Disloyal Opposition

So, with Congressional Republicans carrying on like, well, Congressional Republicans, it comes time once again to revisit the old topic I have considered before – when does opposition become disloyal.  I have been inspired to think on the topic by this column by New Zealand columnist Paul Buchanan, in which he describes the Republicans as disloyal.  His archetypal example of disloyal opposition was the opposition to Salvador Allende in Chile, in which the opposition sought, first to paralyze the government and make the country ungovernable, and finally an outright military coup.  Obviously, now, a coup is illegal and therefore disloyal by definition.  A few crazies in this country have proposed that a coup against Obama would be appropriate, but such views are too marginal to be taken seriously.  Intentionally paralyzing the government was legal, but it was intended to provoke a coup and therefore also disloyal.  But what of the Republicans, who are seeking to paralyze the government, but with no intention of provoking a coup or doing anything else illegal?  And what of House Republicans' attempts to use blackmail tactics to impose a program against the wishes of the President, the Democratic-controlled Senate, and (in some cases) the great majority of the American public?  Granting that the Republicans have done nothing illegal, are they nonetheless being disloyal?

Buchanan says yes.  He defines loyal opposition as:

[C]ommitment to the rules of the political game, which in democracies means adherence to transparency, honest voice, majority representation and acceptance of electoral outcomes in exchange for a chance to regularly compete for political office within formally defined timeframes and under universally competitive rules and conditions.  [Emphasis added].

By contrast, for a disloyal opposition:

The goal is to bring down the government of the day regardless of cost or consequence. Hence disloyal oppositions hold little regard for established rules and institutional norms even if it suited them when in government or as a historical precedent. The strategy is to say anything, stop at nothing, lie, cheat and if possible steal in order to undermine the government in the eyes of the public and thereby weaken its ability to pursue a policy agenda and carry out its constitutional obligations. For disloyal oppositions, politics is war and the ends justify the means.

Trying to place the Republicans on such a scale is difficult.  They cannot strictly be said to be seeking to bring down the Obama Administration.  One can imagine such an attempt even in the absence of a military coup. Suppose, for instance, that House Republicans shut down the government and declare that they will not pass any spending bill whatever until the Democratic President and Vice President resign at which point, by the law of succession, the Republican Speaker of the House will become President.*  Since the Constitution does not technically require Congress to pass any legislation or spend any money, none of this would be strictly speaking illegal.  But it would be disloyal under Buchanan's standards because it does not "accept[] of electoral outcomes in exchange for a chance to regularly compete for political office within formally defined timeframes."  It signals loud and clear that electoral outcomes will only be accepted if their party wins.  It would not technically be a coup, but it is not too hyperbolic to call it one.

Or suppose Republicans were somehow to gain a 2/3 majority in the Senate and impeach both the Democratic President and Vice President on grounds so flimsy it was obvious their only "crime" was belonging to the wrong party.  That, too, would be disloyal, because it ignores our "formally defined timeframes," i.e., that the President's term is four years, and that his successor is the Vice President.  But it would be less disloyal for two reasons.  First, if the public were to give a 2/3 majority to the opposing party, it is a strong signal that they are displeased with the President.  Maybe the opposing party can claim an electoral mandate.  Second, it is just maneuvering at the top, rather than forcing their way by threatening harm to the public (i.e., by shutting down the government).  But, by precedent set by the failed attempt to remove Andrew Johnson, it would still be disloyal.  

But the Republicans are not going that far.  They are not seeking to depose a Democratic President, merely to enacted their favored policies against his wishes.  Now clearly, in some cases doing that is compatible with a loyal opposition.  The Constitution provides that the President's veto on legislation can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, in which case the President has no choice but to execute a law he opposes.  But, of course, the Republicans do not have that.  They have a 234-201 majority in the House, which is moderately strong, but well short of the 2/3 required to overturn a Presidential veto.  And they have a 45-55 minority in the Senate.  

