Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Andrew Sullivan takes up Peter's post "Why We're Headed for a Government Shutdown," and amplifies it thus:
What Robinson doesn't grasp is that the GOP is currently incapable of making that kind of strategic call. Because it is in the grips of a near-religious fanaticism. This fanaticism doesn't even have the advantage of coherence. If it were dedicated to real long-term cuts in defense and entitlements, it might dislodge the current impasse. But it seems rather intent on trivial partisan cuts (NPR, Planned Parenthood), and austerity at the one moment it can be counter-productive, during a fragile recovery. And so the Republicans are both immune to persuasion and headed for a repeat of 1996.
Peter can chime in here if he likes. I suspect that, like me, he thinks that Andrew is essentially correct about the bad politics of a government shutdown.
On the other hand, allow me three quibbles:
1. "Near-religious fanaticism?" Who, though, are the real fanatics? It certainly looked like the capital building in Wisconsin was full of them. And they didn't seem capable of understanding that austerity now, during a fragile recovery, is the only way to ensure that it continues.
2. Andrew's right about the trivial partisan cuts. I said the same thing in this podcast. But you'll have to forgive Republican politicians for being political. On the other hand, they were cuts in the non-budget un-passed by the last congress under Nancy Pelosi, so it's a pretty neat trick all the same. And as for "real long-term cuts" in entitlements and defense? How about Paul Ryan's Roadmap? How about Republican governors taking on unfunded liabilities in their states? You can despise the Republicans for any number of things -- if you're Andrew Sullivan, you invent new ones hourly -- but it's simply wrong to suggest that they aren't serious about deep, lasting cuts in the important things.
3. The notion that cutting NPR funding, or Planned Parenthood, will somehow hurt the recovery is sheer silliness. It's "fragile" indeed if it's relying on the stimulating effects of those payrolls.
Still, I think Sullivan is right about the current suicide pact among Republicans -- that a government shutdown will somehow help our cause. But he's wrong (I hope; he doesn't) about its inevitability.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Andrew Sullivan is the sound of one hand clapping, or the tree that fell in the forest that nobody heard. Nobody listens to him. Rob--why did you give him this attention? I did enjoy your dissection of "three quibbles," but these very inanities are why people see him as a crack pot.
Right now I see the “shutdown” as the dog that didn’t bark. People have such a low opinion of Washington, DC politicians in general, that neither party will get significant political advantage. This is turning into a media-hyped story. Even today, Fox News alerts are going out for “GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN” two weeks before it has really become crunch time.
Mar '11
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Rob, don't get all RINO squishy about the shutdown. Conditions are dramatically different this time around versus the 1995-96 impasses. The GOP only controls one half of one third of the federal government. Therefore they are not in the position of having the sole congressional voice on the budget. Secondly that time we we're in an economic boom, where the national debt was not a big issue for the American People; today indebtedness is the driving force in politics amidst a prolonged recession and Democrats are seen as the obstacles to economic growth. Most interestingly, a government shutdown won't shut anything "essential" down. Therefore a shutdown will do the Tea Party a favor and limit federal spending to its Constitutional bounds. If Congress won't produce a balanced budget, then the cruise control version of a shutdown will.
Mar '11
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
I don't disagree with most of what you wrote, but rest assured, the Dems will make sure a shutdown is felt. For instance, during the last shutdown non-essential services like Visas and passport offices were either shutdown or slowed down to the point of ruining your vacation or overseas business (I know, I was caught in the mix). I'm not afraid of a shutdown, but when the right attacks government, the left will do everything possible to make sure real voters feel the pain of it.
Peter and Rob are probably right about the politics, although maybe not. I think, however, they overestimate what Republicans can do to stave off fiscal collapse by winning the 2012 elections.
Dec '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
I always go straight to Andrew Sullivan to get my information on religious fanaticism. Oh, and on Republican strategy as well.
There's nothing quite like an agitated leftist with a shaved head and that important speck of foamy spittle in the corner of his mouth to help me get my head right.
