President Obama is publicly beckoning Republicans to do more and better than solidly oppose everything he and congressional Democrats try to do, saying if Republicans want to govern they must contribute more than “No!”
To the extent this gently phrased, positive approach to calling out Republicans raises the stakes for them politically because it throws a spotlight on their obstruction, it’s a good thing.
But our president and everyone else should be clear there’s virtually no chance congressional Republicans will work in a positive way to find reasonable compromises on vital matters such as health care and financial reform, and combating global warming.
To do that, Republicans, already in the doghouse with a substantial majority of Americans, would have to risk alienating their base of government-hating, tax-phobic and all-around resentful people, sometimes called the 23 percenters.
That radical-conservative Republican base looks on compromise as capitulation or selling out. Those in it see working in a constructive way with a president whose religious beliefs they’re suspicious of, whose citizenship they question and whose race many of them find offensive, as political treason. On top of that, they’re so steeped in their own paranoid propaganda that they are convinced Obama is a doctrinaire socialist.
You can be sure House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and their lockstep marchers in both bodies are keenly aware of what happened to ex-Sen. Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and ex-Rep. Dede” Scozzafava, R-N.Y.
Chaffee was appointed in 1999 to complete the term of his father, Sen. John Chaffee, who died in office. In 2006, when Chaffee ran for his own full term, he was challenged in the Republican primary by the hard-right mayor of Cranston, Steve Laffey. The Washington, D.C.,-based Club for Growth and some anti-abortion groups in Ohio supported Laffey, who won the primary. However, Democrat and former U.S. Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse won the general election.
Why did conservative Republicans engineer the defeat of a fellow Republican? A good Wikipedia article makes that clear. Chaffee opposed the industry-written prescription drug bill. He opposed invasion of Iraq and considered running against President Bush in the 2004 election, but instead cast a write-in vote for Bush’s ex-president father. Chaffee supported gay rights, women’s right to decide about abortion, strong environmental protection and raising the top marginal tax rate to 39.6 percent — the only Republican to do so. He also opposed making John Bolton U.N. ambassador.
Last summer, a group of Republican Party chairmen in New York chose Scozzafava to run in a special election for a vacated seat in the 23rd Congressional District. Once the primary was under way, a group of right-wing Republicans from outside New York intervened to support one of their own, Doug Hoffman. The outsiders included Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and ex-Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee. The reason is made clear in another Wikipedia article:
Scozzafava’s record in the New York State Assembly included votes in favor of same-sex marriage, and she had also received an award from a Planned Parenthood affiliate in 2008. Scozzafava’s political positions included support for “card check” legislation, support for federal funding for abortion, support for President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, and a refusal to rule out support for health care reform that includes a “public option.”
The upshot? Neither Scozzafava nor Hoffman won; Bill Owns did — the first Democrat to win in that district in many decades.
The object lessons are clear. Any congressional Republican who wanders off the straight and very narrow path required by the radical-conservative base is subject to having their career ended, even if it means losing elections to Democrats.
We don’t believe there are any moderates left among Senate Republicans. We doubt more than a handful of House Republicans, if any, fit that description.
But if there were any whose conscience or common sense might be appealed to, we’re convinced that nothing Obama could say or do would overcome Republican officeholders’ intention to not commit political suicide.
That’s the unfortunate reality, and it risks generating a balancing enforcement of party discipline on the Democratic side. That could easily come about so Obama won’t be made a failed president and so congressional Democrats won’t be penalized for failure to deliver needed reforms.
It doesn’t surprise me, nor alarm me, really, that parties expect their members to toe the party line. I think the problem is not with party “loyalty” (or, perhaps, “protection scheme”) as it is with parties.
Consensus is nice, but even consensus takes leadership to make it work. Leadership requires working principles. It’s hard to see whether Obama has working principles that are actually expressed in anything he actually does.
In line with my oft-stated thought that bold, progressive leadership will attract more of a following than consensus building that tries to find a “center”, I’m starting to think that Al Franken has a big career ahead of himself, and I find that idea rather appealing.
Straddling the line in the middle-of-the-road usually means you have a good chance of being run over from either side, or both. Obama keeps trying to be nice the Republicans, although he made them look foolish at their retreat, the time is fast approaching to abandon cooperation, because for it to work, both sides have to be involved.
Jeff, Republicans behave like a small political pressure group with very tight discipline. Democrats behave like a ’50s or ’60s big-tent party with almost no discipline. So for them, it’s like bringing a pocket comb to a gun fight. Regarding leadership that’s definitely, proudly liberal and determined to get stuff done, and about Franken, I fully agree.
Holte, that’s an excellent observation. If Obama’s game now is to cleverly put obstructionist Republicans in the spotlight and keep them there, in hopes they’ll get bad press and public disapproval, let’s see if it gets anywhere. If he’s counting on Republicans having a change of heart on their own, he’s too unrealistic for anyone’s good.
This televised health care debate between Obama and Republicans would be an excellent idea. It would benefit the public immensely to hear this issue actually debated rationally (if any Republicans are capable of that). I hope Democratic strategists put the pressure on for the Republicans to agree to this debate.
Tom, if Republicans do show up, I expect them to exploit the chance to tout their talking points, mischaracterize provisions in the House and Senate bills, and do anything and everything to make the public think any approach but theirs will mean big tax and cost increases.
I saw today that he and Boehner had a little exchange. I’ve seen direct quotes from Boehner, but I haven’t seen one from Obama. I wonder if he finally told Junket John to f-off?