James Baker Advises the Republican Party

I am sure that the following is anathema to those who prefer ideological purity in the Republican party to the actual winning of elections--and to the ability to use election victories in order to claim a mandate to change policy for the better--but I happen to be enough of a heterodox thinker to believe that there is some merit to be found in Baker's advice:

There was, however, one big loser [in the government shutdown debacle]: the American people. This misguided episode cost the federal government $24bn, cost the country a potential drop in gross domestic product, and cost the GOP an opportunity to focus on the extraordinary failure associated with the ACA rollout.

Most Americans blame Republicans for the fiasco. And the fight over reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling revealed fissures within the GOP leadership. Understandably, questions have arisen about the party’s future. Will it split between Tea Partiers and its more mainstream factions? Will a third party rise from the aftermath of this schism? Is the Republican brand so tarnished that it cannot take control of the Senate in 2014 or the White House in 2016?

Having participated in presidential politics since 1976, one thing is clear to me. The party out of power is typically seen as impotent, helpless and hopeless. But just as inevitably, that same party always seems to rebound after serious soul searching.

Moreover, there has always been a wide range of interest groups in the party. For decades, we have had substantial fights between rightwing and more establishment Republicans. This infighting was particularly brutal in 1976, 1980 and 1988, and we went on to win two out of three presidential elections.

The party’s diversity, however, is a strength, not a weakness. Today, Tea Partiers bring a passion that can be an important edge in elections. But mainstream Republicans remain indispensable. It may sound trite, but it is true: united we stand, divided we fall. I think most Republicans understand that.

So what does the GOP need to do now? In the short term, remember that tactics and strategy both matter. It was a fool’s errand to tie the defunding of the ACA to a government shutdown and a debt-ceiling debate. Because Democrats control the White House and the Senate, the strategy was never going to work. To paraphrase Clayton Williams, a Republican who lost the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race after a series of gaffes: we shot ourselves in the foot and reloaded.

That does not mean that Republicans should stop criticising the ACA. It remains an example of big government at its worst: cumbersome, complicated and intrusive. The best – in fact, only – way to repeal the ACA is to control the White House, Senate and the House of Representatives. Democrats, after all, enacted the law when they controlled all three. So the focus should be on winning elections to control those levers of power.

Epic Defeat

So, Congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling and reopen government, which is the good news for anyone who cares about decent and responsible policymaking. The bad news is that in a few months, we may end up repeating the entire fight. I can't wait to see what that does to our credit rating. I also can't wait to see the people who thought that the current shutdown and flirtation with debt ceiling disaster was A Compendium of All the Wonderful Things tell us a couple months down the line that we have to tilt at windmills again because . . . well . . . something.

Of course, it would be nice if congressional Republicans avoided making the same mistake again. Perhaps they could listen to one of their own:

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), one of the more conservative voices in the House GOP caucus, told CNN on Wednesday afternoon: “We lost. That’s it. You’re absolutely right. The folks who said we were going to lose turned out to be correct. I can’t argue that.”

I pray that Rep. Mulvaney isn't going to get primaried for these comments at some point before the night is over.

The only thing that Republicans got in the deal legislative deal that brought this entire horror show to an end is a commitment to verify the incomes of those seeking subsidies in order to enroll in Obamacare. Of course, income verification was already part of the bill authorizing the Affordable Care Act, so this means that Republicans got absolutely nothing whatsoever of any substance or value from the shutdown. This is what happens when an incredibly weak hand gets ridiculously overplayed.

It is time for some serious self-examination on the right, and to that end, I am glad to give the microphone to Peter Wehner. Read the whole thing that he wrote. Also, read John Podhoretz:

Apologists for [Senator Ted] Cruz and [Senator Mike] Lee say they drew attention to ObamaCare. This is nothing short of demented. ObamaCare has been pretty much the sole subject of Republican domestic- policy politics over the past three years. It didn’t need them to call attention to it.

If anything, as it turns out, they drew attention away from it.

Had they not created the shutdown, the political discussion in the United States these past two weeks would have been entirely dedicated to the disastrous launch of ObamaCare — something so disastrous, in fact, that liberal journalists have been unable to avoid the subject and have instead taken to whining about it.

But no. Instead, we spent the two weeks before the launch watching Ted Cruz rally the Republican faithful with a fantasy scenario in which the public would stage an uprising against ObamaCare and force a bunch of Democratic senators to vote to defund it.

Well, that didn’t happen.

But once the conservative base became convinced the defunding of ObamaCare was a possibility, the Republican House found it impossible not to join in the really futile and stupid gesture. Shutdown ensued.

Well, that’s over with. And maybe the damage will not be very great. But doing really futile and stupid things is never a good idea, and for a political party, it is disastrous.

Such behavior convinces people who are not firmly fixed in your party’s corner that you don’t care about the good working ­order of the United States, that you’re only out to satisfy your own ideological fantasies, and that you’re actually unserious.

Listen: Not enough people are voting for Republicans. That’s why the GOP has lost the popular vote in five out of the last six national elections. What happened over the past two weeks will only harm the effort to convince those who can be convinced to vote Republican that doing so is wise and prudent.

You would think that all of this was obvious to begin with. You would think that an entire column in the New York Post would not have to be devoted to explaining the obvious to very smart politicians.

You would think wrong.

From the Department of “Imagine If Republicans Did this Kind of Thing”

Wow:

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) is riding a compelling Hillary Rodham Clinton story. It’s not so much about her quite-possible presidential run. Nor is it about the Clinton family’s foundation. Nor Benghazi. It’s about how Clinton is attempting the impossible: Turning a speech into something approaching an off-the-record occasion.

