JONATHAN COHN OCTOBER 7, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
I hate to disagree with Jonathan Cohn, but I think he used the wrong hashtag on his post about silver linings for liberals from a GOP landslide. Not #slatepitches. What he was looking for is #wishfulthinking. Or perhaps #betterdelusionsthancoldreality. I’m afraid that none of his three points really holds up. I’ll take them one by one:
1. It would flush Republicans out into the open, by forcing them to compose and defend detailed legislation.
It’s true that Republicans would have to write and vote for appropriations bills, and that would probably have to run them into some difficulties, given that some of their candidates will resist voting for any spending levels that Barack Obama is willing to sign. Beyond that, however...there’s no reason that Republicans would be “forced” to do much of anything. Yes, if Republicans pass their agenda of tax cuts and superficial spending cuts, the deficit would go through the roof. So? They’ll gladly compose and defend the tax cuts, and they’ll still claim that they’re all for cutting deficits, and Fox News (and conservative voters) will blame it all on Obama.
Or, take health care. Liberals have pointed out that the GOP platform of repealing the individual mandate while (sort of) keeping ACA protections on such things as pre-existing conditions would be a policy hash if implemented. Again: So? From a conservative point of view, turning the ACA into a policy hash is a feature, not a bug.
2. It would raise the profile of the party’s legislative leadership, particularly would-be Speaker John Boehner and would-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Here, I just disagree with Cohn’s political analysis. Yes, McConnell and Boehner are hacks. But I think both of them are pretty good politicians who have a much better understanding of their own limitations than Newt Gingrich did. Newt, helped by his success in taking credit for the surprise takeover of Congress in the 1994 landslide, was able to become a highly visible symbol of his party. Yet that’s hardly inevitable; in 2011 there will be plenty of Republican presidential candidates running around to grab the spotlight, and I’d expect McConnell and Boehner to readily cede it to them and to more telegenic Members of their conferences. (And, by the way, in Boehner vs. Gingrich for popularity, my money is on Boehner: Cohn says that Newt “gives a good speech and is sharp on television,” but he also was intemperate and didn’t know how to stick to talking points).
That leaves
3. It would unite the Democratic caucus around a more coherent set of views and policies.
I don’t think Cohn’s heart is even in this one; there’s a lot of “could” and “might” in this section. And rightly so; any argument that relies on Democratic unity is going to be a tough one to believe. There’s a reason we all invoke Will Rogers so often. As I think Cohn realizes, the possibility of cooperation is just as likely to yield to a reality of liberals and moderates, the Hill and the White House, Washington and the grassroots, all blaming each other for the GOP landslide.
I suppose I should try to find some good news for Democrats. It certainly is possible that Republicans will overplay their hand, making Cohn’s points a lot more relevant. And if the GOP draws the wrong lessons chooses to nominate Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, or Mike Pence for president because 2010 “proves” that purism beats pragmatism at the ballot box, then they’ll make Barack Obama’s life a lot easier. But of course either of those things could happen even without GOP control of one or both Houses of Congress. No, really, there’s no escaping it: a GOP landslide would be just plain bad news for liberals. This one doesn’t really have a silver lining.
11 comments
The real silver lining IS that "a GOP landslide would be just plain bad news for liberals", seeing as how self-described liberals are down to 23% of the American electorate, and should be the biggest proponents for representative democracy, assuming that "liberal" still means open-minded and tolerant.
- K2K
October 7, 2010 at 1:08pm
Hey, K2K, how's the Paladino campaign going these days?
- wildboy
October 7, 2010 at 2:45pm
"Yes, if Republicans pass their agenda of tax cuts and superficial spending cuts, the deficit would go through the roof. So? They’ll gladly compose and defend the tax cuts, and they’ll still claim that they’re all for cutting deficits, and Fox News (and conservative voters) will blame it all on Obama. " EXACTLY! They'll also talk about how much worse off the economy would be if they hadn't passed tax cuts, and start looking for more tax cuts to enact.
- Attrill
October 7, 2010 at 3:42pm
The problem is: keeping bthe current set of Dems in ofiice that have proven to be timid and politically inept is also bad news.
- drofnats1
October 7, 2010 at 4:01pm
I think the Republicans are worse news.
