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.
A Reply to Paul Rahe
Paul Rahe makes many good points and I agree with him that Republican politicians over-promised in 2010 and 2014. This does not strike me as particularly new. Further, I don’t agree that over-promising is a capital offense that merits the total dissolution of the party — and that’s what has been achieved.
The betrayal narrative overlooks the fact that most of the country is not solid red. The Republican Party also has to win votes from less ideologically pure parts of the country — places like Loudoun County, VA, and Montgomery County, PA. Most Americans, and yes, even many who vote Republican, hate government shutdowns and let their feelings be known. As the anti-government party, Republicans always get the blame for government shutdowns and always will. (Though at this point, this seems a moot point, since the Republican Party is about to be destroyed.) Republican leaders have to take account of their members who come from blue states too. Jim DeMint famously said he’d rather have 30 true conservatives in the Senate than a majority. He may get his wish very soon.
Prof. Rahe argues that “it is the president who shuts down the government” and dismisses the sorry history of Republicans always getting the blame by asserting that
Every time they tried they lost their nerve and backed down. Cowards who back down always get the blame. Think about it. Can you think of a single instance in which a man has taken a bold, brave stance and then later backed down in which he did not become an object of contempt?
Well, speaking of over-promising, Sen. Ted Cruz, a key leader of the shutdown effort, did a bit of over-promising himself. During his prolonged effort to keep the government closed until Democrats in the Senate and White House relented, he was asked, by Sen. Rand Paul, if he would ever agree to a compromise:
“My question to the Senator is, If he can’t get everything he wants, if he can’t defund ObamaCare, which is exactly what he and I both agree on, and millions of people across America want us to get rid of ObamaCare, if the Senator can’t, if he stands today and argues and cannot get rid of it, will he accept a compromise?”
Sen. Cruz replied:
The Senator’s question was would I vote for something less than defunding ObamaCare. Personally, no. Why? Because I have committed publicly over and over to the American people that I will not vote for a continuing resolution that funds one penny of Obamacare.
Yet, a week later, when the Republican Party’s approval rating had dropped to its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question (plunging 10 points in two weeks), Sen. Cruz voted to reopen the government without the repeal of Obamacare.
Arguably, shutdown theater cost Republicans the governorship in Virginia and distracted from the very instructive and shambolic roll-out of Healthcare.gov.
Despite their posturing, the shutdown crew never had a game plan. They could not hope to override a presidential veto. It wasn’t a matter of lack of courage, but lack of votes. They were playing to the conservative gallery (amplified a thousand-fold by talk radio hosts who have grown very rich by attacking fellow Republicans) and others who used this futile gesture to raise money.
Was that a “betrayal?” Maybe. But I’m supporting Ted Cruz for president now because there are larger issues at stake — namely, the survival of the conservative movement and the dire necessity of preventing Donald Trump from getting anywhere near the nuclear codes.
That dead elephant in your post, Prof Rahe, makes me weep.
Published in General
I must have missed the stories on people starving, unfounded schools, etc… I remember parks closing, government contractors out of work, and most importantly stories about how ridiculous Republicans were to believe Obama would ever agree to defund his sole significant legislative accomplishment. It was the quixotic nature of the shutdown that damaged Republicans, the idea they were willing to sacrifice inconveniencing Americans (even moderately) for a battle they simply were never going to win. I lamented the mindset that drove that narrative but it was the narrative that took hold. No one, right, left, in DC, outside DC, believed Obama was being unreasonable in his insistence Obamacare be funded.
They did, but did the tea party have a plan or leader ready to go when they finally got what they wanted and ran Boehner out of town? No, they didn’t. That’s what makes their ranting and rending of garments about betrayal and all the rest so much childish whining.
I don’t agree, compromise has become the mark of weakness to a large enough block in the congress that getting majority consensus in the party has become impossible. Leading the two houses of congress is an exercise in herding cats and right now the cats don’t trust each other and won’t cooperate. There is no compromise possible now while the different factions are jockying for control and playing to their power bases.
From my vantage point, the new crop of republicans in 2010 and 2014 won’t accept any compromise. But they also have no coherent plan which will get a majority of the GOP to fall in line with them, so we have gridlock. And now people are scapegoating the boogeyman “establishment.”
Yes, well said.
If this is truly your view and analysis, I despair that we have any future together at all.
You accuse the other side of being intractable and emotional, but demonstrate the same faults in your analysis of the situation.