This morning, the former secretary of state was in Atlanta for a speaking engagement before the National Association of Convenience and Fuel Retailing (NACS). As the AJC reported yesterday, members of the media were barred from the session. Today it reported that a “cone of silence” had descended on her remarks. “Convention officials banned all video and sound recording, social media, and naturally, journalists,” wrote the AJC’s Greg Bluestein and Jim Galloway.

I am pretty sure that Hillary Clinton will indeed run for president again in 2016. I am also pretty sure that lots of people in the media share my assessment. Shouldn't they be calling Clinton out on her lack of transparency?

Our Ongoing Governmental Disaster

This Ross Douthat piece is very good indeed on describing why the Republican shutdown plan was so crazy to begin with, and why indeed no method to Republican plans can be found. I would excerpt favorite parts, but really, one ought to read the whole thing.

While I am citing Douthat, here is another piece of his from which I will excerpt:

. . . I suppose one possible alternative would be for Republicans to step outside the murder-suicide context of shutdowns and debt ceiling brinksmanship, set aside the fantasy of winning major policy victories in divided government, cut a few small deals if possible and otherwise just oppose the president’s agenda on issues like immigration and climate change, and try to win the next two elections on the merits. This is how American political parties normally seek to enact their preferred policies, and the fact that the Republicans and Democrats are currently further apart ideologically than our political parties have traditionally been only strengthens the case for this old-fashioned way of doing things. Want to repeal/replace Obamacare, reform entitlements, do tax reform without tax increases? Go win a presidential election.

Well said. But of course, these days, to suggest that Republicans ought to moderate political positions in order to be able to win an election or two is to be a RiNO, utterly devoid of principles.

I do not want to make too much of the claim that the GOP's political position has become untenable. There are limits to that theory, which Nate Silver discusses in a very informative piece (isn't it interesting that Silver suddenly has fans on the right? A year ago, Silver was under attack from the right for having had the temerity to suggest that Barack Obama would win the presidential election). But as I have (plaintively) mentioned before, wouldn't it have been great if the GOP had avoided shooting itself in both feet, and instead, we had the opportunity to focus on just how incredibly embarrassed the Obama administration and just about every supporter of Obamacare must feel regarding the utterly disastrous rollout of the new health care program? Wouldn't it be better for Republican politicians if they could make fun of the Obama administration's admission that we should expect "months" of glitches with the Obamacare registration program?  Wouldn't it be better for Republican politicians to be able to focus on the fact that Obamacare is already giving consumers bad economic choices, or the fact that a former member of the Obama administration is criticizing the president's handling of the shutdown, or the fact that people like Megan McArdle are now pushing for Obamacare to have a drop-dead date for implementation?

Well yes, all of this would be better. But instead, what we have is a war between the establishment and the Tea Party (and yes, because of the way in which the Tea Party botched strategy and tactics for Republicans, I most certainly do have sympathy for the establishment in this fight, and note that the establishment is not made up of Gerald Ford Republicans, but people like former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who is no one's idea of a moderate or RiNO). Instead, what we have are concerns that the default has already begun, and while I don't think that any evaporated faith in the United States government "will never return," I certainly think that in the short term, this entire dumb fight has caused a lot of damage to the United States government. At the end of the day, Republicans are going to have to give a lot of ground in negotiations in order to allows the government to re-open and in order to prevent any kind of default, and the tragedy is that the upcoming Republican capitulation would never have been necessary if Republicans did not try to demand things from this fight that they were never going to get in the first place.

I have said before that the Republican stance in forcing the government shutdown, in flirting with a debt ceiling default, and in demanding concessions that they never had any realistic chance of getting was political malpractice of the first order, given the way in which Republican bumbles and stumbles took attention off of the failed Obamacare rollout. I see no reason to back away from that statement.

Republicans and the Right Continue to Bumble and Stumble

Don't look now, but there finally appears to be some work getting done in order to reopen the government and get some kind of deal achieved on increasing the debt ceiling through meetings between the White House and congressional Republicans. But Republicans are hardly negotiating from a position of strength. Note that the story points out that "the White House and its Democratic allies in Congress were all but declaring victory at the evidence that Republicans — suffering the most in polls, and pressured by business allies and donors not to provoke a government default — were seeking a way out of the impasse." That part about "suffering in the polls" is no joke, by the way:

The Republican Party has been badly damaged in the ongoing government shutdown and debt limit standoff, with a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finding that a majority of Americans blame the GOP for the shutdown, and with the party’s popularity declining to its lowest level.

By a 22-point margin (53 percent to 31 percent), the public blames the Republican Party more for the shutdown than President Barack Obama – a wider margin of blame for the GOP than the party received during the poll during the last shutdown in 1995-96.

Just 24 percent of respondents have a favorable opinion about the GOP, and only 21 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party, which are both at all-time lows in the history of poll.

I would like to use this blog post in order to thank the shutdown caucus for bringing about this unmitigated political/public relations disaster for the Republican party, and for the right in general. No Democrat or liberal, actively working to undermine the starboard side of American politics, could possibly have done a better job than the suicide squards of the right did with the GOP's reputation.

The good news for Republicans is that they have over a year until the 2014 elections. The bad news is that the Republicans have over a year to think to themselves "gee, how else can we make ourselves less popular than the bubonic plague," come up with answers, and then merrily set about implementing them--to the shock and delight of Democrats everywhere. I for one have no doubt that Republicans will rise to the occasion.

To the extent that congressional Republicans are able to get themselves out of the political jam they have created for themselves, it may be because of the efforts of Paul Ryan, who doubtless will be considered a RiNO and an apostate in short order for actually trying to be responsible instead of doing something crazy like urging default on the debt, or working to get the GOP's approval ratings in the single digits.