Sep '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
This is an occasion where I have to partly agree with Sullivan. If you remember Heather Higgins post which showed the polling results in Wisconsin showed that the protracted battle lowered the Republican's poll numbers. Since the battle was about something that would clearly help the overall state in the long term, I have to put it down to poor messaging.
I am afraid that is exactly where we are headed here except that Republicans are in control of only less of the levers of power. I can foresee the TV showing video footage of people being turned away at Yellowstone National Park and handicapped, minority children going without food while their mother is dying of cancer.
And for what. When the Reps offer 60B in cuts and the Dems say 0B or 1B or whatever, the Reps should take just a billion or two over the Dem offer and let the Dems be the ones to appear unreasonable. In the end we need to fight this fight when we have more control over congress not less. Next year's budget will be bloody and we have a chance to do real good. Don't waste it.
Sep '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
You mention something that is driving me absolutely batty, this idea—this incessant media meme—that Republicans/Tea Partiers/Conservatives (they're just alike, after all) are fundamentalist crazies while leftist protesters from Madison to London are viewed as part of the natural scheme of things, whatever they say and do. And now this survey from Heather Higgins indicating that Wisconsin Independents favor more blue than red in their color purple, despite the sophomoric tone of the budget protests inside and outside the state capitol in Madison and the fleeing from duty of the fourteen Democrat legislators. I feel like Alice: Can I live here anymore?
Dec '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Peter is right, Sullivan is right. A shutdown will happen.
We can allow it to happen on the Democrat's schedule, or we can choose the time, the place, and the hill to fight on.
Don't stick your head in the sand. Don't back away while covering your head with your arms. Don't squeal like a little girl.
Pretend that there are actually principles worth defending, and pretend that the harm done by just one or two more years spending at current levels actually matter. Because, there are, and it does.
Oct '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Voice of Ignorance here - what, exactly, would a "government shutdown" look like? I mean, what are the substantive byproducts of such a shutdown? Whom does it affect, and how? (I don't mean the politicians. I mean rank-and-file Americans.) Is this a thirty-words-or-less-answer kind of question, or is there somewhere I can go to read up on it (and have faith in what I'm reading)?
Sep '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
"Because it is in the grips of a near-religious fanaticism. This fanaticism doesn't even have the advantage of coherence."
Does any fanaticism have coherence? I guess Sullivan thinks some does - his own.
Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 12:43pmRe: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
According to this guy, the State Dept. might not issue passports, some checks might not get out, most of the Nat'l Mall and D.C. museums would be closed to tourists, and waste from animals at the Nat'l Zoo would pile up.
Oh. No.
Dec '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Diane Ellis, Ed.
According to this guy, the State Dept. might not issue passports, some checks might not get out, most of the Nat'l Mall and D.C. museums would be closed to tourists, and waste from animals at the Nat'l Zoo would pile up.
Oh. No. · Mar 29 at 12:47pm
Wrong. My husband is a DOD contractor. His company has already informed him he will have to go to half-time and take vacation (if he wants to keep his current income) -- and this may happen whether or not the government shuts down. The reason? Contract payments and awards are frozen or uncertain. I'd still prefer a shutdown to catastrophic economic collapse, but that's just me.
Feb '11
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
The political stumbling block is unrelated to substance: it's the idea of "cutting" government. As we're seeing now, it's the wrong word with all sorts of Debbie Downer connotations.
Of all people, I think it will be Donald Trump who will prove to be the pivot point in this debate, changing the perspective from finagling over "cuts" to demanding fair value for our money spent. The man won't pay for poor performance and hates doing something for nothing.
To point, yesterday Trump asked, "We've now spent $1 billion on Libya. And why isn't Saudi Arabia paying us? They have so much money it is coming out of their ears."
My prediction is that in 2012, we'll recast the debate about cutting government spending in terms of bang for buck value. Politics is perception and Trump is the man to peel back the scales from the eyes of the American people.
Christie started it by discarding baseline budgeting.
Walker continues with his fight against union waste.
In 2012 we'll play the Trump card and, following his lead, start dispassionately, practically judging government expenditures like we do the performance of his Apprentice wannabes.
Jul '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
"Messaging." What a despicable word. Stand for something and communicate the fact.
