Let’s discuss Steve Benen’s observations on the latest New York Times/CBS Poll that shows Congress is now confirmed as considerably less popular than the Herpes simplex virus. This is especially true of congressional Republicans.
Of course, if congressional Republicans, perhaps even motivated by self-interest, wanted to boost the institution’s approval rating, they could do so rather easily — they could work with Democrats on a jobs bill, among other things. It would work wonders for their poll numbers.
But we know that won’t happen. The GOP’s far-right base wouldn’t tolerate it; Republicans wouldn’t risk boosting the president’s standing; conservatives don’t understand the basics of economics anyway; and since the GOP wants to undermine Americans’ confidence in public institutions anyway, it’s inclined to reject job-creation efforts to advance the larger goal of pushing voters to give up on Washington altogether.
Still, less than a year after the Republicans’ “wave” 2010 midterms, nothing says “buyers’ remorse” like a 12% approval rating.
The polls appear rather unambiguous. People hate Congress and they really hate congressional Republicans. But is Benen correct when he says that the Republicans could turn things around by cooperating with the president and passing a bill that would potentially create a couple million jobs? That’s not clear to me. As Benen notes, the Republicans want to undermine confidence in public institutions. If people don’t believe in government, they will tend to prefer Republican rhetoric and resist progressive proposals. It’s hard to argue that they haven’t been successful. At the very least, they’ve been successful enough that a generalized anti-government attitude is strong enough to sustain a counterbalance to the fact that, when polled, the people tend to support the president’s proposals.
Let’s start with a depressing observation. Because congressional Republicans are now as unpopular as they were during the height of the 2008 economic collapse when the country was absolutely exhausted from eight years of Bush, there is little downside risk to continuing to obstruct. What risk exists is in failing to improve their polls numbers. But their poll numbers are only one factor in how congressional Republicans will fare in next year’s elections.
Most obviously, if the president does as well in the suburbs as he did in 2008, his coattails will wipe out dozens of Republican seats in the House. The GOP therefore has a powerful incentive to make the president look weak. They can accomplish that by simply refusing to pass any bills that he’s willing to sign. In addition to making him look weak, they also can prevent any measure from passing that might improve the economy. An improving economy will almost ensure Obama’s reelection, particularly because the Republicans do not have strong presidential candidates.
Another factor is noted by Benen. Cooperating with the president would upset the Republicans’ far-right base, potentially depressing their turnout. Of course, the president cooperating with the Republicans can depress his base. As for the middle, they’d be happy to see a functional government that can actually work together to solve problems, but they’d probably reward the Democrats for that more than the Republicans because it would show that government can work and that the president can bend Congress to his will.
Now, if at any point in this process the Republicans actually put the good of the country in front of their cynical ideology, this would be a no-brainer. If you have a 12% approval rating, you’re doing everything wrong and should try something else. We only have one president at a time, and he should be allowed to try to fix the economy based on the advice of his economic advisers. If it doesn’t work, people will elect someone else. If it does work, that’s great for the country.
But the Republicans want to destroy Obama’s presidency more than they want to help people who are out of work, losing their homes and, increasingly, living in poverty.
As a result, their current maximally-obstructive strategy probably makes the best sense for them.