Of course, if congressional Republicans wanted a blueprint on how to act halfway intelligent, they might have listened to Megan McArdle. The following excerpt revolves around a point I have tried to make myself:

The shutdown is eclipsing the horrifyingly inept rollout of the federal exchanges. Republicans should be basking in schadenfreude while a grief-stricken administration watches its poll numbers plunge. Instead, Obama and his deputies are getting front-page stories every day where they get to claim to be the grown-ups in the room. Again, I don’t care whether this is because the mainstream media is biased, unless you have a negotiation scenario where the MSM disappears at the stroke of midnight and is replaced by the staff of the National Review and the Daily Caller.

To amplify McArdle's point, the GOP could have spent time chortling over the fact that only five people in Iowa have signed up for Obamacare. No, that's not a typo; only five people in the entire state of Iowa have signed up for Obamacare. But, you know, God forbid that congressional Republicans should listen to reason, get themselves out of the line of fire, and let the storyline focus on all of the problems with the Obamacare rollout.

This is political malpractice at its worst. And it has been brought about by "thought leaders" on the right who wouldn't know a good thought if it confronted them and slapped them in the face. Whether activists on the right--both in and out of Congress--actually genuinely believed that it would be a good idea to shut the government down and play chicken with the debt ceiling over unrealistic negotiating demands, or whether those activists knew that this would be a disaster, but felt that it would profit them to curry favor with the Tea Party, there needs to be a serious examination on the right regarding the kind of leadership it has been saddled with. Specifically, anyone who argued that the shutdown strategy and threats of not raising the debt ceiling were good ideas needs to be ousted from any position of leadership on the right. It is high time for the grownups to take charge. As things stand right now, the GOP's/right's brain trust is short on brains, and shouldn't be afforded any trust whatsoever.

Elections Have Consequences

Consider some of the ways in which the rollout of Obamacare has played in the news over this past week:

  • We are informed by Todd Park, the chief technology officer of the United States (yes, we have one), that the reason there have been bugs in the health care exchange websites that have made it all but impossible to sign up for health insurance is that there have been oh-so-many people who have tried to sign up. Apparently, the fault for the bugs lays not with those who designed and rolled out the sign-up system, but with those who actually tried to sign up. Or, in Park's words "These bugs were functions of volume. Take away the volume and it works." There you have it; if only people didn't try to sign up for the health insurance exchanges, the websites for the health insurance exchanges would be functioning just fine. This is one of the more Scooby-Dooish statements I have ever had the misfortune of stumbling upon. If the Obamacare rollout were an animated television show, Park would be the one at the end of the episode who shakes his fist, declaring that "the health insurance exchange websites would have worked too, if it weren't for you crazy kids trying to sign up!"
  • Meanwhile, the secretary of the treasury desperately tries to avoid telling us whether anyone actually has signed up for Obamacare. He even tries to tell you that the issue isn't his "primary area of responsibility." This isn't quite true, given the fact that the IRS is responsible for taxing people who don't get health insurance and that the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, but never mind, I guess; Jack Lew clearly wants to wash his hands of this entire mess.
  • And just out of curiosity, do you think that there are other stories out there like this one? Me too.

Now gee, if only there were a way to get the media to focus on all of these problems instead of allowing the media's attention to be divided by, oh . . . say . . . a government shutdown that has no strategy or tactics behind it. Yes, I know, much of the media is biased against Republicans and in the best of times, it is like pulling teeth to get reporters to cover stories that my feature the Obama administration making a boo-boo or several. But that doesn't mean that Republicans have to give the media an excuse not to cover the failures of Obamacare's implementation by giving the media targets to shoot at on the Republican side.

A number of people in this cross-posted thread protested my rant, because they believe that I am not providing constructive suggestions on how Obamacare can be repealed. Fair enough. I am glad to provide constructive pieces of advice. Here is one: Win elections.

"Well, duh, Pejman," I hear you cry. But the point is worth making, given the fact that Republicans have increasingly opted for ideological purity over being able to get moderates and independents to join Republicans in a coalition on general election days in order to get Republicans into political offices. I know that there are people out there who are sick and tired of hearing about Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin, Sharron Angle and Richard Mourdock, but let me tell you about Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin, Sharron Angle and Richard Mourdock. They all won Republican primary elections they had no business winning if the Buckley Rule were still being observed with any degree of faithfulness.

To be sure, the people spoke in all of those Republican primary contests, and I respect the people's wishes, but if the people wanted to choose candidates who could win Senate seats in Delaware, Missouri, Nevada and Indiana, they chose . . . poorly. O'Donnell spent much of the election trying to convince people that she wasn't and isn't a witch (not exactly the kind of thing that a candidate dreams of discussing in his/her stump speech). Akin poured gasoline on his campaign and set it on fire (thus helping Claire McCaskill, who was, by far, the weakest Senate incumbent in the 2012 elections win by over 15 points on election day). Angle allowed a very vulnerable Harry Reid return to the Senate so that he could continue to be a noxious presence on the national stage. And Mourdock looked at Akin's campaign and said to himself, "self, that fellow seems to have some good ideas about how to lose an election," and followed through in implementing those ideas. In Mourdock's case, it is worth noting that he denied former Senator Richard Lugar a renomination to run in 2012. Lugar--does anyone really need to point this out?--would have won the general election in a walk and would have allowed Republicans to focus their energies on helping other candidates in other races. Instead, Mourdock ended up losing the general election, and as everyone and their pet canaries know, once incumbents get into office, it is very, very, very hard to get them out. The Indiana senate seat once occupied by Lugar may be in Democratic hands for a long time.

Lest anyone think that this shift away from electability is an accident, bear in mind that it is actually being encouraged by higher-up muckety-mucks in the conservative movement, with former Senator Jim DeMint being the most visible among the higher-up muckety-mucks in question. DeMint has said in the past that he would rather have candidates who adhere to conservative principles than have a Senate majority. I am all for smart candidates with conservative principles, just as I am all for smart candidates with libertarian principles as well. But not every state is as open to conservative or libertarian principles as DeMint or I would want those states to be. So--gasp!--sometimes, the Republican candidate is going to have to be less conservative than Jim DeMint would like in order to win an election.

