Tea Party Today: Democrats in 1972?

Now that the shutdown and threat of default are over, I should be turning to Obamacare and its disastrous rollout and wondering if it is salvageable.  I do plan to get to that in the near future, but I would like to pause for a few thoughts on what is happening to the Republican Party.

A strong hint of it comes from the 2010 Senate election in Delaware, in which the Republicans threw away an easily winnable seat by nominating the certifiably crazy Christine O'Donnell over the moderate Mike Castle, of whom one observer said, "Mike Castle does not lose elections in Delaware."  The point is not simply that the Republicans threw away a winnable election by nominating a crazy candidate, but how their actions were perceived.  Because Castle had a distinguished political career in Delaware and was supported by most of the state's movers and shakers, O'Donnell's nomination was hailed as a victory for the grassroots over the Republican establishment.  Except, as a local observer noted, the Delaware Republican establishment is the grassroots.  The "establishment" includes "long-term GOP activists and loyal partisans who attend State conventions, show up to volunteer locally year after year, and know their state’s electorate and issues really well" and people "who knock on the doors and pass out the literature and pound the pavements.”  Much of O'Donnell's funding and manpower came from the Tea Party Express, based in California.

Something similar happened with Ted Cruz.  Though a Princeton and Harvard graduate with a longtime career in federal and state government and the backing of national conservative organizations, Cruz was able to portray himself as the outsider and insurgent against an "establishment" candidate because his opponent because his opponent got along with his fellow Texas politicians.

It reminds me of what I have heard about the Democrats in 1972.  I am personally too young to have first-hand understanding of the Democrats in 1972 and too old to study them as history, but this is my understanding.  Traditionally, the parties had chosen their Presidential candidates at nominating conventions. The nominating conventions were run by the party movers and shakers -- governors, mayors, party machine men, and political bosses.  Democratic activists scorned such people (justifiably) as corrupt and elitist and (less justifiably) as out of touch.  Proclaiming, "Power to the people!" they demanded an opening up of the nominating process, and they got it.  Except it turned out that most ordinary people had other things they wanted to do with their lives than nominating candidates, and that only hard core activists really wanted to put in the effort.  It further turned out that activists were considerably more hard-core in their ideology than ordinary people.  It further turned out that elected officials and party bosses, though often corrupt, got there by understanding their constituents and were often closer to ordinary voters than the activists.  "Power to the people" turned out simply to mean power to the activists and turn most people off.  The 1972 Democratic convention was such a freak show that it handed Richard Nixon -- easily our least charismatic and least personally likable President of all time -- a record landslide.  Democrats gradually changed their nominating rules to allow more establishment people and ensure that grownups were in charge.

So, is the same thing happening to Republicans now?  They do have the advantage of a larger and more entrenched activist base than the Democrats had in 1972.  And they seem solidly in power in the South, the Great Plains and (possibly) parts of the Mountain West.  But these regions are not the whole country.  They are not even the whole "flyover country."  And the Tea Party really does seem to be making the same mistake as activists on the left made back then -- mistaking themselves for the American people.

Post Script

I got a painful lesson today in how much counter cyclical is counter intuitive.  I had expressed my worries about the shutdown and debt ceiling to someone who never paid much attention to news and current events. Curious, he decided to look into it.  He came away just about ready to join the Tea Party, terrified of all the borrowing going on, and certain that we had to stop it, no matter what.  Sigh!

Doomsday Averted! (Or, I Truly Don't Understand Republicans)

Well, apparently we will not get to find out just how long after October 17 it would take for the US government to start missing payments.  Apparently Congress can act fast if it really wants to.  The Senate passed its bill at 7:56 p.m. and the House followed in short order.  Obama will sign either tonight or first thing tomorrow.  The vote was not even close, 81-18 in the Senate and 285-144 in the House, indicating at least 85 Republican votes in favor.

And given how calmly they seem to be accepting defeat, I can well and truly say that I don't understand Republicans at all. Ted Cruz made no attempt to block the bill.  John Boehner, after caving, got a standing ovation, and Republicans across the board vowed to stand by him.  Hard liners said that he did the best he could, and only succumbed to political reality when it became clear the moderates would not back him. What are we to make of that?  I don't know, but I can throw out a few speculations.

The whole thing was a show.  Republicans knew from the start that when a debt ceiling breach became a real danger, they would have to back down.  The whole shutdown and negotiations was just so much theater for the benefit of the base and/or the mainstream media.  This does not rule out future debt ceiling threats, but makes any future threats less credible.

