I assume you remember when Newt Gingrich’s Republicans shut the government down in 1995. They thought they had some giant mandate from the people to gut the federal government and really stick it to the poor, but it turned out that they didn’t. They’d only been swept into office to bring about some nebulous idea of change. People wanted less corruption, more transparency. They were concerned about deficit spending and government waste, but they wanted their representatives to use a scalpel, not a meat cleaver. The President forced the Republicans to blink, and from that moment on his reelection was assured.
You might not remember the aborted coup attempt against Gingrich that took place in July 1997. The Republicans had lost nine seats in the 1996 elections, and a lot of the survivors blamed the loss on the government shutdown and Gingrich’s poor leadership. He had been embroiled in ethics scandals and had only been reelected as Speaker by a 216-205 vote. Shortly thereafter the full House voted 395-28 to reprimand Gingrich for his ethics violations and make him pay a staggering $300,000 fine.
So, Gingrich was definitely on probation as he went about setting the agenda for the 105th Congress. And then he made a gigantic mistake. There had been a lot of flooding in the Midwest during the winter of 1996-97, and the government had used up all the money they had appropriated for disaster relief. They needed to refill the coffers, and they figured that President Clinton would feel compelled to sign any disaster relief supplemental that they put forward. It was a perfect time to tack some otherwise objectionable material onto a must-pass bill. The Republicans didn’t want the Commerce Department to use a sampling technique in the census to help account for the underreporting of black and latino citizens. They made that technique illegal. The other thing the did was to make a provision that would avoid a government shutdown if the president and Congress were ever to reach an impasse on the budget again in the future.
Much to their surprise, Clinton vetoed that disaster relief and blamed the Republicans for playing politics. When Gingrich quickly caved, the Republicans had a revolt. For a time it looked like Dick Armey or Jim Paxson might replace Gingrich in a coup. But, when Armey realized he was unlikely to win that battle, he betrayed the coup-plotters to Newt, and the whole thing got shut-down.
The reason I bring this up is that it reminds us that this problem the Republicans have with optics has been there from the beginning of their 1994 Revolution. They listen to their most rabid partisans and convince themselves that they are pursuing popular policies. They think they will get rewarded for shutting down the government, or impeaching the president, or privatizing Social Security, or denying people unemployment insurance, or blocking health care reform. But it never happens.
For a while, the Republicans treaded water. They maintained just enough support to control Congress. In 2001, they lost the Senate during the summer before the terrorist attacks. Then they got a four year reprieve as the nation lurched to the right in response to those attacks. But the nation has never agreed with the Gingrichites. They never had a true mandate to do anything. And, yet, they still act like they have a mandate to push their totally discredited ideology.
ISN’T prologue:
took the bait…
yes, that’s a subtle reminder that winning elections doesn’t mean you necessarily have a mandate to enact your entire party platform.
Except the Republicans never had the numbers Democrats now do .. I know it is hard to believe .. but they did a lot more with a lot less numbers in the majority .. and when was the last time a President got elected with the numbers Obama did? Ray-gun’s second term? and before that? Johnson over Goldwater?
I’m not sure you can really say they lost the senate in conventional terms. They had a switcher, which is fine and fair but it’s not on the level of an electoral defeat which they eventually suffered for the same reasons.
It would be interesting to know how 2002 would have turned out otherwise, I know I was too demoralized by the Dems to vote in that one, the only time I haven’t.
Booman’s got a much better memory of that time period than I do. I think I was working too much at the time to pay alot of attention. I seem to remember the voters kicking out the Dems because they had become corrupt after having so much power for so long. The House Bank scandal (HUGE personal checking account overdrafts were covered without penalty) may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
As I saw it, the people gave the Republicans a shot because they seemed to have a plan for something. We knew we were going to create some gridlock in Washington, which was desirable at the time and the Republicans couldn’t implement their entire crazy agenda. But the Democrats needed to be punished.
I’m not disagreeing with anything Booman said. I just wanted to state the way I remember it. I may have even voted for a Republican Representative that time around. I just don’t remember.
I think they did gain from the impeachment of Clinton. I think without that impeachment and the resulting rejection of Clinton by Gore, Al Gore would have been President. And don’t post that he did win. I know he did, but by a razor-thin margin that allowed the courts to step in. Gore should have beaten Bush by a wide margin.
Also, if Republican ideas are so unpopular, why does the President want them incorporated in the health care bill?
Why would he have Bush Republicans as Secretary of Defense and Treasury if he didn’t belief that Democrats were too weak to fight wars and that Reagonomics was good? What was TARP but trickle-down economics? The homeowners are still being trickled on, while the bankers are collecting their multi0million dollar bonuses with government money. Pure Reaganism.
As for accidents, Obama’s whole career has been the result of lucky accidents. If Jack Ryan hadn’t had sordid details of his divorce revealed, he would have been Senator and Obama would be no higher than State Senator and probably considering a primary run for Governor now. HRC would be President. Republicans would be screaming “SOCIALISM” at her every utterance. Some things never change.
I think you’re essentially right about the 2000 election, but it’s also useful to keep in mind the “War on Gore” that the traditional media waged (See the 1999-2000 archives in http://www.dailyhowler.com/ ).
This reminds me of something a friend of mine said back at that time (1995) and which he has had many an occasion to repeat since then: The Republicans’ approach to everything is always “BANZAIIII!!!!” They have no brakes. They ALWAYS overplay their hand.
My big memory of Gingrich during that time was his gentle, soothing term “Strengthen and Protect Social Security.” Of course, when he revealed that his plan was really to plop Social Security down on the table and to start hacking off slices and tossing them over to his buddies on Wall Street, people said “What!?!?! You wanna do WHAT to our retirement funds?!?!”
All those wunnerful words that Gingrich came up with to sell his plans, then when he tried to put his plans into operation, people said “Uh Mah Gawd!!! Is THAT what you meant?!?!”