Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Government Shutdowns, Let’s Take Our Own Side
The president of the United States is not going to [defund Planned Parenthood, and all we’re going do is shut the government down … The American people are gonna shake their heads and say, “What’s the story with these Republicans?” … There are ways to do it without having to shut the government down, but I’m sympathetic to the fact that we don’t want this organization to get funding, and the money ought to be reprogrammed for family planning in other organizations that don’t support this tactic. But I would not be for shutting the government down …because I don’t think it’s going to work out.
That’s what John Kasich said during last week’s Republican debate and Karl Rove said something similar this morning in The Wall Street Journal. Honest people can disagree on whether a “shutdown” strategy is a good idea or not, but we need to be truthful and accurate about how this works: Republicans can’t shut down the government; Congress can’t shut down the government; Only the president can shut down the government.
Can’t a conservative politician bring himself to say “We don’t want to shut down the government. In fact, we can’t do that. It’s the president that is threatening to shut down the government. We call on President Obama to keep the government open.”
It isn’t like the two sides are playing chicken. Only one side can commit the childish act of shutting down the government. Only one side is the guilty party.
Even worse, Sen. Ted Cruz was on the same stage when Kasich made the above statement and even Cruz couldn’t bring himself to correct the record. Talk about a conservative communication problem.
Whether or not Congress defunds Planned Parenthood in the face of Obama’s threats, the press will be talking about a possible shutdown and, yes, the press is against us. That’s all the more reason we should tell the plain truth. Honest people can debate the strategy, but we can’t have a proper debate if we can’t describe the situation properly.
We need to take our own side in this argument.
Published in Politics
I think both men were simply pointing out who takes the blame when this happens.
Rove, possibly, but I don’t get that from Kasich’s wording at all.
You are expressing a concern that all of us have, which is that we get blamed for the shutdowns.
My point is that we get the blame because we don’t even bother to tell our side of the story. And that public statements like that made by Kasich reinforce the idea that we are to blame.
The 2013 “shutdown” was such a disaster for Republicans that we merely won a historic victory in 2014 rather than a super historic victory in 2014. Is that the argument?
I think its simpler than that – we get the blame because we are the party of less government. When the government gets shut down the easy narrative is that the party who doesn’t like government shut down the government. Truth has nothing to do with it and telling our side of the story is twice as hard because of the reality of American politics. Couple that with the bully pulpit of the Presidency and I’d be surprised if Republicans weren’t blamed.
All of that is true, and all the more reason we should aggressively and repeatedly tell the truth about who is shutting down the government.
Exactly. D’uh.
No, I think the real problem is that establishment Republicans want everything to continue as they are. Like Democrats, spending is the only source of their power. And .. they .. like .. power.
I think you’ve hit it. Republicans have been gun-shy since 96, maybe without much reason.
That sounds right to me. The arguments on the other side are often simpler and less informed than one imagines.
Good luck with that. The thing about narratives is you need to stand for something instead of just against things. Government shutdowns are just too easy a narrative for the left to tell.
You’re right and it’s a shame when politicians on our side validate those arguments.
Since Obama is the one shutting down the government, it ought to be an easy narrative for us to tell.
We are for life and for keeping the government open.
Or: Republican’s are against Planned Parenthood, against women’s healthcare, and against government. They’re shutting it down.
I’m not saying this isn’t the right thing to do, but remember the funding already exists and we’re the ones taking it away. The narrative doesn’t favor us at all. Maybe we need to make the case more forcefully, but that hasn’t worked in the past.
AKAIK, in 2013, a continuing resolution keeping the government open was delayed because of a dispute over Affordable Care Act funding while the Democrats controlled the Senate. Obama was a bystander for much of this, and could posture from the high ground. This time, without the Senate in Democratic hands, a bill without funding for PP can make it to Obama. To the logical mind, it will be his decision to sign it or not, “shutting down” the government in the latter case. We’ll see how this plays out, but, even with most of the media singing its greatest hit “The Republicans Did It,” there is some reason to think blame might not as readily fall on the GOP this time.
Any strategy to defund Planned Parenthood should be designed with your points in mind.
My post has a narrower focus. Should a shutdown occur or be talked about, we shouldn’t be helping the other side blame us for it.
I don’t think anyone here would say we ought to help the other side blame us for the shutdowns, but Kasich and others do exactly that without realizing it.
See I don’t see that at all, I see someone correctly assessing what the fallout will be.
For the reasons I stated a bit above, Kasich has less reason to take such a pessimistic view than he might have two years ago. The ultimate decision will be Obama’s, and, as Kasich is a Republican, I think it’s rather shocking that he’s not pointing that out. Instead, he’s reinforcing a Democratic talking point, and playing right into the doubts about his bona fides that many conservatives have had since he entered the race (or even before that).
