This is the premise of Greg: he argues that while repulsive and terrible for the country are nevertheless effective. Indeed what we find awful is for them a feature not a bug.
"Strangely enough though, I think the GOP strategy has worked beautifully."
"If you talk to most Americans they think our national debt and govt spending are out of control. They mostly have no clue about the debt ceiling other than there needs to be one. "How can you not put a limit on our national debt!!"
"The GOP is getting everything they want really. A sluggish economy, a president whos popularity is not high, nor do most people think he is the man for the job....... even though they cant agree about what exactly needs to be done."
"They all want more jobs, but less spending. More saving AND more investment spending (which of course is possible but not in the direction most people think ...... we must spend first to have something to save)."
"Monetarists are all through the Fed reserve and econ departments giving advice AND most democrats agree with our debt and deficits being a problem. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323846504579073083671216784.html?mod=trending_now_2
"This is in large part due to procedural issues-in many ways the government was structured to be ineffective and to provide minority rule-in many ways if you go back to when the Constitution was being drafted-it was meant to enable the Old Slaveholding South to dominate which it did for the first 60 years despite being in the minority."
"If we had the government that Alexander Hamilton or even in a lot of ways James Madison, we wouldn't have such a dysfunctional mess now. We have the filibuster which means that you have to have a Super Majority in the Senate to get anything done and then you have the House which should actually be Democratic but for gerrymandering. "
Besides the filibuster and the gerrymander, another big check on democracy is awarding each state exactly 2 Senators regardless of its population.
"Strangely enough though, I think the GOP strategy has worked beautifully."
"If you talk to most Americans they think our national debt and govt spending are out of control. They mostly have no clue about the debt ceiling other than there needs to be one. "How can you not put a limit on our national debt!!"
"The GOP is getting everything they want really. A sluggish economy, a president whos popularity is not high, nor do most people think he is the man for the job....... even though they cant agree about what exactly needs to be done."
"They all want more jobs, but less spending. More saving AND more investment spending (which of course is possible but not in the direction most people think ...... we must spend first to have something to save)."
"Monetarists are all through the Fed reserve and econ departments giving advice AND most democrats agree with our debt and deficits being a problem. "
"I just cant see any downside to the GOPs strategy ..... other than I hate it, but one of the hallmarks of the modern conservative is they will even do stupid things like use way more energy than necessary, or pollute somewhere if they think it pisses a liberal off. In fact pissing liberals off is the raison d'etre of most modern conservatives. Childish I know but sadly true."
I don't agree with Greg. Or not entirely. I think it's not black and while. Sure there is some upside in what they're doing. The biggest part is that it leaves the government dysfunctional. Again, feature not a bug. In addition, it is true that too many Americans buy into a lot of the GOP talking points-they 'hate Obamacare' and when they hear the phrase 'debt ceiling' they focus on 'debt' and declare 'Spending needs to be brought under control.' After all, they have to keep their family's finances under control.
Still, to say that there is some level of upside doesn't mean that there's no downside to their strategy. Is there no risk? The WSJ and Karl Rove think so. Both understand entirely that just because a majority of people who answer poll questions say they hate Obamacare-thanks in no small part to how the question is phrased anyway-doesn't mean that the GOP can shutdown the government and use this spectre as a ransom note to defunding Obamacare-even if most people nominally believe it's a bad law-as they have done for 4 years since it was passed. In any case, the exchanges open in about 10 days. Attitudes will start to change just as they did for Social Security and Medicare.
The trouble for the GOP is always the same. Even if Americans buy into some of their talking points on why Obama is bad or the Democrats are bad, they always still think the GOP is really worse. I think the GOP's friends at the WSJ editorial page nail it here.
"If this works it would be the first time. The evidence going back to the Newt Gingrich Congress is that no party can govern from the House, and the Republican Party can't abide the outcry when flights are delayed, national parks close and direct deposits for military spouses stop. Sooner or later the GOP breaks."