- Sophia
October 8, 2010 at 1:38am
Something big to think about too is that if the economy is bad enough, BRISTOL Palin could get elected! Obama could lose in 2012, the way the Fed is acting, and with Republicans able to stop anything with their unprecedented use of the filibuster, even against Sarah Palin. Add a Republican president to a Republican congress, with today's astonishing Republican party, and who knows what could happen. It's like we've seen in history, extremely bad economic conditions can bring extremely harmful political movements to power that you would have never though possible.
- RHSerlin
October 8, 2010 at 5:33am
- I'm sticking with my reply to Mr. Cohn, win or lose, the GOP's show in Congress won't compare to their version of Primary Inc. The fuse is lit and this election won't slow the countdown. And that process can't be a dynamic for anything but less unity in the GOP until the middle of 2012. The division among Republicans will dominate before the next session begins. Most troubling for leadership is the new members who are beholding to those who elected them. Remaining incumbents (Hatch, Lugar, Mainies) will be invisible for awhile because they're next to get primaried. The activists won't go quietly and a presidential race is a much better platform for them to widen their front. Why muck with Washington business when they can jockey the big prize, (how long did Hillary and Barack stay interested in DC during '07-'08)? This Congress will be a sideshow because the actors who will run in '12 will be too entertaining to ignore.
- michaelg
October 8, 2010 at 9:23am
In Ontario, in 1990, we collectively decided - out of pique and also because no one really knew which way his or her neighbour was going to vote - to "send a message" to the governing Liberal Party, which everyone thought was too arrogant and spendthrift. No one quite expected the debacle that followed, in both political and policy terms. The collective "message" was punishing - for the Liberals and for the voters who woke up and say, "Um, we did not quite mean this to happen ...." The Liberal seat count went from 90 (out of 120) to 30; the New Democratic Party (social democrats) were swept into power for the first time - in a province that was governed by the Conservative Party for an unbroken 42 years, until 1985. In the middle of a recession. Many people thought that on the bright side, government would make social democrats responsible; that they would be flushed out, that their rhetoric and idiotic policy presriptions would somehow be tamed by the mandarins in the relative competence provincial government ... Well, we were making virtue out of a calamity brought about in a fit of absent-mindedness about democratic responsibility. There was, thankfully, no malfeasance or corruption; just incompetence and political ineptness, and economic mismanagement ... the unions overreached, special social interests ran the government to the point that a social worker with no legal background was named attorney general, the ministers were a bunch of yahoos ... in 1995, at very end of their mandate, the suburbs and the ex-urbs and the rural areas revolted; the whole lot were thrown out; a new breed of Gingrich Conservatives came for a new round of mismanagement from the right. The province - Canada's largest - and provincial politics have never really recovered. No. There is no silver lining in letting the insane take over the asylum; they will not learn responsibility, and the polity takes a long time to recover, if at all.
- icarusr
October 8, 2010 at 11:38am
- icarusr wrote, "There is no silver lining in letting the insane take over the asylum; they will not learn responsibility, and the polity takes a long time to recover, if at all." I don't think anyone on the left is proposing surrender as a strategy of success. But Democrats will need to seek different advantages even if they keep their majority status. And I will need to be convinced that the run up to '12 will not be an unwanted and messy episode for the GOP. There is a two year window when insanity in Washington and the fight for their nomination will provide the worst conditions for Republicans to agree, let alone lead.
- michaelg
October 8, 2010 at 12:13pm
Michael: "I don't think anyone on the left is proposing surrender as a strategy of success." No, but some seem to skirt pretty close. See drofnats1: "The problem is: keeping bthe current set of Dems in ofiice that have proven to be timid and politically inept is also bad news." I was responding mostly, though, to Cohn's analysis.
- icarusr
October 8, 2010 at 12:31pm
I think an additional rebuttal to #1 is that since when have the Republicans detailed anything besides the crimes and sins (real or imagined) of the Kenyan in Chief? They continue to hoodwink and bamboozle the electorate exactly the way they do it now, and Dems will be too busy wetting themselves by whatever boogey man comes around.
drofnats: I think Sophia has ur number, but if you think we're better off with "cut taxes" and "eliminate the mandate" and "No to whatever Obama says" (not to mention all the plutocracy) go for it. Who knows, maybe Obama really does have a magic wand and we just need to let Republicans destroy the country until he finally gives in and whips it out? Because, as you know, an individual mandate and subsidization is just as bad as what we have now compared to the glories of a single payor system. And who needs low interest student loans, right? College should be free for any citizen who wants to attend; these low interest student loans are almost worse than taking out third mortgages.
- GSpinks
October 9, 2010 at 7:35pm