We are in a short term post-crisis honeymoon.  After Obama won reelection in 2012, Republicans briefly made nice with him and promised to accept him as our legitimate President.  The phase did not last long.  Soon they simply doubled down on the crazy.  They may react to this defeat in the same way.  John Kenneth Galbraith, in his novel The Triumph says:

A political crisis has this in common with a sex orgy or a drunken bat.  Everyone enjoys it immensely, although they feel they shouldn't.  It so exhausts the participants that once it is over, an immediate repetition is unlikely.  But as time goes by and memory improves on past delights, the chances of a repeat grow.

(Taken from memory, may not be entirely accurate).  I have no idea whether this is true.  But every time there is a political crisis, I remember the quote and worry.

Republicans are attempting to mend a major fracture in their party.  The pro-Boehner love fest is part of the attempt.  We will see how it goes as time unfolds.

Republicans are putting on a facade of unity.  The knives will come out when people stop looking.  This one is actually closely related to the above.  The difference is that an attempt to repair the fracture may succeed; if this one is right, they have already given up.

They just had to do it once and get it out of their system.  If so, it is now well and truly out of their system and we can reasonably hope to avoid a repeat performance.

Republicans don't care about results, just taking maximalist stances.  This would tie in with their strong roots in Evangelical Christianity, which encourages members to focus on doing what is right (often defined as maximalism against evil) and leaving the results to God.  But then again, this does tend to come with the assumption that if you do right, God will reward you with good results.  And certainly many analyses of the Tea Party suggest that it grows largely out of frustration that Republicans have failed to bring about much in the way of results when the base elects them.  If so, then going home and telling the base, "Well, we did our best but it failed, let's move on," is unlikely to placate them.

The right wing of the Republicans are so out of touch that the somehow see this as a victory.  What can I say?

I guess over time we will know.

PS:  Obama has now signed the act into law.  I guess now we know how quickly it can be done.

Two Days (Maybe) and Counting

Following Congress has become really nerve racking.  The differences between the sides by now are so minimal that in a less highly charged atmosphere they could easily be resolved.  But ultimately, the Republicans are determined to get something in exchange for reopening the government and not defaulting and the Democrats are determined not to treat opening the government and raising the debt ceiling as any sort of concession requiring an quid pro quo.

The latest news is that the parties agree to keep the government open until January 15, extend the debt ceiling until February 7, and make some sort of minor change to Obamacare.  The only controversies are what minor change, and whether the Treasury may use "extraordinary measures" to extend the debt ceiling.
Senate attempt at mutual concessions on Obamacare has failed, and the House failed to extract slightly more, including a ban on extraordinary measures.  The Senate is expected to come out with a deal that allows extraordinary measure and makes only one change to Obamacare -- more income verification.

The question next question (assuming a deal is struck) is whether this will pass before the presumed doomsday.  The answer is almost certainly no.  Theoretically, one house could pass the bill tomorrow and one the next day and President Obama have it inscribed at emergency speed so he could sign it.  But no one expects that to happen.  That would require all Senators to give unanimous consent to passing the bill in one day, a measure that any one (cough, Cruz, cough) could block.  Apparently the best anyone can hope for is for Boehner to send a "message" to the Senate, which will prevent, ahem, anyone in the Senate from delaying the bill for more than 30 hours.  But even then, the Senate is expected to pass it no sooner than Saturday, and the House would have to act on Sunday.  Now, the best guess is that an actual default will not occur when the clock strikes midnight on October 18, but closer to October 22 (the following Tuesday).  The Tea Party crowd will no doubt claim vindication when raising the debt ceiling is delayed several days past doomsday and doom does not strike.  This will raise the likelihood of a future showdown and default.  Sigh!

Three Days (Maybe) and Counting

Okay, Congress.  This is it.  We're down the the wire now.  You need to come up with something, and you need to come up with it today.  Even if  you do come up with it today Ted Cruz will probably delay it until after the technical deadline and we will (theoretically) breach the debt ceiling.  In fact, doomsday has probably been postponed till the end of the month.  And I suspect that even if it hasn't, a short breach will be survivable, especially if the markets can see Congress working to end it.  The biggest danger may be to the credibility of the Treasury and others warning of doom, which will only make a future breach more likely.

So please, Congress.  This is it.  You've got to come up with something.

