Last Note for Tonight: This is What I was Afraid of

I have been obsessed for some time with how democracies fail.  So far as I can tell, it happens when they become so polarized that rival factions lose respect for democratic norms and only want to prevail, through fair means or foul.  I became obsessed with this subject because I did not like the direction of our democracy and feared for its future.  For some time, I asked myself what I feared.  Traditionally, democracies fall one of four ways -- fascist subversion by elective leaders, military coup, civil war, or conquest by a foreign power made easier by internal division.  None of these seemed in the cards for us, so I kept asking myself what did I fear.

My conclusion was that I feared us becoming like California, with a government so dysfunctional as to be non-functional.  During the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, I believed we had finally hit it.  But now -- well, let us just say I no longer wonder what it is I fear.  It has happened.

Possible Scenarios

No news on the shutdown front today, but some analysis.  Negotiations have completely broken down, so the House and the Senate are playing volleyball.  Since only the House can originate revenue bills, it always serves.  So far, it has served a continuing resolution to keep government funded for two more months and repeals Obamacare, and the Democrats stripped it of the repeal (and for some reason shortened it by a month) and bounced it back.  Now, Republicans have served a similar resolution that delays Obamacare for a year.  Democrats are expected to spike it, and government shuts down.  No one knows what will follow.

Apparently Republicans expect Democrats in the Senate to agree to a one-year delay of Obamacare in return for continuing funding of the government for another two months.  Democrats say they will not accept any changes whatever.  Two Democrats in the House defected on the delay, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia is expected to defect in the Senate.  But it will not pass.  Republicans are vague on what they will do next, but hint at "fundamental reforms."  What they have in mind remains to be seen.  Presumably more Democrats will defect, but not enough to pass the bill in the Senate.  As I have said before, I certainly think they should reject anything that shuts down the exchanges or does not allow subsidies to buy insurance.  But I see no reason to reject minor changes like ending the medical implants tax, refusing subsidies to members of Congress, or even a conscience exception to the contraceptive mandate.  On the other hand, I don't think a two-month continuing resolution is sufficient in exchange.  If Democrats agree to a two month funding, the whole thing will just start over again, except the Boehner will presumably have been deposed as Speaker and replaced with someone truly crazy. If I were the Democratic leader and were offered relatively  minor changes in return for a two-month extension, I would reject it, but instead of fuming about never accepting changes, I would fume about only postponing things by two months and use whatever back channels I had to let it be known that I would pass it, in exchange for a longer extension.  How long?  Well, if humanly possible, for the fiscal year.  If not, at least well into next year, so that during the next showdown, Republicans will be pushing to strip people of their insurance instead of merely blocking it.

Then there is the matter of the debt ceiling.  That is truly scary.  As I have discussed, I really think it has to be resolved  before government reopens.  And it is dangerous.  The House has 435 members, so a 218 majority is required to pass legislation.  Republicans have a 234-201 majority.  But apparently 10-15 Republicans refuse to lift the debt ceiling under any circumstances, so the republicans only have a 224 to 219 majority.  Furthermore, apparently at least some Republicans will only agree to a debt ceiling with conditions attached so extreme as to be utterly unacceptable to either the Democrats or (probably) most Americans.  Boehner apparently intends to offer this as an opening gambit, recognizing that Democrats will bargain him down to less.  Accept that "less" will not garner a majority in the House.  After his first serve is spiked, Boehner will not be able to get the ball over the net.  And in the debt ceiling, both sides can serve.  Democrats in the Senate are preparing a clean debt ceiling increase to serve to the House.  Big money interests are getting nervous.  They will, I trust, give John Boehner a good talking to and convince him, in the end, that, for the good of his country, he has not choice but to bring a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor and pass it with mostly Democratic votes.  He will then be deposed as Speaker and replaced with a crazy.

So, assuming we find a way to continue the government for another two months while modifying but not ending Obamacare and make a clean debt ceiling increase, in two months we will be right back where we started, with two exceptions.  First, there will no longer be a risk of default, which will be good.  Second, the House will be led an someone truly crazy, ready to shut down government as long as it takes to get his way.  I can only hope that when Boehner decides to perform the sacrificial act, he agrees with me that such an outcome will not do either his country or his party any good and decides that he might as well be hanged for two sheep as for one.  And that he extends the continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year, subject to whatever conditions probing has revealed  the Democrats will take.  If he manages that, then the lunatics can run the asylum without doing much harm until a year from now.

