TIMOTHY NOAH DECEMBER 18, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Steven Pearlstein, the Washington Post's Pulitzer-prizewinning business columnist, is having an off day. Ordinarily Pearlstein's columns are well-reasoned, deeply researched, and a pleasure to read. I would say this even if he hadn't recently invited, and paid, me to speak about income inequality to his class at George Mason. But today Pearlstein's column expresses harrumphing condemnation of partisan bickering on both sides as the root of all evil in Washington, dressed up with a little game theory:
"These days, Washington is stuck in a nasty Nash equilibrium. The two dominant parties—the anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-government wing of the Republican Party, and the raise-taxes-on-the-rich-but-don’t-touch-my-entitlement wing of the Democratic Party—have fought each other to stalemate. Every few weeks or so, some event or deadline comes along that appears to hold out the prospect that one side or the other might prevail and thereby break the deadlock. But, in the end, nothing really gets resolved, nobody wins and the stalemate continues."
This model does not fit what's been happening lately in Washington. Take the collapse of the super committee. The Democrats offered a deficit-reduction package consisting, in roughly equal measure, of budget cuts and tax increases. The Republicans rejected that. The Democrats then came back with a package in which budget cuts were more than twice revenue increases. The Republicans rejected that, too. Eventually the Republicans offered a package that contained lots of budget cuts and a smidgen of tax increases. The Democrats probably would have accepted it if the Republicans hadn't paired this with an insistence that the Bush tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire at the end of 2012, be extended, thereby turning their "tax increase" into a gigantic tax cut (and increasing rather than reducing the deficit).
The only way to break such a stalemate is for the Democrats to surrender. But the latest go-round over extending the payroll tax cut suggests that even Democratic surrender doesn't get you to yes. Let's review.
First the Senate voted down a Democratic plan that paid for extending the payroll tax cut by raising taxes on millionaires. Then the Senate voted on a Republican plan that paid for extending the payroll tax cut through various alternative means. The Senate voted that down, too, with a majority of Republicans and a majority of Republican leaders, including the Republican whip, rejecting the GOP's own compromise. Then the House passed a version that attached a provision requiring the president to abandon his plan to delay a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The president said he would veto any bill that included pipeline language. The Republican House speaker demanded a Senate vote on the House plan. The Republican Senate leader blocked such a vote. The Democratic Senate leader said there would be no vote to fund the government past the end of the week until the payroll tax cut matter was worked out in a bipartisan manner.
Then the Democratic Senate leader caved and allowed a vote to fund the government past the end of the week before he took up the payroll tax.
Then the president caved and accepted a bill passed by the Senate to extend the payroll-tax cut that was tied to a provision requiring him to make a quick decision on the pipeline. The bill only extended the payroll-tax cut until February, another setback for Democrats.
And now, according to the latest news, the House Republicans are preparing to reject this surrender by the Democrats because ... well, I'm not really sure what the reason is. But apparently it has a lot to do with feeling that the Senate Republicans are pushing them around. Or that their own Republican speaker is pushing them around. (Though he's now saying he doesn't like the Senate bill either.) Possibly it's because a sizable portion of the GOP has come to believe that any deal that Democrats will accept is inherently corrupt. Even a deal to cut taxes, which is one of only three things the Republicans know how to do. The other two are eliminating regulations and increasing the defense budget. Cutting taxes happens to be the most important part of the GOP trinity--so much so that many Republicans have taken a pledge never to raise taxes. But the anointed referee, Grover Norquist, has ruled that allowing the payroll tax cut extension to expire would not constitute favoring a tax increase (even though allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would).
Pearlstein believes the solution is to refuse to give political contributions to either side until Democrats and Republicans learn to cooperate. But as the foregoing demonstrates, even capitulation by Democrats does not achieve agreement. The problem isn't Democrat vs. Republican. It's Republican opposition to Democrats, to other Republicans, and ultimately to anything that runs the slightest risk of being labelled a "compromise." The public seems to understand this. A recent Pew poll shows that the public blames Republicans in Congress specifically for intransigence. Independents blame Republicans in Congress specifically for intransigence. Even Republicans blame Republicans in Congress specifically for intransigence.
