This is Just WRONG

"Consider what the towel-snapping Tea Party crazies have already accomplished. They’ve changed the entire discussion. They’ve neutralized the White House. They’ve whipped their leadership into submission. They’ve taken taxes and revenues off the table. They’ve withered the stock and bond markets. They’ve made journalists speak to them as though they’re John Calhoun and Alexander Hamilton.

"Obama and John Boehner have been completely outplayed by the “hobbits,” as The Wall Street Journal and John McCain called them.

"What if this is all a cruel joke on us? What if the people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it?"

The above is from Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday, July 31, in the NY Times. I believe it might be about as wrong as is possible. But, note well, that Dowd does two things here that are interesting. First, she disparages the Tea Partiers as extremist crazies who have no interest in governing, even though they are, apparently, interested in re-election. And, second, she lays the blame for the dysfunctional character of our political system on the Tea Party by, among other things, attributing to them so much power that they are controlling the political system right now. Of course, she does this without so much as one piece of evidence, other than her own assertions, that this power exists. And, as a result, she makes it seem as if Obama, especially Obama, is being manhandled by these "hobbits" and not playing his own game. The same could be said of Boehner as well. So it is the insurgents, not the establishment types in the two parties, who are like the Mafia, holding a gun to our "heads" and demanding payment, say, payment in lieu of taxes.

Let me just say that I am, at the very least, skeptical of this analysis. Dowd is, apparently, unaware that in the past there have been insurgencies that have threatened the power of the powers that be in the two political parties. And in the past, in almost every instance, the powers that be have prevailed. Usually they have prevailed by making the insurgents look like the extremists Dowd thinks the Tea Partiers are, and by making their politics look extremist and, hence, dangerous to the common good. Apparently, Dowd has forgotten that when Newt Gingrich led an insurgency in 1996, the powers that be allowed the government to "shut down" and, eventually, Newt's "revolution" was history, as was Newt himself.

I believe that this is what is going on now: The powers that be in the two parties are not afraid of "a default" and are especially not afraid of one that can be laid at the doorstep of the Tea Party types. Why? Well, because (a) they know that "default" is larging a chimera and (b) a default or even a near default [that is, one avoided by the action of the "moderates"] attributed to the Tea Partiers will fortify their power and lead to the punishment of the insurgents, thereby restoring the status quo. And, of course, everyone will breath a sigh of relief and forget that the status quo is less than desirable. And soon we will all wonder again why it is that our political system seems unable to respond responsibly to pressing issues.

The "Crisis" Continued

"In the broadest terms, the Tea Party freshmen have been victorious in changing the national conversation into an almost singular discussion of debt, and creating a consensus that America must do more to live within its means. But it is still not clear whether they will translate their passion into long-term legislative and political accomplishments — or overreach and undercut their credibility and influence.

"“Zealots are great on the campaign trail,” said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton, “but a huge problem when it comes to governance. They often don’t believe in the art of a deal, even with their allies. If they are not tamed, they can eat their own party alive.”"
From the NY Times, July 30, 2011

According to this "the Tea Party freshman have been victorious" at least with regard to "the national conversation" but it is unclear that this "victory" will "translate" into successful governance. And according to Professor Zelizer this reveals the limitations of "zealots" who, apparently, don't know "the art of a deal."

Now, I would like to make a suggestion: Rather than focus on the limitations of the alleged zealots, the Tea Partiers, focus on the limitations of those who are the powers that be within the "two" parties, those allegedly moderate types like Boehner and Obama who, apparently, know "the art of a deal." It just could be that those being labelled here "zealots" are just those who are more concerned with the fate of their country than those "non-zealots" who are more concerned with their perpetuating their own power than with governing in a responsible fashion. Or, to put this differently, maybe those labelled "zealots" are actually more interested in responsible governing than the "moderates."

And this would make for an interesting conversation.

More on the "Crisis"

"Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans over taxes and spending. To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of G.O.P. extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. As The Times’s Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter’s preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences.

"But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? “Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric.” A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!"
New York Times, July 29, 2011

First, yesterday's post on why Boehner would pass something in the House that had no chance of becoming law needs, I think, some revision insofar as Boehner cancelled that vote. Now the question is, Why did he cancel the vote? And it could be about gamesmanship. Any suggestions? I need help here.

But here we have the words of Krugman from the Times today, July 29th, and they struck me as interesting insofar as Krugman focuses on the alleged "balance" requirement of the news media. But it seems to me that more interesting story is Obama and why he "staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter’s preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences." And along the same lines, why does Krugman not find this interesting, at least interesting enough to speculate about why Obama has done this. He does say that Obama has leaned "so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over" but he does not wonder why. Again, I am not at all sure why Obama has done this but I will offer one explanation that has the advantage of simplicity: This is what Obama thinks should be done and it is what Obama wants to do.

The only other possibility I can think of is that this serves some parochial or partisan interest Obama has, which of course means that Obama is not primarily concerned with governing or its requirements at this point. And if so this would make the story that is most interesting not about "balance" but rather about the fact that neither party is actually or primarily interested in governing.

Why?

"The House began debate and a vote was expected early this evening, with Republican leaders confident of winning over enough holdouts to pass their plan, which would make $900 billion in cuts, raise the debt ceiling for a few months, and come back for more of the same later. But Senate Democratic leaders said that if that happened they would waste no time rejecting the legislation.

"Leaders of both parties and in both chambers said that it was essential to avoid a default on the federal debt, but that was practically all they agreed on." From the NY Times, today, July 28, 2011.