Why a Shutdown Might be the Least Bad Option

Yesterday, I saw an article which I can no longer find saying that the Republicans are falling behind Boehner and agreeing to pass a mostly-clean funding bill (until November 15) and save their ammunition for the debt ceiling.  More ominously still, plenty of Senate Republicans who were obviously annoyed at Ted Cruz for pushing for a shutdown seemed to favor making the debt ceiling the point of confrontation.

Today the news is relatively reassuring.  And by relatively reassuring, of course, I mean disastrously bad, but with the possibility of things working out.  They now plan to take the clean continuing resolution bill the Senate sent them, extend it till December 15, and add a one-year delay of Obamacare and the repeal of the medical devices tax that helps to fund it.  It will go to the Senate on Monday, the day before the government shuts down, and the same routine will play out as last time.  The Senate will strip out both provisions and send it back.  Ted Cruz and Mike Lee will drag the process out for several days.  It will get back to the House around Thursday or Friday, but by then the government will have shut down.  The House know it, but think they will be able to blame the Democrats in the Senate for the shutdown.  The Senate also hopes to have a clean debt ceiling increase by Friday, but Lee and Cruz will no doubt find ways to delay it for a few days as well.  Meanwhile, about when the Senate clean CR reaches the House, the House will be introducing its debt ceiling bill.  Of course, by then the government will have been shut down for several days, to remain shut down until the sides reach some sort of agreement.

Why do I consider this (relatively) good news?  For several reasons.

First of all, an actual shutdown will ramp up pressure on Congress to find some way to end it.

Second, it ramps down the danger of a default.  Consider, we only have tax revenues to fund about two-thirds of all spending and are borrowing the rest.  A debt ceiling will cut off the funding and force an overnight cut in federal spending by one-third.  Well, a shutdown cuts government spending by a third anyhow, and so will put off the day of reckoning until funding returns.  This will buy time for the negotiations. Of course, once we start funding the government again, there will be an immediate spurt of spending that will bring back the day of reckoning.  In fact, if the shutdown continues until October 17, then resuming funding will mean default.

Which leads to the third conclusion, that the longer the shutdown continues, the more necessary it will be to include raising the debt ceiling as part of any funding deal.  Otherwise, Congress will pass some sort of a funding bill and we will promptly breach the debt ceiling and default will be upon us.  Tea Party members will no doubt be delighted that (1) government spending is being cut and (2) the public asked for government to resume and I bet they're sorry now.  This is unlikely to be acceptable to anyone else, including a significant portion of the Republican House.

And fourth and finally, if debt ceiling discussions start during a shutdown, whether they are linked to funding discussions or not, they are almost certain to be conflated in the public eye.  Republicans have apparently decided to make their biggest fight over the debt ceiling, rather than funding, because the polls show the public clearly opposed to a shutdown, but generally supports the idea the raising the debt ceiling should be linked to cutting spending.  Well, if the government shuts down and the Republicans start issuing a bunch of ransom demands, especially if those demands include something really unpopular like cutting Medicare or Social Security, they are going to look a lot like demands for reopening the government.  I do not think it will do Republicans any good to explain that, no, these aren't conditions for reopening government, only for raising the debt ceiling.  No one will care about the distinction, they will just want government opened again. Worse still, from a Republican perspective, their majority is narrow enough that if all Democrats vote against their ransom demand, it will take only 16 defectors to sink the bill and some Republicans, estimated at 10-15, have vowed to vote against any bill raising the debt ceiling, no matter what.

I do not see any other way out. I have long believed that sooner or later, John Boehner would have to take the kamikaze option and bring some sort of continuing resolution and/or debt ceiling increase to the floor and allow it to pass with mostly Democratic votes and a few Republican defectors, and then be deposed as Speaker and replaced with some Tea Party crazy.  The logic of a shutdown with a debt ceiling looming will more or less force them to be done together.  We will see.

PS:  Bad news in the follow up.  The Republicans' continuing resolution with a one-year delay passed 231-192.  That means Democratic unity is fraying, while Republicans are holding.  Joe Manchin has already said he will defect in the Senate.  I have no objection to tinkering around the edges, like repealing the medical devices tax or denying subsidies to federal employees.  I would even grit my teeth and settle for a conscience exemption from the contraceptive mandate if Republicans will stop trying to kill the program.  But a one year delay will simply lead to another one year delay and mean killing the program without admitting it.

More on the Republican Ransom Note

Obviously we won't know all the details of Republican demands on the debt ceiling until the bill is formally introduced.  That is expected to happen around Friday.  But I don't see how they can come up with one that does all they want, let alone entitlement reform, in one week or less.