This is about PP–a non-governmental entity. The “winning” party, in the event of a shutdown, will be the one that does the best job of selling its position on PP and the women’s health issue, for or against.
Huh? Who are you referring as the ‘party of less government’?
The Tea Party doesn’t have a member in Congress.
Oh really?
Huh.
Sadly, “less” can mean “almost as huge.”
Michelle Bachmann is gone, but aren’t there others?
I think Brent means that there aren’t any guys Brent really likes. It’s incontestable that there are numerous Tea Party members in Congress, self-identified and supported and chosen by Tea Party activists.
And some of them are terrible, terrible, politicians. Walter Jones, in particular, takes Ron Paul’s worst qualities (his rabid protectionism, his vigorous isolationism, his penchant for conspiracy theories, his total lack of interest in constructive behavior etc. etc.) without his redeeming positive advocacy for free markets. Some of them are pretty good. Mike Lee, for instance, has been fantastic; the same can be said for most factions within the party.
I think that the argument is that the 2013 shutdown was such an unambiguous disaster that it killed the momentum for anything like that happening in 2014. 2014’s lack of tantrum throwing, combined with a generally smooth primary process (yes, Mississippi blew up, but that’s really the only state), meant that things went incredibly well. The predictions that 2013 shutdowns would lead to disaster were mostly based, I think, on a belief that that would be how the future was. I don’t think anyone thought that 2014 would be a year of blissful harmony, although I’d love to read 2013 stories that did predict that.
There’s an argument there that it would be good to have a shutdown right now, but I think Trump will drown out the noise from Congress, so the degree of tantrum throwing at the Convention and other key points in 2016 will depend more on how Trump works out than on anything else; my sense is that Cruz isn’t going to behave too badly next year. He might this, but my guess is that after he hangs up his primary race, he’ll mostly focus on attacking the Democrats for a while; Clinton is certainly likely to provide material. After Paul hangs up his, likewise, I suspect we’ll see more “Senator Paul” and less “fringe Paul” until he wins his re-election. We have rebellious House members, too, but they don’t get a lot of attention. My guess is that a quiet Cruz and Paul would mean that we don’t have a lot of non-Trump problems from within the party, which should reduce the problems from outside on the right (Levin and such are better allies when there’s less discord).
Formally, no. I was being sarcastic. The concept that the republicans are the party of less government is beyond humorous.
I do not like the majority, that is correct, but there are members worthy of support.
Apparently my humor is lost. I can’t recall there being a contemporary member of Congress sworn in with a (T) after their name.
Once upon a time in a land far away there was a perception that R meant party of less government. That charade has been dismantled from within.
Respectfully, James I think this is a bit of revisionist history. The wailing and gnashing of teeth around here about the 2013 government vacation was long and loud that every day the federal wasn’t fully funded was one day closer to eternal republican minority.
Regarding the current issues I think P.P. and the Iran deal are poor hills to die on with respect to appropriations.
P.P. is just the tip of the iceberg and will raise opposition equal to support. Republicans surrendered the Iran sanctions long ago as you’ve highlighted and now they are trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
Regarding the ‘blame’ for failing to appropriate funds for the federal I think we are all missing a very important point.
The mainstream media will always, in every circumstance, assess blame to the right for any disruption of bureaucracy. There is no circumstance where the right will receive credit or positive mainstream media coverage for anything.
Republicans could pass a $1T appropriations bill to fund P.P. and the mainstream media will declare they have opened a new front in the war on women because the appropriation isn’t $1.1T.
Any time spent worrying about the media assessing blame is time wasted. We are finding out this cycle there are folks the media can’t reach with their incessant bias.
Please feel free to list all the members with a (T) after their name.
There is also Congressional Black Caucus, but I am challenged to find a member of the Black party in Congress either.
Republicans talk to much and cave to early.
Winning the shutdown is easy. Wait out the president.
When on the sunday talk shows they ask senator about it.
“why did you shut down the government?” “We didn’t shut down the government”
THEN STOP TALKING
“why didn’t you pass a bill”
“Yes we did.”
THEN STOP TALKING
“You need to compromise”
“That was the compromise”
THEN STOP TALKING
Dispute the premise, and then stop talking. There will be a thunderstorm, but eventually the president will start to feel the burn too, he can rail and thunder and bully from the pulpit. But all you have to do is dispute, then shut up.
Nor has the republican party ever experienced a negative electoral outcome after a government shutdown. So the conventional wisdom is a steaming pile of balderdash.
Since the TEA Party is a movement and not an actual registered political party I don’t understand the purpose of this. I might as well ask you to list all the members of the “Christian Party” with an (C) or an (I) after their name – that doesn’t mean there aren’t Christian’s in Congress.