"This all-or-nothing posture also usually results in worse policy. The most recent example was the failure of Mr. Boehner's fiscal cliff "Plan B" in December 2012, which was the best the GOP could do because Mr. Obama had the whip hand of automatic tax increases. The fallback deal that was sealed in the Senate raised taxes by more and is now complicating the prospects for tax reform."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323846504579073083671216784.html?mod=trending_now_2
Exactly. If you believe that the main goal of politics is to get elected then the GOP strategy has not been so effective. It sure wasn't effective for Newt Gingrich in the 90s. It sure wasn't in 2012. Starting with 2006, they've been pummeled in 3 of 4 elections. Starting with Clinton's win in 1992, they've won the popular vote only once in 5 elections-2004. All they have are some strong off year elections-1994, 2002, 2010, when voter turnout is low.
In many ways My way or the highway has led to the worst outcomes for them. If they had compromised in 2011 and accept the offer Democrats like Nancy Pelosi were making then for ending the Bush tax cuts only on incomes starting at $1 million they would have gotten a much better deal than what they ultimately got in 2012.
Even when the public agrees with them-or mostly thinks it agrees-it still is repulsed more by the tactics that Republicans use than the supposed sins of the Democrats. They may hate something called Obamacare but they hate GOP obstruction more and really hate when the GOP tries to use threats of a government shutdown to get their way on Obamacare.
Yes they don't like something called the debt ceiling. Yet, they didn't in 2011 either and still it was the GOP that took the biggest political hit even if you might argue that since Americans ostensibly don't even think the DC should be raised then they would support GOP brinksmanship.
They disapproved of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky .but much more disapproved of the GOP using it as a pretext to overturn two elections. In Kentucky Obama is the most unpopular person on the planet-except for Mitch McConnell.
Overall then their strategy is terrible-for their own interests. I don't think they'll learn. They will ultimately learn the hard way-by really destroying themselves by convincing most Americans that the only hope is to have a Super Majority of Democrats in all 3 Houses of Washington.
In my answer to Greg in the comments section, I also argued that a big part of the current very frustrating gridlock is procedural. I will paste my comments here.
"In truth the glass is half full and half empty. What's really a problem is how the minority in this country-in the red states-are able to again and again frustrate the will of the majority. "
"This is in large part due to procedural issues-in many ways the government was structured to be ineffective and to provide minority rule-in many ways if you go back to when the Constitution was being drafted-it was meant to enable the Old Slaveholding South to dominate which it did for the first 60 years despite being in the minority."
"If we had the government that Alexander Hamilton or even in a lot of ways James Madison, we wouldn't have such a dysfunctional mess now. We have the filibuster which means that you have to have a Super Majority in the Senate to get anything done and then you have the House which should actually be Democratic but for gerrymandering. "
I do think we'll eventually deal with this problem. The country finally ended minority rule in the first half of the 19th century-albeit it took the Civil War.
The same thing in the 1960s were Segregation was finally defeated. Compared to what it took to defeat minority rule then, civil war in the 1860s, major social upheaval in the 1960s- it will be a lot more painless this time though it's really frustrating right now.
P.S. It's true that a lot of the problem in the nation's history has been the South's determination to have an influence over the country well in excess of it's proportion. Not that today's Red Sate-Blue State divide is entirely attibutable to the South as there are Red States in the West and Midwest. However largely it's still about the South.
P.S. It's true that a lot of the problem in the nation's history has been the South's determination to have an influence over the country well in excess of it's proportion. Not that today's Red Sate-Blue State divide is entirely attibutable to the South as there are Red States in the West and Midwest. However largely it's still about the South.
Besides the filibuster and the gerrymander, another big check on democracy is awarding each state exactly 2 Senators regardless of its population.
Re reading my comment I realize my error. I didnt mean there was no downside period to their strategy just that no downside to THEM.
ReplyDeleteI dont think these "terrorists" (yes they ARE terrorists) in the GOP are operating under ANY traditional rules. If they were we wouldnt have what we have. I dont think they care about getting reelected, they just need to prove they are true believers and even if they lose an election somewhere, there can always be one reelected somewhere else. When these guys get voted out by "the system" they might actually make MORE money and get MORE of a voice in some think tank or other private outlet that will be getting more voice in the future in our era of privatizing everything. This crew of GOPers that Rove is now lamenting is a product of the tight ties with the religious zealots. These zealots really believe everything they are spewing.
So all it takes is a few true believers to gum things up. These guys could lose 25 -30 seats in the next election (not saying they will or even that its possible) and still have the same impact on our national course.