Really I don’t. I’m all for compromise. I’ll gladly take half a loaf. But all I hear in return is that makes me part of the “establishment” and that I’m a sellout.
What compromises with the tea party did the “establishment” turn it’s nose up to in the last six years?
Is shutting down the government a strategy of compromise to you?
Of course it’s not.
The tea party sought to dislodge Boehner numerous times, but it never had it’s act together enough to succeed. When Boehner finally threw up his hands and said, “Go ahead, take the reins. It’s all yours!” Did the tea party step up with a good leader and a workable plan? No, they didn’t.
What proof can you offer that the tea party has any real plan to govern or any capacity to form consensus and compromise in the manner needed to turn things around?
We see these events so differently. It could be that there is not enough agreement among our members for the party to continue together?
Yes, but the majority of Republicans do not support him. He’s never eclipsed 50% of the votes in a primary.
I think the party is going to split, yes. I would still like some answers to the questions I posed in that post, though.
What compromises did the tea party congresspeople offer leadership in the last six years that the leadership spurned?
What evidence has the tea party shown that it has it’s act together enough to govern or set the agenda for how the leadership should proceed?
You wouldn’t.
But as Glenn Reynolds has been pointing out for a while now, it’s entirely within the Republicans’ powers to fund parts of the Government, but not the whole thing.
Then Obama would have to veto a bunch of spending bills in order to get a Government shutdown, and not just one.
I would suggest making sure funding for parks is in a separate bill…
Unfortunately that is not the case. Democrats in the Senate have been able to successfully prevent individual appropriations bills from being considered.
Considering how often we hear that McConnell is a master parliamentarian, and “knows how to work the Senate better than anyone”, you would think we’d see more creativity from leadership in being able to extract a political price for a veto. [Yes, I know only the House can originate spending.]
Instead, these master strategists are scheming such things as Corker.
They’re much better at playing chicken than the Republicans.
I don’t know about that, GOP was quite successful in gumming up the works in the Senate when in minority.
What was alternative to Corker?
Not that I owe you an answer, but here is my view:
In its beginning, the ‘tea party’ was a loosely affiliated group of ordinary ‘conservative’ Americans who emerged from their private lives to say government had grown too big, and was not representing their interests. Efforts were made to marshal this movement so it would have influence. It seemed the republican party was happy to use the ‘tea party’ passion to propel it to greater power, but not really much changed. And to be fair, the republicans made promises to these people. The ‘tea party’ people grew frustrated after all their hard work to elect republicans. The establishment pushed back hard, and sometimes ugly (hobbits / wacko birds). Honestly, I didn’t see a lot of effort to ‘compromise’. Mostly, there just seemed to be a power struggle.
I don’t think the ‘tea party’ people ever intended to ‘take over’. They just wanted things to move back into line. From my view, more could have been done to address their concerns, but the republican party seems to be risk adverse.
If the party doesn’t want to represent these people and their interests, that’s fine – their choice. But just don’t get mad when they don’t want to vote for you anymore.
So, you dodged the question. The tea party can be as mad as it wants and expect whatever they want, but in the end politics is a numbers game. If you have a majority you can get what you want. If you don’t have a majority you don’t get to dictate strategy or tactics. You have to compromise.
The tea party coalition doesn’t have a majority inside the GOP caucus. That may be frustrating to them, but their frustration doesn’t give them the right to make demands about what gets done anymore than the other factions get to make demands or whine about their preferred policies not being implemented.
So again, how has the Tea Party shown it has enough support to set the agenda or proven it has the political judgement and skill to take reins of the party?
I didn’t ‘dodge’ your question, I didn’t agree with the premise of it.
As to your Minority / Majority comment – I don’t think you understand the mathematics of this equation. As evidenced by the current situation, the ‘base’ seems to have had enough power and influence to get more compromise than they actually got. The ‘establishment’ appears to have badly miscalculated their position in all this.
You say you think that the factions of the party should compromise and accuse me of being as intransigent as the members of the Tea Party. That is the premise we are working from.
I am pointing out that I would be happy to compromise with the Tea Party, but the Tea Party is not offering any compromises. I am open to the idea that I am being unfair to the Tea Party, and will listen to evidence that the Tea Party was in fact willing to compromise and offered compromises which were rebuffed. You now say I am being insincere and offering up false premises.
I am working from the premise you laid out and asking you to defend your own premise with evidence. There is nothing insincere or specious or unfair on my part in doing that.
Your refusal to take my questions up in good faith, though, is telling.