What we need is a game-theory model that demonstrates how to get the Washington press corps and third-way goo-goos to accept what everybody but them seems to know. The Republican party is at war with Democrats, with reality, and ultimately with itself. It has gone insane. The only strategy I can think of is to watch the GOP self-destruct and hope the result benefits Democrats in November.
24 comments
Indeed, Timothy, and President Obama should make a high-profile speech very soon pretty much just laying it out as you laid it out above. It's complicated stuff made simple but not dumbed-down. Americans will get it -- do in fact get it.
- ironyroad
December 18, 2011 at 2:29pm
This is probably your best post so far, Timothy. Kudos! You cast blame totally correctly, you chronology is flawless in every detail, unwinding through time. I hereby confer upon Steven Pearlstein the Howard Schultz Award for even-handedness and total ignorance.
- liberalref
December 18, 2011 at 2:36pm
Excellent; meanwhile the GOP positions, of their leaders, not the fringe, are frightening and nonsensical. Gingrich is talking about arresting judges he doesn't like and Romney says cutting welfare won't hurt the poor, and of course we all know and love Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist. There is no room for "even-handedness and total ignorance," period. Is this what happened in Germany and other situations in which supposedly civilized people got completely out of control and fell into times of darkness?
- Sophia
December 18, 2011 at 4:07pm
In his novel "August 1014" Alexander Solzhenitsyn has a character who says repeatedly "The worse, the better." He wants the Russian government to fail. He is a revolutionary and wants a new government. Failure not an option. Failure is the goal. The GOP wants the present government to fail. They want a new government dedicated to the principle that all wealth is created equal and endowed by wealth creators with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life unregulated, liberty from taxes and the pursuit of more wealth.
- Vekert
December 18, 2011 at 5:27pm
To focus on the payroll tax vote, I'm willing to concede that Obama might well have withdrawn his veto threat and signed onto the two month compromise in anticipation that the House Repubs would shoot it down, thus giving himself the lattitude to claim that he's an adult who is willing to compromise to get things done all the while bashing the GOP intrasingents. If so, well played. But he has to follow through with the speech(es) ironyroad calls for. The Repubs are leading with the most fragile glass jaw in recent American politics, but to take advantage, Obama still needs to be willing to throw a punch.
- AaronW
December 18, 2011 at 5:40pm
All they need is about 20 House Republicans. Can the administration split the caucus? And if they can't, don't the House Republicans realize they are committing suicide? After all, the bill passed the Senate with 39 Republicans. Where can House Republicans hide if they don't let at least a few of their members vote for this?
- timteeter
December 18, 2011 at 6:06pm
The only solution I see is a Shellacking of the Republicans and then a lot of people talking about how the obstinacy of the Republicans did them in, because I think the shellacking of the Democrats seems to have caused this.
- Nusholtz
December 18, 2011 at 6:38pm
"The only strategy I can think of is to watch the GOP self-destruct and hope the result benefits Democrats in November." A coordinated effort by the WH and Democrats in Congress outlining what TN described so well would help. The public won't hear the truth from the DC press corps. Ever.
- tmmats
December 18, 2011 at 9:05pm
Tim N. Your last paragraph was genius in this piece. But, remember there are many centrists and most Americans recoil in horror to the notion that one party in a two party system is completely destructive not only here by internationally. I mean it would go against most people's notion of fairness.
- MikeB.
December 18, 2011 at 9:34pm
Moral hazard. You capitulate once, twice, three times, I've lost count, and you invite intransigence; to capitulate is moral hazard. This time over a short-term extension of a partial, I repeat partial, payroll tax cut extension, a very meager middle class benefit, and nothing compared to Obama's agreement to capitulate last year to the income tax cut extension for the wealthiest Americans. The obvious question: why capitulate to a two year extension of the income tax cut that mostly benefits the wealthy in return for only a one year payroll tax cut that mostly benefits the working class? Noah somehow sees a silver lining in this dark cloud. Have the Republicans over-reached, as Noah suggests in his last paragraph, for which they will be punished at the polls? If the election were this month, or next month, maybe. But the election is almost a year away! Any why punish Republicans, who were only calling out the Democrats for a mere crumb of a working class tax benefit anyway, one that puts social security at risk, when it's Republicans who wish to end all that wastefull government spending, force the government to live within its means, and "save" social security and Medicare. As I've said many times, last year was the year to debate the relative merits of an income tax cut and a payroll tax cut, not this year when Obama, as is being demonstrated, has no leverage and must go to the Republicans hat in hand. Moral hazard, indeed!