Combine God, guns and Grants (Ulysses on the 50$ bill) and you get a powerful combo. Not something that will last for many more decades likely but one that will ruin a lot of lives while its operating. It already has.
These guys are going down swingin' and its going to take while to knock them out.
Yes, I agree with you entirely here Greg. I do think these guys aren't motivated by the normal pragmatic politician's concerns. I always say that misguided obsessive belief is far more dangerous than simple cynicism. True Believers are the last thing you want in government.
ReplyDeleteI also do agree that if unfortunately may take 10 or 20 years to finally take them down.
We have to face it. These guys dont like the America we have had since the 1940s. They hate it in fact!
ReplyDeleteThey are even in denial about the fact that it was this America which gave them the lives they've had. They think everything they and their families have has been in spite of how American govt has managed the economy. Somehow none of their success is due to being part of America its just due to their individual excellence.
I think part of the trouble is this. America is both a much better society today and much worse. It was in many ways a Golden Age in the 50s and 60s.
ReplyDeleteThere was much more economic justice. The trouble is that their was much less social justice. What we've seen sicne then is much more social justice in recent years-blacks, women, now gay rights, but the economic circumstances for most people have declined-except for the Republicans and their rich friends.
So in trying to understand this many suspect-wrongly of course-that the trouble is more social justice for women, blacks or gays. These people are who ruined the American Dream.
Also, while 50 years ago our country was much less just-Segregation, women, gays and the generally repressive culture of McCarythyism-just the same there was a lot more social trust. This is because back then rightly or wrongly-most wrongly-people trusted the government, trusted the media, trusted business, trusted doctors, ministers, etc.
So in many ways society was lot less mistrustful and cynical and it was much more pleasant-you always hear the stories about how people used to leave their doors open, etc.
In any case, what all this leads to is conservatism. An unthinking and false belief that things used to be a lot better and if only they'd stop making rap videos and wearing baggy pants we'd have the Golden Age of a better economy and a more pleasant, trusting society to deal with.
Excellent comment Mike
DeleteThe "price" of this social justice the liberals wanted is economic dislocation. Its like there always has to be a lower class, now it can be anyone not just black people, women or gays. Its like they were saying " Oh you want these people to have good jobs too?!.... Okay, they can have YOURS!!"
What we have it seems is a view of the economy as fixed, one pie that someone owns a percentage of. To the conservatives their % of the pie must stay constant or they are being ripped off by the govt. If the pie gets bigger their share stays the same or its inflation. Everyone else must continue to divide up whats left of the pie. Progress is when the pie becomes more nutritious and each small slice provides more, but no matter what, the owners share of the pie stays constant. And when you own the pie and all that goes into it you can maintain these conditions. Much more of the pie needs to be un- ownable yet distributed amongst all who will abide by a social contract.
The lament I hear is that too many people want something for nothing. I dont agree with that at all. If you look at the numbers the number of people receiving something for nothing is pretty small I think. Part of the rub here though is that conservatives think that ANYONE wanting something for nothing is THE problem. They are willing to spend trillions to save millions, if it means keeping someone from getting something for nothing. They are over obsessed with preventing free riders in the society but no matter how we structure things, there will always be someone who finds a way to get away with less than their share of the input.
Rather than too many people wanting something for nothing, I think there arent enough ways for someone to do something meaningful and survive. The truth about our system is that we have to do a lot of make work to keep people busy. We have become so productive we can use 1/100th of the manpower we used 100 yrs ago to produce about 100x as much food. Our factories are capable of producing more crap than our consumers have money or desire to buy. We have had to invent whole industries like marketing and advertising to trick people into believing they need something to make their reds redder or their hair shinier. We talk derisively about makework but corporate America is filled with middle managers who just oversee real production and do very little themselves. I do not mean to demean these guys because it is better that they do this than have to be on the streets or fighting with the guys on the factory floor for the crumbs. I'm just saying that so much of what we hear people say is wrong seems to me to be a way a healthy, growing, caring society figures out what to do with everyone. I dont think we have a population problem, contrary to many, we have an imagination problem in figuring how to involve everyone and an empathy problem in agreeing that all can and should be involved. Unfortunately it seems the Peter principle is an inviolable law of nature because those who have risen to the top of our systems world wide are the least imaginative and the least empathetic.