Much hay is being made about a GOP wave election today. Sure, it looks like the GOP, by all indicators, is poised to make some gains, perhaps some relatively significant gains. But what all of us have to remember is that the GOP is making gains on top of a pretty steep four year decline. When you've pretty much hit rock bottom, going up to the surface level may seem like an impressive victory, but it's just really getting back to a place where one can breath.
So if the GOP picks up 50+ seats tonight in the House in a good case scenario, that will give them control of the House, but only by a mere 25-30 seats or so. When you're talking 435 seats, that's like just barely tipping the fulcrum in their direction. And it looks even more unlikely that the GOP will win enough Senate races to control that chamber. How is that any kind of GOP referendum. In the end, when you look at what this GOP wave might look like, the results will still be a closely divided government with a GOP edge in the House, a Democratic edge in the Senate, and a Democrat in the White House -- and all this in a sustained economic environment that is the worst that I can remeber in my lifetime. If the GOP can't ride the "wave" to a more convincing victory than what best case scenarios pose for them this election cycle, I don't think they're likely to ever recover a decisive majority down the road.
So, progressive liberals should take heart. The "defeat" tonight is not gonna be as bad as it might look at first blush. And who knows? I have a suspicion that tonight's outcomes are not gonna be nearly as dire as the prognosticators are predicting.
I think a lot of what is happening today goes back to the 2004 election, when many conservatives voted for Bush and the Republicans while threatening that if they didn't get serious about spending they would quit supporting them. Well, they didn't get serious about it, and many conservatives just didn't come out for the 06 elections, leading to significant Democrat gains. Many of those were in conservative disctricts, and what we're seeing now is basically the 2nd part of a two-part movement ("plan" would be a little too strong a word to use) to replace moderate Republicans in those districts with conservatives.
ReplyDeleteSo in a way, I think you are right: this election doesn't represent a dramatic shift in the mood of the country towards conservatism, but it does reclaim a lot of conservative territory that for over a decade has been in the clutches of either very squishy Republicans or moderaely liberal Democrats.
Some of the new Republicans are sure to disapoint conservatives, but I think overall you'll see a much more fiscally hard-assed attitude from Republicans in the House and the Senate than you saw during the Bush years. And it's worth noting that this dynamic worked well for the nation when Clinton was in office. I also think there will be enough potentian for obstructionism to force President Obama to seriously reconsider what he wants to accomplish over the next few years (he's going to have to fight hard just to retain the legislation he's already passed, as there will be reletntless pressure to roll back many aspects of Obamacare starting immediately).
So I think this mid-term will signify the high-water mark of Obama's ability to enact the agenda he campaigned on. I wouldn't expect to see the federal government do much of anything new for the next few years.
Ultimately though, I think our federal system is a sinking ship, and neither conservatives nor liberals can do much to save it at this point because Americans, by and large, want to have their cake and eat it too.
After the primaries, all my political contributions, effort, and 90% of my attention went to local and state races and issues, because I think state governments are going to become a lot more powerful over the next decade as our federal government's financial situation, and the power that is derrived from it, continues to unravel.