I know, I know, grab the smelling salts; sometimes, we may have to make common cause with people who are less conservative than Jim DeMint would like. Well, it's either that, or Republicans will have to be a permanent minority in the Senate, and the House of Representatives as well, if DeMint's principles extend there. And hey, if DeMint would rather have a conservative presidential candidate than win the White House, then say goodbye to 1600 Penn. Ave. if anyone has the temerity to offer a more pragmatic course of action that may help Republicans win a presidential election. All of this, of course, would give Democrats a free hand to implement policies of their choosing with little to no organized Republican opposition. And once those policies are in place, they will be very difficult to dislodge.

So, while "win elections!" would seem to be really obvious advice, there are, alas, Republicans and conservatives out there who do not have a grasp on the obvious. And that is costing Republicans--and the right-of-center movement in general--very dearly.

In Which I Write the Blog Post that Gets Me Called a RINO/CINO/LINO/Whatever-the-HeckINO*

With the shutdown of the federal government, we the citizenry were treated to ironclad promises and Namathian guarantees from congressional Republicans that at last, at long last, we had finally found a way to undo Obamacare. All that was required was for us to "hang tough," and mysteriously, magically, miraculously, the president of the United States would be persuaded to agree to defund his signature legislative achievement. You know, the achievement that Democratic presidents since Harry Truman yearned to get Congress to pass. The achievement that he believed and still believes will vault him into the Pantheon of Great American Presidents. The achievement that has won him rapturous support among members of his own base. All of this Barack Obama was supposedly going to forsake in order to end a government shutdown.

Now, congressional Republicans--who cannot see more than one move ahead in any battle of wits if their lives depend on it--are shocked, shocked to find out that the president of the United States is not quite prepared at all to give up his signature legislative achievement. What's more, he's not even prepared to negotiate with congressional Republicans over any changes to Obamacare until and unless the government is re-opened for business, and perhaps not even then. I am sure that many the congressional Republican is howling in anger and protest at the White House's stubbornness on this issue, but whatever his faults and shortcomings, Barack Obama cannot be blamed if congressional Republicans ignore poll after poll after poll after poll after poll indicating that whatever the American people think about Obamacare, they don't want the government to be shut down over an effort to defund it. Furthermore, Barack Obama cannot be blamed for basing his response strategy on a position that sells in the polls, and Republicans can hardly be surprised that the president will take public opinion into account when thinking about how best to counteract Republican demands (though congressional Republicans continue to amaze me by finding ways to be surprised by the bleeding obvious).

For a group of tough talkers, preening swaggerers and would-be political gladiators, congressional Republicans have made it abundantly clear that they don't have the first clue how to fight and win political battles anymore. Much of the problem has to do with the fact that much of the congressional Republican caucus is made up of members who simply aren't the swiftest Porsches in the garage. Ineptitude and stupidity appear to be the Chekhov's gun of congressional Republicans; they are plainly in view on the political stage and at some point during the drama, as sure as the rising of the sun in the east, congressional Republicans will reach for, grasp and employ ineptitude and stupidity in their battles with Democrats. If congressional Republicans were a police force, they would be the Keystone Kops. If, as Dante Alighieri said, names are the consequence of things, then many members of the congressional Republican caucus would be named Moe, Larry, Curly and/or Shemp, irrespective of the gender of the congressional Republican in question. If American politics were analogized to the Godfather movies, congressional Republicans would be a collective Fredo Corleone. If American politics were analogized to World War II, congressional Republicans would be the Maginot line.

Consider the fact that one GOP representative, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, has decided that it would be oodles and oodles of fun to plague his fellow Republicans with migraine headaches by declaring that Republicans are "not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." (Emphasis mine, though perhaps emphasizing was entirely unnecessary.) When I was but a mere boy, I was taught that one never enters a negotiation without know what one wants, what one is prepared to give up in order to get what one wants, what one will never give up, and what one's best alternative to a negotiated agreement happens to be. Marlin Stutzman--who, remember, was elected to represent actual Americans in Congress and to negotiate on their behalf from time to time--has made it abundantly clear that he has not learned these lessons. And that means that Marlin Stutzman is a rube. An easy mark. A bamboozlee waiting to be bamboozed by the nearest bamboozler. And thus, the perfect mascot for the congressional Republican caucus, who in deed have demonstrated that they too don't have any idea whatsoever what they want out of any negotiations with the White House.

Oh sure, at the beginning, it was all about defunding Obamacare. But that was never going to happen, and no, it doesn't take hindsight to see that. Now, congressional Republicans say that they might be prepared to settle for an amendment to or repeal of the medical device tax, or a one year delay in the mandate for health insurance. Raise your hand if you believe, after the display we have been treated to this past week, that the White House will suddenly decide to fold like a cheap tent and give congressional Republicans even this victory. And even if the device tax is repealed (you can forget about the mandate going away), will any congressional Republican be able to sell the public on the idea that it was worth shutting down the government just for this?

The Hindenburgian/Titanicesque calamity that has been brought about by the performance of congressional Republicans has understandably left Republican leaders with few options. So now, we are told that Republicans are considering a "Hail Mary," which for non-football fans, is what happens when a team is behind, with almost no time on the clock, and in desperate need of nothing short of a miracle in order to win. The Hail Mary in question is the ever-elusive "grand bargain" on fiscal issues, "a budget deal that would include entitlement reforms, tax reform, and a new budget agreement, while also restoring government spending and raising the debt ceiling." Like Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, and Iranian political moderates, the "grand bargain" has been much discussed around campfires by people snacking on smores, but thus far, no evidence has been introduced that a grand bargain exists anywhere but in the imaginations of congressional Republicans. And yet, we are supposed to believe that one is achievable, despite the fact that congressional Republicans have not succeeding in repealing or defunding Obamacare. If they cannot do that--and remember, they promised us that they could if only we indulged the shutting down of the government!--how can we possibly expect them to deliver on some kind of "grand bargain" that brings us fiscal sanity, allows us to raise the debt ceiling so that the nation can pay its bills (more on this later), and gives all Americans a unicorn?