- rayward
December 19, 2011 at 7:31am
"The Republican party is at war with Democrats, with reality, and ultimately with itself. It has gone insane." Absolutely true, and with lots of evidence to support it. Obama MUST make this case, because the only way to break the Republican intransigence is to change the rules of the Senate which will take more Democrats elected to the Senate. And elect more Democrats to the House. Until this happens, the Republican Party has demonstrated decreasing ability to even listen to their OWN side of the electorate, not to mention what's good for America.
- AllanL5
December 19, 2011 at 11:14am
timteeter: "All they need is about 20 House Republicans." I don't think that's how it works. They need Boehner to bring it to a vote, and Boehner won't do it if only 20 House Republicans are willing to go along. And that's the real problem: we don't have Dems v. Republicans anymore. We have coalition politics, with Dems, traditional Republicans, and the "Tea Party" faction. Boehner has to satisfy his own coalition first even if it makes a subsequent deal with Democrats impossible. And that's the way it's going to be unless Democrats can make substantial headway in the next election.
- dsimon
December 19, 2011 at 11:59am
Earth to ds: Of course we have Republicans versus democrats. The parties are more divided ideologically than since forever. At lest every other day, I wonder where some TNR commenters are drawing their information from. Liberal Republicans are as extinct as the dodo bird is. The handful of remaining moderates in the party, like the two Maine women senators, are increasingly irrelevant. The contingent of moderate to conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs got slaughtered during the last election cycle. Half or so of them are now gone. Back in the 1960s, you would often have hefty numbers of Southern Democrats voting with the Republicans, and quite a number of liberal Republicans voting with the Democrats. No longer.
- liberalref
December 19, 2011 at 1:39pm
The Dems problem is constant compromising, led by BHO as the Compromiser-in-Chief. Of course Repubs are intransigent and keep moving the goal posts. It works. Every time. Until BHO is replaced, that won't change. Get used to it. BHO lost the political game over a year ago-- in fact, with his first compromise of an inadequate stimulus bill and maintaining the Senate filibuster. Neither of which had to occur.
- drofnats1
December 19, 2011 at 2:28pm
People, have you ever seen anything like dro? I certainly haven't. His mental template doesn't at all comport with the real world. He has a truculent and aggressive politics in his head that he "knows" would work. Just like North Korea worked as country, under the two now-mercifully-deceased Kims, that is. In the real world , the stimulus bill that passed just barely made it through. Presidential scholars note all the time that the bully pulpit is vastly overrated. Of course, ideologues have no use for scholarship whatsoever. To dro, a president is like the most powerful monarch ever. I have encountered many don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts people in my life, but I think that dro tops them all. Until very recently, I figured dro was maybe all of twenty-four. But something he wrote the other week indicated that he is probably older than I am. Amazing.
- liberalref
December 19, 2011 at 2:47pm
Or they could work, but unfortunately there's an element missing consistently from the equation: any realistic calculation of how ready the American electorate might be to vote for such a politics or its potential representatives. Given that that highest ever proportional vote for a declared socialist in a U.S. presidential election was for Eugene Debs in 1912, one hundred years ago next year, my own conclusion is, not especially ready (the electoral politics of the New Deal were indeed an important progressive moment but they were more complicated than people tend to believe). It is certainly the case that the labor influence in elections was very strong in some parts of the country, but it has declined consistently since the late seventies and wishing won't make it come back. A couple of weeks ago, when he seemed to be arguing a particularly otherworldly position, I asked him whether Russ Feingold losing his Senate seat in 2010 was proof that the Wisconsin electorate was just hungering for a solidly left-wing candidate to vote for. No response as yet.
- ironyroad
December 19, 2011 at 3:12pm
Exactly right, irony. And if I were a multimillionaire, I could have a huge mansion, too.