Eric = Perhaps you are right; but riding a wave of anger without any concrete proposals to right the sinking ship will not result in a happy electorate in 2012. Obama and the Democrats had to own an economy that tanked due in no small measure to Republican malfeasance, and that's fine. He who is in office takes the consequences for the state of current state of affairs. But I really believe your hope that Republicans will take a much harder-ass fiscal position is not likely to manifest itself in the ways that you imagine. Republicans will either shut down government completely simply as a tactic to try to take down Obama in 2012, even if Obama moves towards even more federal belt-tightening. In fact, we already have seen a bit of GOP fiscal fraudulence here in the run-up to the elections. The House GOP refused to create and participate in a Debt Commission that would have binding authority on fiscal matters, a process that Obama supported, forcing Obama to create a Presidential Debt Commission. If the GOP overreaches here (and I don't see how they won't be perceived as overreaching if they refuse to get serious about realistic debt reduction) they will lose in 2012. Second, if the GOP gets serious about debt reduction, they're going to have to come up with compromise legislation that will (1) alienate a certain portion of the base for demonstrating a willingness to work with Obama and Reid or (2) will piss off a lot of folks who just haven't come to terms with the reality that any serious fiscal reform must include looking at the big entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare) and defense spending. And if gloating conservatives really take this election as a sign and opportunity to go after Obama's jugular, even when Obama pursues pragmatic accommodation with them, we liberals (and I imagine a fair number of independents) will gird up for the fight in 2012 in ways we didn't this election cycle, bad economy notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Eric, I really hope this does result in a really tough and disciplined rein-in of debt and a more fiscally-responsible government. I've always supported this agenda. But I think fiscal conservatism from the Tea Party comes with a social conservatism that could be ugly and could undermine any good faith efforts at serious fiscal reform. We'll see what the social cons do; but my gut instinct is that social conservative agendas and anti-Obama obstructionism will thwart any serious fiscally conservative agendas.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Eric, I forgot to add that real fiscal responsibility will require some form of tax revenue increases. Any conservative who believes otherwise I would say is not truly serious about effectively getting a grip on the federal government's finances. Maybe that's unfortunate and maybe it didn't have to get so bad to require tax revenue increases, but that's the reality we face. There really is no painless way out of the hole. And I don't think Republicans want to saddled with ownership of that, much like the Democrats didn't want to be saddled with the ownership of the current economy.
ReplyDelete"The House GOP refused to create and participate in a Debt Commission that would have binding authority on fiscal matters..."
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the bill that was coauthored by a Republican Judd Gregg and couldn't get through a Democratically controlled House and Senate? Granted, some Repubs didn't want to touch it becasue they didn't want to be associated with tax increases that would give Obama cover for not making deep cuts in spending, but it was also rejected by Dems who didn't want to be attached to any attemmpts to cut benefits in Social Security and Medicare.
"Second, if the GOP gets serious about debt reduction, they're going to have to... work with Obama and Reid or (2) will piss off a lot of folks who just haven't come to terms with the reality that any serious fiscal reform must include looking at the big entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare) and defense spending."
Well, another way of looking at it is to say that Obama & Reid will finally be forced to work w/ the Republicans after two years of either ignoring or scoffing at any suggestions they make, and they will continue to face political consequences if they don't change their ways. As for entitlement spending, I agree w/ you there, but would say I'd rather people be pissed off at the GOP for cutting entitlement benefits than pissed off at the Dems for raising FICA taxes. At least the GOP now has some political capital to spend on the issue, which was not the case two years ago, or even one week ago. On defense spending, neither party is likely to give that issue the attention I think it deserves, but rest assured you ARE going to hear Republican voices calling for defense cuts (Rand Paul being one of the loudest... he refused to endorese the GOP's 'Pledge To America' specifically because it didn't put defense cuts on the table, and he wasn't the only one).
"...real fiscal responsibility will require some form of tax revenue increases."
Well that depends entirely on which side of the Laffer Curve we are currenlty on, doesn't it? Who's to say that significant tax cuts in the right areas won't jump start the economy and increase revenues? If raising taxes stalls the recession and decreases tax revenues, which is very possible, then how is that fiscally responsible? The truth that NOBODY wants to hear is that if you really want to do the most good for revenue production, you probably need to raise taxes slightly on the middle class (who currently pay almost nothing outside of their FICA taxes) while giving cuts to the wealthy to generate job creation. But that's not going to be politically possible no matter who is in charge.... one of the many reasons I believe the ship will continue to sink.
Good comments, Eric. Even if Congressional Dems were insincere in the Gregg budget commission, Obama was sincere and spent political capital on it. He wanted this, and actually defied loud voices in his party on the subject, and the fact remains that he could have gotten it if more conservatives had signed on to it. There were enough Dems, if coupled with stronger Republican support, to make it work.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know what actual proactive suggestions Republicans made in any of the policy debates that amounted to something more than a "No" to Obama. That was their only "idea." But, now they'll have to get serious to be taken serious and be proactive. I'm looking forward to watching Rand Paul. The Pauls (Rand and Ron) are somewhat vilified by many conservatives. We'll see what kind of traction he gets or whether he caves.
