I guess if I were to offer sincere advice to conservative Republicans about how best to deal with President Obama’s second term it would be to recognize that they cannot succeed in radically downsizing the federal government while he is in office. To attempt to do so through endless fiscal cliffs and sequesters and artificial deadlines and extensions, is a recipe for failure. They won’t make anyone happy, not even their base. They won’t get what they want. And they will alienate almost everyone.
From the conservative point of view, perhaps the worst outcome of their intransigence will be that President Obama will wind up presiding over the biggest shift in public to private employment in the last century, mainly indirectly though layoffs in state and local government. He will emerge as a giant whose legacy covers so much political space on the ideological spectrum, that there is no room left for a majority-right party. By keeping Obama locked in where he is, they allow Obama to own the space they’re trying to claim as their own. It’s much like the credit Bill Clinton gets for balancing the budget.
Conservatives do better when they can point to overreach by the Democrats, as they did in 1994 and 2010. And, lest Republicans think they can repeat the 2000 election in 2016, remember that that election was influenced by a flawed ballot, a blow job, a robotic Democratic candidate, a right-wing Supreme Court, and obsolete demographics.
The Republicans should not just roll over, but they should really pick their battles more carefully. Make a deal on the budget, take your lumps on immigration, agree to some new gun regulations, and get to work on some policies that are actually popular.
They should take a libertarian view of the drug war and work towards ending it or rolling it back. Want a bureau to defund or get rid of, Rick Perry? Try the DEA.
I suspect they won’t, and the Democrats will eventually occupy that space, too.
Case in point, Jared Polis and Earl Blumenauer
Polis’ measure would regulate marijuana the way the federal government handles alcohol: In states that legalize pot, growers would have to obtain a federal permit. Oversight of marijuana would be removed from the Drug Enforcement Administration and given to the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms
“the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms”
I propose the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Maui Wowie and Firearms
That’s actually a pretty good niche for republicans, and they might take it up after they realize their own ideological collapse
Thought experiment: what if the conservative majority was real and not a product of Karl Rove’s fever dreams? What if the Republican president was trying to accomplish all kinds of things that Democrats hate but the only lever of power they have is to obstruct in Congress? What if the majority of the country supported what this Republican president is doing even though Democrats fully and sincerely believe it’s completely wrong and harmful?
What then? Should Democrats in that case follow Booman’s advice, give up on some issues, and try to strike a deal with the administration?
I don’t think the reversal really works, due to the fundamentally different attitudes the two parties have toward the government. Right now the Democrats are the only party that has any interest in using the federal government to do anything constructive. If the Republican president was Mitt Romney, the only thing he’d be trying to accomplish would be to tear down the government, so it’s a totally different dynamic.
Or to put it another way, the Republicans can accomplish their goals through inaction, while the Democrats have to act. So the Republicans have a much easier time being in the minority–they can get their way by obstructing, because they fundamentally don’t want the government to do anything anyway.
Stephen makes a good point. But I’ll add to it that the Republicans want power and there are things that they can do that will help them get it, and things that will hurt. As long as they are stuck opposing things that are popular, they’re in a losing game, even if it makes their base somewhat happy. It’s even worse when they keep setting themselves up to cave in.
There is not much to gain anymore from trying to make Obama a failure. What they need to do is work with him on things that people want, which will dull the perceived differences between the parties and make them look less dangerous. Basically, it’s the 2000 model, but that’s just for starters.
The answer to that question is yes. You try to limit the damage (as you see it) and then live to fight another day. Either you convince the public you are right and begin to win elections or you are actually wrong and that’s why you’re in the minority.
And in fact, this is pretty much what Democrats did from 1968 to 2008 (you may choose a different timeline within that period, but the point holds true).
The Republicans should drop the “war to save America” nonsense and start behaving through normal politics and honesty with respect to voters. Everett Dirksen used to know how to play the game. But that was before the “modern conservative revolution”, not to mention the triumph of the “Taxed Enough Already Party principles”.
The theater is getting really good. Atrios (Duncan Black) puts his “increase Social Security benefits” idea in USA Today and it starts filtering through the blogosphere and social media. (If you haven’t been part of that filtering, get with it.)
So today apparently Obama reaffirms his willingness to negotiate and calls for an end to “governance by crisis”. And the hint of “grand bargain” sends the usual suspects nutzoid about “an empty suit” and “selling us out”. Which uproar will add to the pressure to end the “governance by crisis”. Despite the infighting, the political pressure is moving in a unified fashion. You might call it the Progressive Firebag and Drum Corps. That is politics without branding.
It is eleven-dimension chess. No. But there is a public strategy involved that depends on a deepening and changing understanding of the political forces that can move Congress.
Has the White House finally broken the bubble. Absolutely not. There is still a lot of cluelessness and capture by Village thinking going on.
But the GOP is in a huge double bind. (1) If they continue government by crisis, they will continue to lose GOP brand support — eventually costing them state and national offices. (2) If they compromise with the President, the most rabid and active of their base disappears, costing them state and national offices.
Surprisingly, the GOP, long the masters of long term thinking and planning, are suddenly caught in short term scenarios. 2010 was actually a fresult of thinking “How can we regain some power now” without thinking of the long term consequences.
If they were going to go back to long term thinking and planning they would go with option 2, even though the short term result would be a loss. I think their real problem is that the long term thinkers in the party no longer have any power of consequence.
One of the unintended consequences of constant purging for purity.
Maybe Bush II was a sort of culmination of a bunch of long term plans and strategies; they actually had the country in their hands, there was no obstacle between them and conservatopia… and they fucked up royally, so now they are playing by ear
Enjoy, especially the comments section … Some GOP suggestions from Wyoming
Their best bet is the former. If I were to advise them, I would say,”Get away from the cliff edge. It makes the voters nervous. Settle for small changes to appropriation bills, not eliminating them.”
I am not concerned with telling the GOP how to re establish a stranglehold on the Federal Government. One need to look no farther than Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and other ” red” states to see how that is working out at the state level.