The grand bargain's reappearance on the political scene is due to the fact that "[m]ost House Republicans privately concede they’re fighting a battle they’re unlikely to win, and to avoid a prolonged shutdown and a disastrous debt default, Washington has to create a package so big that lifting the borrowing limit and funding the government is merely a sideshow." So, essentially, the grand bargain is a trick play designed to distract us from the fact that congressional Republicans utterly and completely botched their battle with the White House, which surely does little to restore one's faith in the intelligence of congressional Republicans--though it does much to reinforce my disdain for their critical thinking skills.

To be fair to congressional Republicans, part of the problem doesn't stem from the fact that they are bereft of field generals who are worth a damn. Part of the problem stems from the fact that if congressional Republicans do not hew to rigid ideological principles--irrespective of the facts on the ground and irrespective of how much rigid ideological principles might interfere with the crafting and implementation of pragmatic negotiating positions--then congressional Republicans will be challenged in primaries by people to their right. I am fine with the occasional primary challenge to congressional Republicans--people need to be kept honest, after all--but threatening primary challenges simply because some Republican somewhere decides to be practical about things every once in a while does not constitute the upholding of principles. Rather, it constitutes a sort of political cannibalism that makes Republicans look utterly and completely unreasonable to the American people, backs them into exceedingly uncomfortable corners, and lays waste to the Republican negotiating position in any talks with Democrats. From time to time, Republicans need to have sufficient ideological elbow room to strike deals. They cannot run the government on their own. But try telling that to activists who see pragmatism as heresy.

And what has all of that activism wrought? Has it wrought unity amongst congressional Republicans? Has it wrought any kind of desirable espirt de corps? Have congressional Republicans settled on a coherent battle plan and are they prepared to implement it? Hardly. Congressional Republicans are at each other's throats, don't know how to get themselves out of trouble, and are providing endless amounts of entertainment and mirth for congressional Democrats. The GOP has become one big, giant clown show.

And as though all of this is not enough, congressional Republicans are now planning to fight an increase on the debt ceiling (I told you that we would get to this issue). For those wondering about my sentiments on this scheme, let me spare you the suspense: Refusing to increase the debt ceiling is a fantastically stupid idea. In the annals of stupid ideas, it may rank as one of the stupidest. The United States would become a deadbeat nation. Financial markets would be thrown for a loop by the news that America cannot pay its bills. Interest rates on borrowing--and every nation borrows money; if the United States simply stopped borrowing money and lived only on tax revenue, you would see a dramatic and alarming drop in the standard of living for the American people--would rise alarmingly, something we absolutely, positively do not need with the economy still weak and with labor markets still very, very hobbled. The financial crisis of 2008 may look like a walk in the park by comparison, and the effects would be worldwide. The human misery would be staggering to behold. And I choose my words very carefully when I write all of this.

"But Pejman," I hear you cry, "we simply cannot afford more debt!" Well, here's some good news, for a change: Raising the debt ceiling will not put us further in debt. And refusing to raise the debt ceiling does not mean that we have decided to control government spending. Raising the debt ceiling is needed to pay bills that the United States has already incurred, just as having a job and bringing home a paycheck is needed to pay bills for your household. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not--repeat, not--like going to a big spender and cutting up his/her credit card and telling him/her that s/he has to live within means. Rather, it is like going up to someone who relies on a job in order to pay bills and telling him/her that s/he would no longer get paid for work that s/he did, which means that s/he will not be able to pay bills, get food, get gas, keep a roof over his/her head (and those of his/her loved ones). Refusing to raise the debt ceiling will not bring about financial responsibility. It will bring about the very opposite of financial responsibility, in fact; it will cause the United States to be unable to pay its bills. I thought that paying one's bills on time and in full was a sign of maturity, responsibility, a willingness to do the right and adult thing. I thought that these were conservative/right-of-center libertarian/Republican virtues. When did Republicans suddenly decide that these were vices?

One of the biggest tragedies associated with this SNAFU Brought to You by Congressional Republicans is the fact that it overshadows the utter, total, complete, absolute, stark-raving-hysterical failure that has been the rollout of the health insurance exchanges that are supposed to help make Obamacare The Next Awesome Thing in the History of Ever. Quite laughably, the Obama administration compares the health insurance exchange websites with Apple products and tells us that but for a glitch here and there--and thanks to the overwhelming and rapturous popularity that has greeted the implementation of health care "reform," popularity that has simply overloaded the poor widdle websites with which one is supposed to sign up to be part of the health insurance exchanges--the exchanges would be up and running and we would find unicorns, Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, Iranian political moderates and fiscal grand bargains along with our Glorious and Unstoppably Fantastic Health Care Reform. Don't believe a word of this fatuous nonsense; the job of the people who prepared the health insurance exchange websites was to prepare for heavy traffic starting on October 1. If they botched that job, who knows what other shenanigans we will have to put up with when, you know, we actually go to doctors' offices for necessary--and perhaps life-saving--procedures. Much political hay could have been made about the Obama administration's lack of readiness when it came to rolling out the health insurance exchanges, not to mention the ridiculous attempts to compare their Internet-work with Apple products. But unfortunately, the political clumsiness of congressional Republicans--who on their best days have trouble catching a break from a partisan media--helped ensure that far less attention would be paid to the Obama administration's bungling of the exchange rollouts this week.