The initial ransom note seems to acknowledge as much, at least on tax reform, where it simply says "Tax reform instructions" (emphasis mine) and says that it should be similar to the Ryan Plan and give fast track authority.  So presumably it will mandate setting up some sort of committee to come up with a plan and giving the plan fast track, i.e., it must be voted up or down without changes.  Of course, if it gets voted down, the whole thing achieves nothing.  Some parts of the list no doubt can be achieved simply by a single sentence saying that a certain section of the U.S. Code is repealed.  And some liked "included pretty much every jobs bill we have passed this year and last Congress" can be done quickly, simply by appending the text of the bill.  But what about others?  "Regulatory reform."  "Regulatory process reform."  "Consent decree reform."  "Tort reform."  Can a whole bill doing all these things in any meaningful way, let alone an entitlement reform bill, be drawn up in less than a week?  Or are these also just symbolic statements in favor of these provisions, calls for a committee to come up with a plan to send to the House floor?  And if so, why couldn't the house just draw up these things and send them to the floor on its own?  No doubt because drawing them up would take a lot of time and work, and they would quite likely fail, if not in the House, then in the Senate.  But how would passing a vague resolution in favor of these things change any of those problems?  And as for entitlement reform, the thought that you could draw up such a bill by Friday, or even by October 17 is sheer madness.  And if by some miracle a meaningful proposal does come to the floor, suddenly any Representative who votes for it will have less to fear from a Tea Party primary challenge from the right than a Democratic general election challenge from the left.

One thing I will say, though, is that these proposals make a mockery of any procedural objections Republicans once raised to Obamacare.  That major changes should not be pressed by slender majorities? Well, this is not just one major change, but many, and it is pressed, not by a party with not-so-slender majorities in both houses and the President, but by a one with a slender and shrunken majority in one house, a minority in the other, and a President it hates with a passion.  That it was drawn up in secret?  It was a whole lot more open that the process to draw up the present bill that no one has seen.  That it was passed too hastily?  Try one year, versus a couple of weeks.  That it was hundreds of pages.  I have no idea what length the debt ceiling bill will be, but any of its proposed "reforms" should take up plenty of paper and ink. That it was forced over?  Don't even get me started.

I guess we will learn more details in the near future.

Department of Huh??? Republican Edition

Republicans have presented their list of demands for raising the debt ceiling only to be greeted by complaints from hard liners that it doesn't go far enough.  They want entitlement reform attached as well. Their basic justification for tying their demands to the debt ceiling instead of government funding is that, while the public clearly opposes shutting down the government, it generally agrees that raising the debt ceiling should be tied to cuts in "spending."

There are a couple of problems here.  One is that many of the Republican demands are not about spending at all.  Another is that, although the public hates "government spending," it generally opposes specific cuts. So what would entitlement reform mean?  Well, I suppose to the extent that it means purely spending cuts on the poor, the public might get behind that.  If, on the contrary, it means cuts to Social Security or Medicare -- well, I suppose we should applaud the Tea Party crowd for its principled support for unpopular measures, but the Republican leadership must realize that the measures will be extremely unpopular.

I think I probably misread what happened on the last debt ceiling showdown.  No, not the one in the summer of 2011 that everyone remembers.  The one at the beginning of this year that most people have forgotten because the Republicans caved without a big showdown.  They explained that they had used up a lot of showdown energy over the "fiscal cliff" tax increases and wanted to save it for the sequester fight.  But the main reason they backed down was that the public clearly supported Obama (and also that they were to some extent in the post-electoral honeymoon).  At the time, I thought that they had backed down in large part because after the last debt ceiling showdown, the people had come to understand just how dangerous a breach was and recognized that the Republicans were threatening to blow up the economy.  I begin to think now that the real problem was simply that the Republican demands were extremely unpopular.

This time around, the Republican leadership has tried to get around that problem by presenting an outrageous list of demands, but leaving out the most unpopular stuff.  Yes, the list is outrageous, and basically a demand to implement the Republican platform that the voters rejected a year ago, but what is there in it that Obama could truly hold up to stoke public outrage?  Means testing for Medicare, maybe?  But is the Tea Party crowd insist on adding cuts to Medicare, let alone Social Security, Democrats in general and Obama in particular can simply hold it up as an extortionist demand Republicans are making for not blowing up the economy, and public opinion will turn against Republicans, fast.