- liberalref
December 19, 2011 at 4:04pm
Wow, liberalref, you sure come off like a condescending sh**. Let's start with your ongoing review of Noah's job performance. He's a 53-year-old professional political commentator. He doesn't give a rat's ass whether "liberalref" thinks that this post is his best "so far." He's not a novice on probation out for your approval or otherwise subject to the review of self-important commenters who dole out "kudos" as though the territory, which belongs to him, is actually theirs. It's as though you're saying, "Hey, little Timmy, you sure are coming along! And that means a lot coming from me!" It doesn't, actually. Ditto when it comes to your evaluations of other comments. And what's the point of the insulting language? Earth to liberalref: "Earth to ____" is a stupid thing to say. Another tip: "His mental template doesn't comport at all with the world" is not clever.
- JakeH
December 19, 2011 at 6:25pm
Your cynicism knows no bounds. Timothy actually has responded to commenters out here quite a lot, including me. Jonathan Chait almost never responded to anyone. So maybe Mr, Noah cares more than you think. My praise of his work wasn't meant in a condescending way whatsoever. Only a fool would think so. I am a huge fan of his and I have read him since the early 1980s when he first came to The New Republic, when you were what, maybe two? So I am well aware that he is not new on the journalistic scene. I believe that it was Jim McFadden, an editor at National Review, the conservative publication, who wrote in the mid-to-later 1970s that National Review has some of the world's dumbest readers. Well, the same goes for TNR in the new century. Your comment is one of the most fatuous that I have encountered here. Now, given your level of intelligence, probably no writer would care what you say, so your projection is quite understandable. On the other hand, almost every author of books that I have read this year have emailed me in return, including a Nobel Prize winner in physics; he responded two minutes after I emailed him. This would not happen in your mental universe. In the real world, it most certainly did.
- liberalref
December 19, 2011 at 6:54pm
Yeah, well, you come off like a self-important jerk. Thought you'd like to know. You can take the advice or leave it, I don't really care. This place used to be fun -- you could really get a good conversation going. Now it's boring, in no small part because it's plastered with your unoriginal musings coupled with your condescending ratings of everyone along with the occasional extra-obnoxious comment, like your dicksh response to drofnats1 above.
- JakeH
December 19, 2011 at 7:41pm
liberalref: starting a post "Earth to..." is hardly a good way to change someone's mind. If you want to vent, fine. But if you want to really convince someone...just sayin'. There are some Republicans who want to behave at least a tad reasonably--just look at the recent Senate vote on this issue. But it may be because not all of them are up for reelection and don't fear a Tea Party challenge from the right. The dynamic in the House is obviously different and has many aspects of coalition politics rather than a two-party dichotomy. The Tea Party faction (the House Tea Party Caucus has 62 members) isn't formally even a majority of the Republican caucus, yet their influence is repeatedly out of proportion to their numbers. That more representatives of both parties used to cross party lines, or that the parties are now more ideologically divided, isn't really relevant to the argument. The argument is that there's an ideological faction within the House Republican caucus that is making agreement with even a compromising Democratic minority impossible, even when the compromise might otherwise have majority support.
- dsimon
December 19, 2011 at 9:49pm
JakeH, you said it. This forum indeed has lost its fizz. I'm not sure why exactly. The content of the articles and posts is as solid as ever, tho they maybe appear a little less frequently than when Jon Chait was around. As crazy as they generally were, maybe this place needed the Peretzniks just to fire people up. The first blow was the CanWest putch of 2007. They've since fixed it, but for crucial months there was a long delay before comments appeared after magazine articles like at the Times, and I think that drove a lot if people away. Back in the glory days of 2006 threads routinely ran to a hundred comments with multiple conversations running simultaneously. Since then it has still had its moments, but now interest has quite definitely waned. Of course, maybe TNR wants it that ways. A crew of one or two hundred semi-committed commenters paying more attention to their own debates than to published writing does not a viable business model make.
- AaronW
December 20, 2011 at 8:06am
Of course, I meant "putsch." Better correct myself before liberalref takes it upon himself.
- AaronW
December 20, 2011 at 8:10am
Well, it does seem that at least in this instance I was right on this issue. Boehner hasn't brought the Senate bill to a vote, presumably because enough Republicans would join Democrats to pass it. But Boehner has to satisfy his own caucus first, so he won't let the majority rule. It's not just Democrats versus Republicans; it's Democrats versus some Republicans versus some other Republicans. Since he can't hold his coalition together, he'll use his power to avoid the bill entirely.
- dsimon
December 20, 2011 at 3:37pm