So, here's three hearty Bronx cheers for congressional Republicans, who remind us why Bobby Jindal was forced to tell the GOP that it should stop trying to be the Stupid Party. Too bad that congressional Republicans refused to listen to Jindal's instruction. This week, they have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, catastrophe from the jaws of temporary defeat, and a spate of night terrors from the jaws of brief and minor frights. No mean trick, that. Maybe someday, congressional Republicans will collectively grow a brain. Too bad that I will likely have died of old age well before anyone has the chance to witness that particular phenomenon.

*Republican in Name Only, Conservative in Name Only, Libertarian in Name Only, [INSERT VIRTUOUS APPELLATION HERE] in Name Only.

Introducing the IRS's New Slogan

"Better Late than Never!"

One of the groups at the center of the IRS scandal has finally received its tax-exempt status after a three-year delay prompted by a politically driven move to block Tea Party and other conservative groups, many that slammed the president during his re-election, from winning the special status.

TheTeaParty.net, one of the nation's largest Tea Party groups, told Secrets that the long-sought declaration arrived Monday, well over three years after they applied for 501c(4) tax-exempt status in March of 2010, the start of the Tea Party movement. The notice came in a letter from the IRS.

The group said it endured harassment by agents targeting mostly conservative non-profit groups for their political donors, agenda and even reading lists, all against the rules. Those agents were headed by the recently retired Lois Lerner.

"After four years battling Lois Lerner's shock troops, we are relieved that the IRS has relented and finally recognized our right to operate as a non-profit,” said Todd Cefaratti, founder of TheTeaParty.net. “First they tried to ignore us. Then they tried to discredit us. And then they tried to deny our legal rights. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end to a sad chapter in our government’s targeting of its own citizens," he added.

I am sure that the IRS expects praise and congratulations for the mercy and kindness it believes it has shown in this case.

Russia Is Indeed Back . . .

. . . thanks in large part to diplomatic bungling by the Obama administration over Syria. Ariel Cohen points out that the ramifications of the administration's errors go far beyond what will happen in Syria:

In what appears as yet another strategic blunder, Obama even elected to forego a binding UN Security Council resolution on Syrian disarmament under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which allows for enforcement, while Putin may hit the geopolitical jackpot.

If the disarmament initiative succeeds, Obama will “owe” Putin. America will be enticed to forget quickly the damage caused by the NSA and CIA defector Edward Snowden, who received asylum in Russia. America will remain mum as a Russian court has sentenced anticorruption crusader and whistleblower Alexei Navalny. Moscow is rife with rumors about preparations for the third trial of jailed oil tycoon and political opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky. It is equally unlikely that Russia’s ambitious plans to expand the Eurasian Union to include Armenia and Ukraine into the Customs Union will meet a vigorous U.S. response.

Obama may not realize that Putin, a former KGB recruiting officer, seems to have played him like a violin. Putin has demonstrated that he is capable of stopping the world’s only superpower from using force—making him “the go to” man, to whom many on the U.S. blacklist will run to seek protection.

Putin will also have demonstrated that Russia, despite being seven times smaller than the U.S. economically, and weaker militarily, is capable of gaining impressive geopolitical results even when dealt a poor hand. As the military operation against Assad is postponed, Putin has increased the chances of the pro-Iranian regime’s survival, and possibly ensured the continued presence of a modest Russian naval facility in Tartus.

Moscow also has a growing interest in a Shia strategic belt extending from Lebanon via Syria and Iraq to Iran, as it prevents Sunni radicals from flooding into the North Caucasus and Central Asia—Russia’s soft underbelly.

Moscow also sent a signal that a U.S. military operation against the Iranian nuclear program may not happen—without the UN Security Council—i.e., the Kremlin’s—sanction. And that sanction will not be forthcoming.

Not bad for a week’s work.

Recall (again) that one of the reasons given for re-electing the president in 2012 was that he is supposedly a much better geopolitical chess player than that bumbler, Mitt Romney, who had the effrontery to tell us that Russia's interests don't exactly line up with our own. How is that argument looking now?

Deeds. Not Words. Deeds.

Ray Takeyh is right on the money when he reminds us what we should expect from Hassan Rohani before we go around calling him "a reformer":

Rouhani's attempt to refashion Iran's image and temper its rhetoric should be welcomed. After eight years of Ahmadinejad provocations that often unhinged the international community, a degree of self-restraint is admirable. However, judge Tehran by its conduct and not its words.

It is not enough for Rouhani to condemn the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Is he prepared to withdraw the Revolutionary Guard contingents that have done much to buttress Assad's brutality?

It is not sufficient for Rouhani to speak of transparency; he must curb Iran's troublesome nuclear activities and comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions.

And it is not enough for Rouhani to speak of a tolerant society unless he is prepared to free his many former comrades and colleagues who are languishing in prisons under false charges.

Rouhani's reliability has to be measured by his actions, not by his speeches or tweets.

There are many out there who are willing to believe that Rohani is a reformer based solely on cosmetic gestures and somewhat more mild rhetoric--especially when compared to Ahmadinejad. These people might very well be setting themselves up for a major disappointment

This Must Be the Economy We Are Told Is Getting Better All the Time

Imagine how much we would be hearing about this story if a Republican were currently president:

It’s almost 6 p.m. on a Friday and the tables near the bar at The Hamilton in downtown Washington are getting crowded. That means waitress Victoria Honard is busy.

Honard, 22, who graduated from Syracuse University in May, works about 25 hours a week at the restaurant while looking for a job related to public policy. She moved to Washington four days after graduation with the hope of finding a position at a think tank or policy-related organization, she said, and has applied to about 20 prospective employers.

“The response has been minimal,” said Honard, whose degree focused on education, health and human services. “There are two ways of looking at it. I could be extremely frustrated and be bitter, or I can make the most of it, and I’m trying to take the latter approach.”