Four Days (Maybe) and Counting, Plus, What if We Do Breach the Debt Ceiling

So, in the latest news, Democrats may or may not reject a plan to extend current spending levels until March and instead press for a shorter deadline in hopes of getting more funding.  I think this is nuts.  Republicans see a one-way ratchet on spending -- it can only go down.  They now see agreeing to the spending levels in their proposed budget as capitulation on their part.  I am inclined to agree that this shows that Democrats should not start out by conceding Republican spending levels -- let the debate be whose levels, not what ransom you must pay to get Republican levels.  But it is a bit late now.  The longer you lock in Republican spending levels, the longer you can postpone the next budget crisis.  Meanwhile Paul Ryan has once again resurrected plans for using the budget battle to kill Obamacare and therefore does not want to continue funding to next year because the subsidies will kick in by then.  Sigh!

With a significant likelihood that will be pass the supposed deadline for a debt ceiling breach, I would like to speculate on what would happen.  First, there is, indeed, evidence that the shutdown has postponed the day of reckoning, quite probably to the end of the month.  I should register here my agreement with Kevin Drum. If shutdown has postponed the day of reckoning or the Treasury can prioritize payments, then statements to the contrary will seem like fear mongering and convince Republicans to be more willing to take crazy risks.

But, what would happen?  Well, so far markets seem worried about a short-term breach, but confident that it will not last beyond a few days.  I am inclined to think that will be survivable.  Republicans are arguing that so long as the government pays its bondholders, there is no actual default, and it does not matter who else gets stiffed.  At least according to this article, it would probably be possible to assure that bond holders got paid and did not disrupt the financial system -- but only at the cost of stopping payment on everything else. If this does happen, count on Republicans, who urged prioritizing bondholders and not worrying about anyone else, to scream bloody murder and accuse Obama of making things needlessly painful.  But here is the thing. Republicans will not be the only ones screaming bloody murder.  So will everyone who misses a Social Security payment or other check from Uncle Sam.  And there is no doubt to my mind that this will lead to an increase in the debt ceiling, fast.  Maybe if the breach is short enough, the damage will be limited.

So far as I can tell, "moderate" Republicans have chosen to use the debt ceiling rather than shutdown as their hostage of choice because it scares the hell out of insiders, but polls well with the general public.  Shutting down government polls badly and was unpopular last time the Republicans tried it, so the leadership wants to avoid it.  But raising the debt ceiling is unpopular.  And voters generally express support of the idea that increases in the debt ceiling should be matched by cuts in spending.  Voters are not polled on whether refusal to raise the debt ceiling is worth it if that means their Social Security checks start bouncing.  I am guessing that the answer would be no.

Furthermore, if refusal to raise the debt ceiling leads to bouncing Social Security checks, then Republicans will no longer have the support of public opinion if they try it again.  Obama will only have to point out what happened last time, and public opinion will turn against the idea in a big hurry.  In other words, breaching the debt ceiling is a credible threat only as long as it remains a threat.  Once it actually happens, it will be too unpopular ever to try again.

Long Term (2014) Political Reprecussions

So how will the shutdown/debt ceiling confrontation affect the Republicans in the long run, meaning in the 2014 elections?  Put me with the people who believe that this showdown by itself will be long forgotten by the 2014 elections.  What will matter is if the Republicans repeat the same stunt three or four times.  That will do them in.

On the one hand, I think that as next year progresses, some things will relieve the pressure to be as crazy as possible.  People will actually start getting insurance under Obamacare, so Republicans will no longer be seeking to block implementation, but to take people's insurance away.  I can't see that going well for them. Right now they are kept in line by the threat of a primary challenge.  But the primaries will happen, and one by one Republicans will no longer fear such a challenge.  Some will win and be safe.  Some will lose and be lame ducks, angry and resentful that their best crazy act wasn't enough.  Some will prevail and actually fear a challenge by a Democrat.  And as the election looms closer and closer, Republicans will have more and more to fear from a shutdown/breach.  On the other hand, if things look bad enough, Republicans may decide that they are doomed anyhow, so they might as well do as much damage as possible before they go.

Furthermore, if Republicans go on their best behavior before the election, it will only raise the risk of another showdown after the election.  If they win, there will be two more years of this.  If they lose, they will see their power ending in two months and be determined to cause as much damage as possible in that time.

Let me say beyond any question, if the Democrats win back the House and hold the Senate in 2014, their first act absolutely MUST be to abolish the debt ceiling.  (Abolish the filibuster if necessary to get it through).
The Republicans must be defeated.