So the question is why does Boehner want to pass a debt ceiling package that will not pass the Senate? Or to put this differently, why pass such a package when he knows it will not do anything and cannot do anything to get a deal done? Or, still differently, why is Boehner not interested in actually governing, but is content to "play games" or engage in gamesmanship?

And if you say this is strategy on Boehner's part, what is that strategy? What is to be gained as a result of this action?

And although I cannot answer these questions to my own satisfaction, I will say that the answers one provides depends upon how one understands the actions of our politicians. That is, if you think that Boehner's primary concern is actually governing according to a set of principles he deems fundamental, then his "strategy" is really no strategy at all. Rather, it is merely an action, known in advance to be futile, that is meant to endorse these principles, even though this endorsement will do nothing or have little or no consequences. However, if you consider the possibility that Boehner has over concerns, say, more parochial concerns, then it is possible to see this as a "strategy" that is meant achieve certain results. What results could Boehner want to achieve, if we exclude legislative consequences? Does he want to try to showup the President or the Senate, that is, the Democrats in the Senate by forcing them to vote this option down? That has a certain plausibility to it. But it should be asked, What does this achieve? Does this make it more likely that the Republicans will gain as a result of a Senate or presidential veto? At the present moment, the answer to this question would seem to be "No," because most the American people seem to want some kind of settlement, almost any kind of settlement, because they sense that this situation could be resolved rather easily if politicians would stop "playing politics."

So, it remains, at least to me, to be seen what Boehner is about, what his objectives are. And I would just point out that our commonly accepted understandings of how our politicians behave do not provide very persuasive explanations at this point. So, it would seem that whatever is going in D.C. right now, we don't really understand. And this in itself is interesting.

The Power of Business

"The tension highlights the distance between the pro-business stalwarts of the traditional Republican Party and the populism of its newer representatives, many of whom seem to view Wall Street and Washington with equal suspicion.

“I think they’re very pleased with the anti-government inclinations of the Tea Party Republicans when it comes to taxes and regulation,” said David Axelrod, one of the president’s chief political advisers. “But now we have a situation where the integrity of the economy and the U.S. financial system is at stake, and they’re being hoisted on their own petards.”"

This is from an article in today's NY Times [July 27, 2011] highlighting that "business," meaning some businesses like the Chamber of Commerce, are trying to get Republicans or some of them to support increasing the debt limit but are not having as much success as they would like. This illustrates, of course, the great power that "business" has over those it makes contributions to because these businesses, as the article points out, gave a lot of money to these Republicans. So why can't they just dictate to these Republicans and get their way? Good question. Perhaps we have overestimated the power of those who give money to politicians. Perhaps we even have the relationship wrong, viz., that these businesses are hit up for money and pay not because they want to but because they are expected too. A kind of "payment in lieu of taxes" if you will. They, the businesses, are not buying influence; they are buying protection.

A Question: What the Heck Is Going On?

"The [Boehner] plan was met with skepticism — and in many cases outright rejection — by several conservative House members who said its savings did not go far enough. President Obama and most Congressional Democrats also have rejected the proposal, saying it is only a short-term solution and could lead to market uncertainty and instability."

Here is a question to which I don't have an answer or, at least, don't seem to have an answer: Why would Boehner and Cantor - the Republican Party leaders and powers that be - propose "a plan" that was, from the outset, unacceptable both to members of Republican Party who need to be placated and to Obama who holds the veto power? How do you make sense of this?

One thing is that, obviously, this "plan" is really not a plan at all. It is something else, although I cannot say what it might be. But if human beings offer "a plan" that is bound to fail - and they know it is going to fail - then it must be something like a Trojan horse. And if we add into the equation that Boehner and Cantor probably don't want to lose their power - because what politicians actually do things that in the long run cost them power? - then we need to ask: How does this plan preserve that power? How could rejection of the "plan" actually help Boehner and Cantor, in the long run?

I have these questions but not the answers. But then, apparently, others, like the NY Times, don't even have the questions as they seem to take the position that Boehner and Cantor don't know what they are doing or are merely looking for a way to satisfy these freshmen Tea Party types, as if they, Boehner and Cantor, did not know what these freshmen wanted. But if we know, simply from reading the paper, how could Boehner and Cantor not know? This doesn't seem very plausible, at least not to me. So, again, we come back to the question: What the heck is going on here?

The Game

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/us/politics/27fiscal.html?_r=1&hp

"Scores of the House’s most conservative members pored over the details presented by the Republican leaders and concluded they did not like what they saw.

"In a Tuesday morning meeting, Representative Eric Cantor, the chamber’s majority leader, told fellow Republicans to “stop grumbling and whining and to come together as conservatives and rally behind” the House speaker John Boehner’s plan. But many lawmakers complained that it lacked sufficient spending cuts. As a further blow to its prospects, the Club for Growth, which scores members on their fiscally conservative votes, came out against the plan."

The game plan is clear to me now. The Tea Partiers are being set up by Boehner and Cantor to take the fall for this "crisis," which of course is no real crisis at all. It is manufactured crisis and its purpose or one of its purposes to allow the establishment Republicans to discipline the Tea Party Republicans by making them look like extremists. Now, the Tea Party are guilty, according to Cantor, of "grumbling and whining" and of not being loyal to the Republican Party cause, here called the "conservative" cause. So, standing on principle is "grumbling and whining." Sounds like something you would hear on Oprah, if there.