy of partisan cohesion is best met with a counter-strategy of partisan cohesion. Demonstrating their willingness to hold together in the face of united opposition has softened the opposition and made bipartisanship possible. Which is to say, if Democrats had abandoned health care reform on the grounds that it lacked bipartisan support, then the prospects for bipartisan support in the future would have been dimmer than they are. If some Republicans are willing to negotiate on financial regulation, as they appear to be, Democrats ought to reciprocate.
9 comments
I agree with this, but one must have ready in the back pocket legislation of one's own that is ready to go the moment the bipartisan approach falters. You need two-tracks to make bipartisanship work -- you move forward vigorously on your own at the same time as you are negotiating so that the other side knows that it cannot gain advantage by playing rope-a-dope. You stay open to compromise, but you assume that in the end it won't happen. That way, you don't get caught as Obama did with the minority, for quite a long time, controlling the ball, the clock, and the agenda. And you don't negotiate with yourself. Anything you give has to be in exchange for a quid pro quo. Otherwise, you give nothing.
- roidubouloi
March 25, 2010 at 1:27pm
"If Republicans had engaged the process and Obama had signed a bipartisan health care bill in September, the bill would probably be very popular, Obama would be more popular, and the GOP would be in line to gain fewer seats in November than it will now." No, the Republicans could have had the Health care bill pass last August if they wanted to and one far more to their liking, and that would have given them over a year to harp on the economy and be as obstructionstic as they want on everything else (after all, they can say, they did work with Democrats on health care). And Democrats would long ago have been over their high at passing Health care and would have been wondering what next. The end result would have been the exact same as it will likely be now. The extreme overreaction of the Republicans has to scare a number of independents who will now notice that no, the sky has not fallen, no they did not come and kill Grandma. So that leaves it at two optons: A: Republicans had a bill more to their liking and they win 30 seats (because of the economy) B. Republicans have a bill they hate and ineffectively failed to stop, and they win 30 seats (with increase in the base offset by losses among independents and long term as it becomes popular have to explain why they were so wrong)
- blackton
March 25, 2010 at 1:41pm
TNR so needs to set up a pool for midterm predictions. I see blackie is sticking with his 30-seat prediction for Repubs, which would leave Dems with a solid 233-202 majority. Personally, I'm completely wimping out of my prediction of a 50-seat gain for the GOP. I used to think that a 220-215 GOP majority was a best-case scenario, a 230-205 GOP majority more likely. But I lack blackie's courage of convictions to stick with my prognostication in the face of healthcare passage. I will stand by my belief that Dems will hold the Senate, and by what will, by expectations raised by the media and by conservatives, appear to be an impressive margin. If Republicans narrowly win control of the House, but Dems hold more than 51 seats in the Senate, Obama will be hailed as the victor in the midterms and a political genius. Because everyone knows that presidents always get completely creamed in the midterms. But, man, if blackie is right and Dems hold the House, we'll be right back to stories about the death of the Republican Party.
- rhubarbs
March 25, 2010 at 2:36pm
I would like to feel encouraged by this post, but I don't see how a loss on this one vote will lead to a major change in the GOP's legislative strategy. Give them a few days to get over their disappointment, then they'll realize that the only thing that stopped them from completely obstructing health care reform was that they picked up their extra vote from Massachusetts too late in the process. If they are glass half-full types, they will say to themselves, "Gosh, we almost pulled it off. Now that we've got Scott Brown in here from the get-go, we can block anything!"
- Fishpeddler
March 25, 2010 at 2:43pm
Fishpeddler is correct. Dems got their rather mild, Nixonian insurance reform passed because they used reconciliation, requiring 51 votes --- because they had already passed the Senate bill with 60 votes. Now comes the hard part with the loss of a Senate supermajority and minimal party discipline. To pass most any other legislation of significance will require breaking the Senate filibuster --- that can be done at any time, given a political will and courage not yet demonstrated by Obama or the Senate Democrats. It is no less important today than yesterday that Progressive candidates be found and funded to run against the Specters, B. Lincolns, and (yes) Stupaks. And someone to challenge Obama from the Progressive or populist left. Huey Long did wonders for FDR whose political philosophy and instincts needed a fraction of the goosing of Obama's.
- drofnats1
March 25, 2010 at 3:12pm
It's also worth noting, however, that Scott Brown is not stupid and may well be aware that some folks in Mass. are waking up in the morning these days and regretting their vote. Or at least, he's thinking that if he wants a long, long career as a senator, he could do worse than explore how the moderate Republican tradition might be reinvented.
- ironyroad
March 25, 2010 at 4:14pm
That's right, the high won't last, but now is the perfect time to press ahead with financial reform legislation. Republicans withdrew all their amendments in committee in a fit of pique? Pass it out on a party-line vote and put it on the floor. Dare them to filibuster measures designed to protect Main Street from the excesses of Wall Street. Yes, they CAN filibuster anything, so the Senate needs to bring forward a series of bills that will make them pay a price for each filibuster. There are plenty of bills the House has passed that are sitting there, waiting. Bring up bills that will be popular and dare them to filibuster against measures the majority of the people like. And definitely follow roi's prescription. The momentum will fade away in time, but our side can set the agenda and hit them hard if they are not willing to cooperate. And who knows, maybe retreat will turn into rout (for a while) if they suffer a few more losses.
- JEFF FREY
March 25, 2010 at 4:17pm
considering that 51% of Massachusetts voters are not registered with any political party, mostly because we are sick of the machine politics and the nanny state, it appears that Scott Brown's election has rather energized Massachusetts. Am seeeing a LOT of new GMC trucks to boot. actually ironyroad, I think Scott Brown (and Bob Corker) may indeed be able to re-invent that moderate republican tradition that the majority of us yearn for although I do think it is not too late for some Democrats to remember the same. what puzzles me is how health care reform can be perceieved as any kind of legislative victory for the Democrats. the ugliest legislative victory, like winning Olympic Gold by one thousandths of a second only because half the competitors crashed and burned. a win, but nothing to get cocky about.
- K2K
March 25, 2010 at 11:30pm
I think Democrats do remember it, K2K -- it's the Repubs who seem to have forgotten it.
- ironyroad
March 26, 2010 at 5:37pm