Right now we are headed for a fiscal cliff. Taxes are set to rise at the end of the year and major budget cuts are mandated. Worse yet, the debt ceiling will run out, and there is no end to the mischief Republicans can make if Obama is re-elected. In effect, they lose all incentive to prevent disaster, because if they drive the economy off the cliff, Obama will be blamed and they will benefit. Now at least two commentators are urging surrender. Don't worry, they say. Out of power they may (essentially) advocate rolling back the New Deal, but in power they will recognize how unpopular that is and quickly discover that deficits only matter when a Democrat is in the White House. Republican deficits don't count. But they are willing to drive the economy off a cliff if a Democrat holds the White House. So let's give them the presidency, or they will kill the hostage.
I have long believed that Republicans want a de facto one party state a whole lot more than they want to repeal the New Deal. Doubtless their preference would be for both, but if it becomes apparent that any serious attempt to end the New Deal will lead to their losing elections, I have no doubt the Republicans will be willing to kick the can down the road. Right now, going with the Ryan Plan, Republicans seem to be hoping to cut spending on the poor as much as they can get away with, while cutting taxes enough that sooner or later (they hope) the bond vigilantes will attack and force massive cuts in everything but armies, police and prisons. But it may be true that once in power, this will start to look a lot less important than just holding power.
But even if they don't undo the New Deal, giving the Republicans a monopoly on power because they will drive the economy off the cliff is a Democrat is ever elected again is incompatible with any normal definition of democracy. In the days of the PRI, Mexico was democratic on paper, but not on the ground. Something similar may be said of Japan under the Liberal Democratic Party. So far as I understand it, both parties kept in power largely by controlling patronage and buying the votes of the majority. This led to an extraordinary level of corruption in both countries. But still, I am inclined to prefer a one-party state maintained by bribing a majority of the population to vote for them to a one-party state maintained by the threat to completely wreck the economy and government if the opposing party is elected. In the end, both the PRI and the LDP were defeated, and both grumbled, but duly stepped down. Democracy ultimately prevailed. If Republicans are intending what they seem to be intending, that will mean they intend to take things further than the one-party states in Mexico and Japan, and refuse to accept the results of a democratic election. This goes beyond mere corruption into disloyalty*.
So, if Obama wins in November, Republicans will drive the economy off the cliff for partisan advantage. If Romney wins in November, Republicans will have ultimate blackmail tool, the threat to drive the economy off a cliff if any Democrat is ever again elected President. If the Republicans lose and drive the economy off the cliff, they get their monopoly on power by reminding people of the horror that occurred last time a Democrat was in office. If the Republicans win, the economy will (presumably) recover, and they get their monopoly on power by constantly maintaining the implied threat. (Actually saying, vote for us or we will drive the economy off the cliff is, of course, to obvious an act of black mail to be done openly). Both choices are unpalatable.
In the end, though, I cannot agree with the people who counsel surrender just this once, because we can always come back and fight when the economy is stronger. Default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling will always be disastrous. The only alternative I can think of is to somehow bring Republican blackmail out into the open so that they cannot escape blame for their actions. Democratic strategists had damn well better be figuring out how.
__________________________________
*Disloyalty in the sense of putting loyalty to party ahead of loyalty to the public good. In opposition, this means being a disloyal opposition. In power, it means disloyalty to basic democratic norms.
No comments:
Post a Comment