Unemployment data appear to reflect big advances for women. The jobless rate in August for females 20 years and older was 6.3 percent, the lowest since December 2008, compared with 7.1 percent for men. As recently as January, the rate was 7.3 percent for both genders, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The downside is that the gains have been largely in lower-paying industries such as waitresses, in-home health care, food preparation and housekeeping. About 60 percent of the increase in employment for women from 2009 to 2012 was in jobs that pay less than $10.10 an hour, compared with 20 percent for men, according to a study by the National Women’s Law Center using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And to think that once upon a time, people got into a tizzy because Mitt Romney refered to "binders full of women."

Guess Who Thinks Obamacare Might Need to Be Repealed

If you guessed "Tea Party Republicans," you only get partial credit.

Incidentally, while I am pleased that the New York Times is covering this story, my guess is that if a key portion of a Republican president's political base rebelled against one of said president's key policy initiatives, we would be hearing about it nonstop from just about every news media outlet there is.

I May Have Lived in the Wrong Era

To wit:

Virginia’s John Tyler loved Shakespeare from an early age and would often quote or allude to him in public and private communications. Tyler had an elite background. His father had been Thomas Jefferson’s roommate at William and Mary. Tyler attended his father’s alma mater, beginning at the precocious age of twelve and graduating at seventeen. When he ran for vice president on the “hard cider and log cabins” ticket with William Henry Harrison in 1840, he tried to downplay this upper-class education. But he was well versed in music, poetry, and literature and collected an impressive library of 1,200 books.

Still, Shakespeare was Tyler’s favorite, and he felt comfortable citing the bard, knowing that his audience would understand him. In 1855, after he had moved on from the presidency to the role of “well-read elder statesman,” he gave an important speech on slavery and secessionism to the Maryland Institute. The speech was filled with literary allusions. He struck a note of optimism by making an apparent reference to Edgar Allan Poe, who had been a household name since the publication of “The Raven” in 1845: “I listen to no raven-like croakings foretelling ‘disastrous twilight’ to this confederacy …” He also made an adamant stand against secession, doubting that “a people so favored by heaven” would “throw away a pearl richer than all the tribe.” (His views on this subject would change after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and he was a member of the Confederate Congress when he died in 1862.) His reference to Othello in the central point of his argument reflects his confidence that his listeners would share an appreciation for Shakespeare.

Tyler could quote Othello in a political speech because even his most simply educated countrymen were taught Shakespeare and because so many people went to the theater. Average Americans attended plays far more often than we might imagine. One nineteenth-century Massachusetts man managed to see 102 shows in 122 days. Not only must he have been a very determined theater-goer, but he must have had many opportunities. As Heather Nathans observes, “[t]hat he could find 102 opportunities in 122 days to be part of an audience underscores the importance of performance culture in America during this period.” The shows themselves were varied, including not just Shakespeare, but also singers, musicals, minstrels, and orators, both professionals and amateurs. Presidents, as well as regular citizens, both followed and attended.

Okay, so I wouldn't really want to live back in John Tyler's time, without all of the modern conveniences that are part and parcel of my life and which I completely take for granted. But wouldn't it be nice if modern-day "listeners" of political speeches  "would share an appreciation for Shakespeare" that is worth writing about and commenting on? After all, elevated literary preferences might well indicate elevated preferences and expectations for other kinds of discourse, writing, speeches, and rhetoric--including political rhetoric. And the greater one's expectations for political rhetoric, the less patient one will be when politicians try to inundate one with taurine fertilizer as a substitute for elevated, meaningful and truthful rhetoric.

I don't expect politicians to ever fully stop trying to spread taurine fertilizer. But I do want it to be more difficult for them to do so. And in order to make it more difficult, we need a smarter, better educated citizenry; one that is willing to call politicians out when they are less than honest or exemplary with their words and their deeds. Until we get one, we can't expect politicians to live up to what is best in us.

“Libertarians Are the New Communists”?

I think not. Far more accurate to say that Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu are the new Joseph McCarthy:

Hanauer and Liu's mode of argument consists of repeating negative statements ("Radical libertarians would be great at destroying," they are "fanatically rigid," they are "economic royalists" who are "mirror images" of communists, etc.) and writing opponents out of serious discussion (libertarians are not "reasonable people," so there is no reason to actually represent their viewpoint even while attacking it).

If this sort of ultra-crude and unconvincing style of argument (communists=bad; libertarians=bad; thereore, communists=libertarians) is the best that opponents of libertarian influence and policy can do, our future is indeed bright.

More here. The following is properly scathing:

The idea that the libertarian tendency is identical to the sophomoric cult of egotism found in Ayn Rand novels is more than outdated — it was never true in the first place. Miss Rand’s fiction is part of the libertarian intellectual universe, to be sure, but so are Henry David Thoreau and Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Jesus. Citing as examples of libertarian extremism Ted Cruz, the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, and Rand Paul, they argue: “It assumes that societies are efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers, when, in fact, they are fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders.” Of course societies are complex — that is one reason why you want multiple, competing centers of power and influence rather than a single overgrown Leviathan blundering around your fragile ecosystem. As for the claim of “no rules or enforcers,” I have spent a fair amount of time around Senators Cruz and Paul, have debated Mr. Norquist, and have observed the elusive Koch in its natural habitat, and I have not yet heard one of them make the case for anarchism, which is what is meant by “no rules or enforcers.” Senator Cruz, like most of those with a Tea Party orientation, is intellectually devoted to the Constitution, which is many things but is not a covenant of anarchy. Senator Paul is an admirer of Grover Cleveland. Mr. Norquist believes that our taxes should be reduced. Anarchy should be made of more disorderly stuff.