We are reaching the stage where the consequences of a shutdown are less dire than the consequences of letting Obama go from collective to collective spending billions of dollars we don't have for the benefit of people who see us as an icon of "unfairness". The White House can use the zoo production for their WTF garden.
When it comes, it should be the first round of the showdown over ObamaCare and entitlement reform. Not some stupid exchange of finger pointing over who forced the shutdown.
The fragile recovery is fragile because the Regime has declared war on business and energy. The time is past to tip toe around the fragility of the apostate Obama's hostage economy. It is outrageous incompetence for Sullivan to suggest that the idiot spending spree must be extended to support the economy after almost three years of failed-yet-reckless stimulus spending. But I am encouraged that Sullivans therapy is starting to take hold. A complete paragraph without breaking down into a Trig Palin spasm. The Atlantic must provide mental health coverage.
Sep '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
The best scenario for the looming government shutdown is for the Republicans to center it on the non-funding of Obamacare. Forget about NPR or Planned Parenthood, since these can be used to demonize Republicans. The key is to use it to ensure Obamacare is defunded this fiscal year.
Obamacare, as we all know, is unpopular with the public and has been declared unconstitutional. It will be very hard for the Democrats to defend this, especially since most of its positive effects have not yet taken place. Deletion of Obamacare is what people voted for in November. The Republicans can add some other items, hopefully complicated sounding esoteric things that will cause most people's eyes to glaze over when this debate comes up. The idea though is to make the Democrats defend why a new complicated bureaucracy needs to be funded, not emotional items like Big Bird, All Things Considered and abortion on demand. These can be addressed when we have the bully pulpit.
Dec '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Rob Long:
But he's wrong (I hope; he doesn't) about its inevitability. ·
Point One: Democrats are convinced that a government shutdown will be great for them and bad for Republicans.
Point Two: A number of Republicans are loudly agreeing with the Democrats, bewailing the fate that will befall the Republicans if the government shuts down.
Therefore, a government shutdown is inevitable. The Democrats will not let the opportunity pass without forcing a shutdown -- just like they didn't let the opportunity pass to foist a massive "stimulus" program on America, just like they didn't let the opportunity pass to shove Obamacare down our gullets. They cannot allow the GOP to get away without being pulverized by the bad optics of a government shutdown.
In fact, they are so desperate that they will go to any lengths to make a shutdown happen. Because of that, the moment is ripe to set them up to do just that: go to absurd and indefensible lengths to cause a shutdown.
In case no one's noticed, the deficit adds about $1,600 in debt for every family of four in America every month. That's a number voters can understand.
Dec '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
This is why a government shutdown is inevitable: the Democrats really, REALLY believe it's their secret weapon against the Republicans.
Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, sees an upside to a looming government shutdown – at least politically.
“If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it,” said Dean, speaking on a National Journal Insider’s Conference panel Tuesday morning. “I know who’s going to get blamed – we’ve been down this road before.”
Oct '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Rob, Sullivan is right--congressional Republicans have shown no willingness for deep cuts, not as a caucus. Of course, you can make the same argument about President Obama. It's a game of cat and mouse. Who's the cat? Is it me, is it you? If I go out into the open, will you join me, and if you go out into the open, will I join you?
Who goes first?
Dec '10
Re: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
Joseph Eagar: Rob, Sullivan is right--congressional Republicans have shown no willingness for deep cuts, not as a caucus. Of course, you can make the same argument about President Obama. It's a game of cat and mouse. Who's the cat? Is it me, is it you? If I go out into the open, will you join me, and if you go out into the open, will I join you?
Who goes first? · Mar 29 at 7:06pm
Let's make the same argument about Obama: "Obama has shown no willingness to make deep cuts." Or, shallow cuts, or leave spending at the current level, or just slightly increase spending or even drastically increase spending.
Nope, the only thing Dear President will go for is the "drunken sailor on steroids increase" in spending.
That's not cat and mouse. It's salt and slug. We just need the political will to pour the salt.
Edited on Mar 29, 2011 at 7:36pmRe: Andrew Sullivan vs. Peter Robinson. Sort Of.
You're welcome at my table anytime, Sisyphus.