In 2011, they were stronger, with a 242-193 advantage in the House and a 47-53 minority in the Senate.  They had won sweeping victories (a 63 seat turnover) in the House and significant turnover in the Senate, failing to take it only because of a handful of crazy nominees.  Although Obama was still constitutionally in office for another two years, they could reasonably claim a mandate to enact their program, specifically, cutting spending.  Nonetheless, they also did not have a majority in the Senate, or the 2/3 majority in the House necessary to override a Presidential veto.  Some sort of compromise, slanted to favor the Republicans, would have been appropriate.  Instead, the Republicans rejected any sort of compromise and insisted that only an outcome unacceptable to Obama would be acceptable to them, and threatened to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, with unknowable harm to the country, unless they got their way.  At the time, I labeled their actions as disloyal.  Forcing spending cuts when you have a clear mandate to do so is one thing, insisting that the outcome must be unacceptable to the other party and threatening harm to the country to get your way was going to far.

Well, since then, there has been another election.  The Republicans clearly ran on a platform of killing Obamacare and cutting taxes.  They less clearly  emphasized huge cuts to Medicaid and turning Medicare into a voucher system because they knew these things would be unpopular.  The Republicans lost the Presidency.  They retained their majority in the House, but lost seats in both houses.  The public appears to have rejected their program.  Their response has been to seek to force it over anyhow, by threats to shut down the government and/or refuse to raise the debt ceiling.  

The plan so far appears to be to attempt to defund Obamacare in the budgetary showdown and to force over other aspects of the Republican platform in the debt ceiling showdown.  The former is bad enough.  Norm Ornstein outlines the reasonable actions available to a loyal opposition when confronted with legislation it opposes.  It can seek to repeal it.  (Tried and failed, numerous times).  It can seek to amend it into a form it considers more acceptable.  They can push to minimize the perceived harm in implementation.  Or they can step aside and leave implementation entirely to the opposing party.  Or, although Ornstein does not mention it, they can challenge its constitutionality before the Supreme Court.  Congressional Republicans have attempted the first and last options, while rejecting any of the others.  But to threaten the shutdown of the federal government -- Social Security checks not delivered, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements not made, air travel possibly disrupted, emergency personnel forced to work without pay -- to threaten such harm to their fellow citizens, all to ensure that millions of their fellow citizens do not get health insurance -- looks a whole lot like disloyalty to me.  

But let us extend the Republicans the benefit of the doubt there.  At least they can justifiably claim that Obamacare remains unpopular, that Obama's reelection does not reasonably look like a mandate for Obamacare, and that they sincerely believe it will be harmful.  That leaves the matter of the debt ceiling.

Apparently the Republicans have prepared a menu of options, with each concession buying a different extension of the debt ceiling.  An agreement to voucherize Medicare will win a debt ceiling extension to the end of 2016.  Cuts to Food Stamps will get a shorter extension, at the end of which, Republican will again refuse to raise the debt ceiling to compel the next portion of their agenda.  In short, they plan to force over their agenda by threats to refuse to raise the debt ceiling and thereby cause grave damage to the economy.  The only choice they offer is whether to do it all at once or by installments.  In 2012 Republicans ran (sort of) on a program to bloc grant Medicaid and voucherize Medicare.  The public rejected them.  There is nothing to stop them now, as a loyal opposition, from passing legislation to do just that in the House. Granted, it will fail in the Senate, and even if Republicans win the Senate in 2014, President Obama will veto such a proposal.  But so what?  If Republicans think voucherizing Medicare is a good idea, they are perfectly free to campaign on it in 2016 and let the public decide.  Of course, there is a reason Republican are not trying to pass their agenda by politics as usual.  They know it is highly unpopular and that if they campaigned on it, they would lose, just as they lost in 2012.**  Their response is to ignore the electoral outcome and attempt to force their rejected program over by threats to blow up the economy.  This does not go as far as shutting down the government to force an opposing President to resign, but ultimately I would still say it refuses to "accept[] of electoral outcomes in exchange for a chance to regularly compete for political office within formally defined timeframes."  As such, it is disloyal.

__________________________________________________ 

 *Needless to say, this hypothetical assumes that the Speaker is not John Boehner, but a Tea Party Republican.

**So, Republicans would say, what about Obamacare?  Democrats passed it despite its unpopularity.  Why was that not disloyal to democracy?  But in the case of Obamacare, Democrats had campaigned on passing something like it and decisively won the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Ultimately, whether Republicans like it or not, Obamacare was passed by the normal legislative process.  A closer analogy would be if there was a Republican President and a Republican majority Senate, but Democrats had the majority in the House and threatened to blow up the economy unless the President adopted universal healthcare.