Mr. Hanauer and Mr. Liu run the gamut from the ignorant to the dishonest. Consider this: “A Koch domestic policy would obliterate environmental standards for clean air and water, so that polluters could externalize all their costs onto other people.” Among the many enterprises that the Koch foundations have supported (though that support is more modest than their fevered critics imagine) is the Property and Environment Research Center, which is explicitly dedicated to the cause of aligning property rights with environmental interests, i.e. precisely the opposite of externalizing environmental costs onto other people.

If these gentlemen would like to have a discussion about libertarian thinking, then they should discover what it is that libertarians think. There are anarchists and near-anarchists among them, as well as constitutionalists, conservatives, and even a few Eisenhower Republicans. Perhaps we could organize some kind of emergency book airlift for the people at Bloomberg.

The Dangers of Political Activity

We are regularly told that we, as citizens, should become more active in public affairs. We are told that this would make us more informed about the issues of the day, and that being more informed, we could make better decisions as citizens, and force our elected officials to make better decisions as well.

By and large, all of this is true. And of course, with blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media, we can be more involved in public life. As individual citizens, we are empowered as never before to impact what goes on in our communities, in our cities, in our states, and in our country.

But any advice to get more involved in public affairs--and to do so with the help of social media--should come with a warning: If you do get involved, be prepared to pay lots of money to be regulated by your state in flagrant violation of past Supreme Court rulings. Be prepared, in short, to have your First Amendment rights ignored and trampled upon by the state.

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to put a stop to this latest example of overregulation and liberty infringement. The question is, will they? Or will the First Amendment become more and more of a dead letter?

Tom Edsall on Republican Political Prospects

Tom Edsall's writings make clear that he is on the port side of the partisan divide, but my political differences with him notwithstanding, he is honest and thorough in this piece, which discusses how Republicans can reverse their recent electoral misfortunes. I certainly liked the sentence with which Edsall closed his piece: "The compelling mandate for a national political party in the United States is not to serve as ideological advocate, but to win."

A nice thing for Republicans to remember. Alas, the party is currently in its George McGovern stage, during which time it has sacrificed winning for ideological advocacy. It may well have to pass through its Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis stages before a Republican Leadership Council--or some such vehicle--teaches it how to win again.

From the Department of Simple Solutions to Problems that Never Should Have Existed in the First Place

I see that there are complaints in various and sundry places regarding the dearth of Republicans at the 50th anniversary commeration of the March on Washington. May I suggest that in the future, if one wishes to get certain elected officials to a particular gathering, one ought to give them plenty of advance notice by way of invitation?

Not a single Republican elected official stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday with activists, actors, lawmakers and former presidents invited to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington — a notable absence for a party seeking to attract the support of minority voters.

Event organizers said Wednesday that they invited top Republicans, all of whom declined to attend because of scheduling conflicts or ill health.

But aides to some GOP congressional leaders said they received formal invitations only in recent weeks, making it too late to alter their summer recess schedules.

[. . .]

House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio), the highest-ranking Republican in Washington, was invited to attend Wednesday’s gathering but declined because of a scheduling conflict, aides said.

Boehner was in Jackson Hole, Wyo., and had no public schedule Wednesday but has been headlining dozens of GOP fundraisers nationwide this month. Aides noted that he led an official congressional commemoration of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech on July 31 at the U.S. Capitol that other top congressional leaders attended.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) received an invitation to attend 12 days ago, which was too late to change scheduled political appearances Wednesday in North Dakota and Ohio, aides said.

Cantor led a congressional delegation to Selma, Ala., in March to observe the 50th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march at the invitation of Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the only surviving speaker from the 1963 March on Washington.

Daughtry said Cantor tried hard to find another GOP lawmaker to take his place but was unsuccessful. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) also was invited to speak but declined for scheduling reasons, she said.

Now, it is possible that "scheduling reasons" may have been an all-purpose excuse for people who didn't want to go to the commemorations under any circumstances. But why not give those people plenty of advance notice so that they would have had no excuse whatsoever for not attending? If it is indeed true that Boehner, Cantor, McCain and other Republicans received invitations only at the last minute, then no one who is familiar with the calendars of politicians should have been surprised when those politicians were unable to RSVP in the affirmative.

Oh, and am I supposed to applaud this?

Some Republicans noted that organizers did not invite Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.), the only black Republican senator, who was appointed to his seat this year. Aides said Scott planned to attend a church service honoring King on Wednesday night in North Charleston, S.C.

What possible justification could there have been for this?

This Week in Epistemic Closure

I have argued in the past that those who charge the Republican party with epistemic closure forget (conveniently or not) that there is plenty of epistemic closure in their ranks as well. But this does not mean that epistemic closure amongst Republicans should not be criticized.

So, let me go on record as stating that cherry-picking a convenient media forum for debates between Republican presidential candidates is a bad idea. I recognize that Republicans would like to have friendly moderators ask friendly questions of their candidates, but eventually, those candidates are going to have to confront potentially unfriendly moderators. Best that they learn how to joust successfully with unfriendly moderators early in the campaign; honing that particular skill from the outset could be useful to the candidates and to Republicans in general as the campaign goes on.

And let me also go on record as stating that purging Republicans who happen to disagree with certain planks in the Republican party platform is a really terrible idea. (Link via Charles Lipson.) Winners can afford to purge their ranks. Losers cannot, and given that the Republican party has picked up the unfortunate habit of losing elections, it currently qualifies as a loser party. To win, it has to expand its tent, not shrink it. And incidentally, whether or not one is a same-sex marriage supporter (and I am), who in their right mind thinks that opposing same-sex marriage is a political winner these days?

Slightly Amending George Will's Title

Whether President Obama's "unconstitutional steps" are indeed worse than those of Richard Nixon's is, in my view, not that much of a pressing issue. For me, it suffices to point out that we have ourselves an imperial presidency and the people who complained that George W. Bush was an imperial president are strangely silent about the executive overreach we are seeing nowadays.