Regarding tax increases on the middle class ... doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the notions (really embraced by both parties, actually) that it is the middle class which is the real engine of entrepreneurialism and job creation? Even still going back to Clinton era tax rates for the $200-$250K income earners) doesn't seem to me to be on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. And we do know that Bush era tax cuts didn't do much to stave off the fiscal meltdown we experienced, so I'd say the evidence about where we are on the Laffer curve seems to indicate that the Bush tax cuts likely put us on the wrong side of it. And all this is especially moot if any extension of the Bush tax cuts is not accompanied by serious and painful reforms of the big three entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) and defense spending. And I've seen no GOP ideas that tackle this. In fact, the only comment I heard on the subject, which came from the new speaker of the house, Boehner, was that concrete proposals to reform entitlements was something to put off. That can't be encouraging.
I don't think many Republicans believed Obama was sincere. They thought he wanted some Republicans to be on the panel so that when a Democratically controlled House, Senate, and White House proposed tax increases they could claim it was based on a bipartisan effort.
ReplyDeleteThey may have been right or wrong about that, but after all their ideas on healthcare were dismissed out of hand (and somewhat derisively) they didn't have a lot of mutual trust to work with there.
It's also worth noting that in the Stimulus and Healthcare bills, there was a lot of stuff passed that if had been passed seperately as a stand-alone political product may have garnered Republican support, but since it was wrapped up in so much other more extreme legislation, it was stonewalled. I never heard a Republican argue against allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance for a few more years, but Obama is now trying using that as a wedge issue since it was part of the healthcare bill they opposed. So there was some bipartisan stuff in there, aside from the stuff the GOP recommended and had shoved back in their face.
On another issue, I don't buy that the middle class is the real engine of the economy, but rather it is a product created by it. People who are capable of really making the economy hum are quickly elevated past the financial ranks of middle classdom. That is why tax cuts for the wealthiest tend to produce the most good (aside from being fair, since they pay a much higher tax burden than the rest of us)... it frees up capital in the hands of the people most capable of turning it into jobs.
" And we do know that Bush era tax cuts didn't do much to stave off the fiscal meltdown we experienced, so I'd say the evidence about where we are on the Laffer curve seems to indicate that the Bush tax cuts likely put us on the wrong side of it."
The Laffer Curve doesn't guarantee a good economy, only whether revenues will go up or down if you give a tax cut. Bush gave significant tax cuts and government revenues went up annually for most of the next decade, excluding the year 9/11 happened and the year of the finacial meltdown. I've long thought it would be an interesting policy to give graduated annual tax cuts every year (giving a larger percentage to high income earners who pay a proportioally higher until we reach a time when revenues go down.
Also, Eric, I really hope this does result in a really tough and disciplined rein-in of debt and a more fiscally-responsible government. I've always supported this agenda.
ReplyDeleteI'm in complete agreement with that.
But I think fiscal conservatism from the Tea Party comes with a social conservatism that could be ugly and could undermine any good faith efforts at serious fiscal reform.
???
This strikes me as an example of an activity I find to be extraordinarily popular of late: Finding the Tea Party message to be unreasonable, as a direct consequence of deliberately misinterpreting that message so one can find it to be unreasonable.
How does the Tea Party's REAL message of "our children and grandchildren should be able to earn money, and keep money, and not have the value of their money destroyed by out-of-control inflation" thwart or contradict fiscal responsibility? It is the very essence of it.
As far as the other comments about a mandate, well, I might find them reasonable if the entire Senate had been up for re-election. But the Constitution says we can only vote on one third of that chamber per cycle. From the very beginning of the campaign season, a Republican takeover of the Senate was possible only with the absolutely rosiest scenario. As in, a single sitting democrat like Harry Reid or Barbara Boxer managing to fend off the competition (which those two did only narrowly) made it absolutely impossible.
In this era, the liberal vision is a Utopian one. A Utopian vision, to be valid, should be expected to become more obviously correct as it becomes closer. And yet for the last half century, when America is reminded of what liberalism is she consistently rejects it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578410626436120.html
And it speaks volumes that the point of exhaustion with liberalism arrives not quite so much with hearing ugly talking points about it, as with experiencing it firsthand, in reality. I notice the pattern holds up in reverse: When America is suckered into supporting liberalism, those are the points her history where the understanding is thinnest, bleakest, at its most ignorant. When she is tempted to "dabble" in liberalism.