Department of Huh??? Democratic Edition

Let me get this straight.  The Democrats in the Senate stripped the defund Obamacare language out of the bill to keep the government open until December 15, and then shortened the time to November 15??  Why on earth would they do that?  Are they not allowed to increase the funds appropriated, so they had to shorten the time to continue funding for Obamacare?  Was it a concession to get the Republicans to vote to end debate (which a majority of the Republican caucus did)?  The article doesn't say.  What on earth is going on?

It is obvious that as soon as the continuing resolution runs out, we will just have to go through the whole routine again, except that the current leadership would quite probably be replaced by the lunatic fringe.  Wouldn't the Democrats want to postpone that date as long as possible. After all, December 15 will be a mere 17 days before people actually start getting insurance on the exchanges.  A shutdown over killing Obamacare on December 15 will last only 17 days before a demand to kill Obamacare become a demand to strip people of their health insurance, which will be most awkward to sustain.  A shutdown to kill Obamacare starting on November 15 will drag on a month longer before it actually means stripping people of their insurance.

Why did the Democrats do it?

Why is Our Elite so Stupid?

James E. Loewen's 1995 book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me addresses public opinion on the Vietnam War on pages 303-305.  By 1971, public opinion had overwhelmingly turned against the war, with 73% of the population favoring withdrawal.  Writing from a perspective over 20 years later, when the general consensus was that the war was a mistake, Loewen asked his audiences to breakdown support for withdrawal by education levels.  The great majority of audiences assume that higher education correlated with opposition to the war.  But in fact, the correlation was the other way.  Higher education correlated with support for the war.  Lower education correlated with opposition.  Loewen reports that his audiences were invariably surprised, that even many professional political scientists are often surprised.

Somehow, though, I doubt that people would be so surprised these days.  My guess is, a lot of people would look at our elite's pig-headedness about the Iraq War and guess that they were equally dense about Vietnam.

Speaking for myself, I am not old enough to remember the Vietnam War in any meaningful sense.  But I do remember the Vietnam Syndrome that followed the war.  Public opinion became deeply skeptical about intervening overseas.  Every time an intervention was proposed, people would debate whether it would be "another Vietnam."  News columnists argued back and forth, some saying we should learn the lessons of Vietnam, and others saying we had to get over the Vietnam syndrome.  I myself,  not being old enough to remember the war, or to understand what a live and active memory it was for other people, thought the whole thing was getting tiresome.  Over time, military interventions, all low cost to us, became increasingly common, and each time commentators would ask whether this one had finally cured the Vietnam Syndrome.

Well, we have finally found the cure for the Vietnam Syndrome.  You just replace it with the Iraq Syndrome, and no one talks about Vietnam anymore.  Instead of reassurances that our latest intervention will not be "another Vietnam," we are assured it will not be "another Iraq."  And this time, remembering the war, I understand.

Elite opinion and public opinion both made a mistake in supporting the Iraq War (although to what extent public opinion was driven by elite opinion is a different matter).  Both eventually recognized their mistake, although elite opinion was remarkably tardy at it.  But here is the difference.  The general public has actually learned something from our experience.  Elite opinion stubbornly resists.  Just because we are 0 for 3 in transforming the Middle East by armed force is no reason not to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.  Mind you, I am not so naive as to expect this transformation to be permanent.  The public unlearned the lessons of Vietnam; eventually it will unlearn the lessons of Iraq as well.

In trying to understand why people with less education were more likely to oppose the Vietnam War, Loewen rejects the most obvious explanation -- that they bore the costs of serving.  He then goes on to elaborate psychological explanations of why the more educated supported the war and never mentions that the most obvious one is the reverse -- because they bore no costs of the war, they were free to treat it as an abstract game rather than something played out in flesh and blood.  Can there be any doubt our elite is doing just that in its current attitudes toward starting yet another war?

Our elite's reaction to the whole episode reminds me of nothing so much as an episode from Calvin and Hobbes.  Calvin makes a snow goon, then more and more until the yard is being overrun with them.  In desperation, not knowing what do do, he goes out at night and starts spraying them with a garden hose, cause slippery ice to form all over the porch.  At this point, his father intervenes and shuts the whole thing down.  Looking back on it, Calvin and Hobbes have this exchange:

Calvin:    "Well, Hobbes, I guess there's a moral to all this."
Hobbes: "What's that?"
Calvin:    "Snow goons are bad news."
Hobbes: "That lesson certainly ought to be inapplicable elsewhere in life."
Calvin:    "I like maxims that don't encourage behavior modification."

Yeah, basically.