I answer your question, in good faith, as best I could, considering that I don’t agree with the premise.
Edit: and compromise is a two way street. It takes two. But you save all your scorn for one side.
My position is that the Tea Party and members of congress like Ted Cruz came in demanding that their agenda and strategy for opposing Obama be implemented without hesitance or qualification. They went so far as to call leadership liars and to question their motives and bona fides on the floor of congress. They actively worked to undermine and torpedo the attempts of leadership to forge consensus and arrive at workable compromises. This caused paralysis in the GOP majority.
Now those same Tea Party groups are pointing to the lack of action by the GOP majority, which was caused by the paralysis that the Tea Party itself created, and claiming that inaction is proof that GOP leadership is corrupt and unresponsive.
I posit that the inaction is proof that an intransigent minority can blow up a party, even though they don’t have nearly enough support or wherewithal to lead the party or win a majority among the voting public at large.
It’s your own premise!!!!!!!!!
Here is another example of why this term term, establishment , is useless. It was John McCain, the Maverick, who was a consistent thorn in the side of the Senate GOP leadership, the man who led the fight against earmarks, who used the term wacko birds.
I’m sorry then, let me clarify –
What I mean is, in general, if any one in leadership is not willing or able to bring the different groups together in compromise, then they should step aside and let someone who can provide this leadership take over.
And if any one in leadership is not able or willing to take calculated risks where risks are necessary to achieve a desired end, they should step aside and let someone else do it.
Is is really a minority, as you suggest? Because in most primaries, the largest number of votes have been the combined votes of the non-‘establishment’ candidates.
Which John Boehner did. Did anyone from the Tea Party step up and offer a winning plan? No they didn’t. So all of their cries about the venal, unresponsive nature of the GOP leadership and “establishment” is a bunch of hollow, ridiculous rhetoric.
The party is too divided right now to accomplish big change. Those wanting big change need to suck it up and either win enough seats to become a majority in the caucus, or support a consensus leader to become president who can then set and sell the agenda and give marching orders to congressional leadership.
Instead we get complaints about “betrayal” and lurches toward clown candidates that are all too happy to cynically stoke the frustration of a minority of the base and exploit the divisions in the party for their own gain, all the while not giving a damn about conservatism.
Brilliant!
I think this is specious reasoning. The Trump coalition is a dog’s breakfast of ideologies and political agendas. There is a large number of those in the coalition who would only vote for Trump and of the remaining lot, a large chunk of them would not put Ted Cruz as their second choice. You think the voters is New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York and elsewhere that voted for Trump are Tea Partiers? No, they are center-left populists.
If you add up the number of Trumps vote that has Cruz as their second choice and add in Cruz’s support, you still won’t have a majority.
Well, John, it sounds like you know what you think.
I never viewed myself as a tea-partier. But I value limited government and personal liberty, and hoped this grass roots movement would pull this government back from this out of control growth. So, I was discouraged when I saw what appeared to be the ‘establishment’ using their passion to get elected, but then rejecting them afterward like a one night stand. I personally didn’t see the ‘establishment’ try very hard to compromise with their base.
So now we have Trump. I think Trump voters are miscalculating, but I understand their feelings of disaffection.
While Barack Obama remained in the White House?
The people in leadership along with many others in congress were there long before the Tea Party got started and didn’t owe their place in congress a single whit to the Tea Party movement. You can claim that the leaders owed their leadership power to the influx of Tea Party congresspeople, but that didn’t give the Tea Party caucus the authority to make demands, because the Tea Party caucus needed the more moderate and traditional wings of the party just as much as those wings needed the Tea Party.
You didn’t see evidence of the Leadership trying to compromise with the Tea Party. You weren’t paying much attention then. The leadership flailed around on issue after issue trying to land on a consensus strategy and position on any number of issues, only to be undercut time and again by the likes of Cruz and others who wouldn’t accept anything other than total implementation of not only their policies but their tactics.
I am not absolving the leadership or claiming that there isn’t a status quo faction in the congress that is a cancer on the GOP and conservatism. I am simply pointing out that the scapegoating and demonization of leadership and the facile use of the term “establishment” isn’t based in reality and is mostly counterproductive.
No, I’m recommending that legislators legislate policy. Cutting off funding is a way to subvert the balance of powers. Eventually it could lead to a constitutional crises. Now if the legislature passed bills to reasonably reduce funding for a particular line item, as their judgement on the level of funding required, I could see that being reasonable.