Blog Credo

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken

Sunday, January 30, 2011

We Do Elections, We Don't Do Governance

Mama Grizzly turns out to be an awful backseat driver.

Frank Rich is a very good columnist.

I think what makes him so good, is that he is a former critic who has a critic's sharp eye for detail and narrative.  He also seems less invested in the usual narrative of DC based punditry, which inevitably collapses into discussions of electoral horseraces.

Today, Rich examines the dueling GOP responses to Obama's SOTU.

Now, opposition responses are notoriously lame.  (Rich calls it the "Bobby Jindal memorial slot.")  The empty studio and the vacant staring into the lens.  Bachmann got around that by staring off into space, but she at least broke new ground by not using the same lonely studio set.  Honestly, if I was the GOP, I'd have someone giving a speech before a partisan audience in Greenville, SC or something.

But Rich does more than address the optics of the rebuttals.  He notes two important things.

First, Obama is adopting Reagan's political optimism.  This sent some Leftward commentators into a tizzy, bemoaning Obama's adoption of American Exceptionalism.  Now, you can doubt American Exceptionalism as being reality-based, but you can't doubt it's political effectiveness.  Reagan was popular because he was optimistic after a decade of decay and negativity.  To adopt that posture two years ahead of the next election is smart politics.

And Rich notes that the GOP fell swiftly into the trap set up by Obama's optimistic speech.  Paul Ryan's speech was a catalog of woe and despair.  Some of that despair might be accurate, but no one listened to the first Cassandra either.

But that gets to the second and more important point.  The GOP and the Tea Party spent the year wailing about the deficit and Obamacare and much of their rebuttal was involved in wailing about that some more.

I think because they won the House so soon after getting drubbed that they assumed that it was their message about deficits and Obamacare that won them the House.

As Rich notes a CNN poll pretty much dispels the idea that the American people voted in the GOP to reduce the deficit.  They voted for them because they were angry about the job situation.  And because the Tea Party and the GOP in general came out to vote more so than did the Democrats.  A fired up base and an unemployed public gave them control of the House, not anger over Obamacare and rising deficits.

Tellingly, the GOP has trouble actually addressing the deficit.  Obama has some decent ideas about reorganizing the Executive branch to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency.  That won't make a huge dent in the debt, but the dirty fact is that little will.

To cut the deficit by reducing spending, you have to address three areas.  First, Medicare needs to be addressed, and Obamacare makes a decent attempt at that.  But the GOP ran on death panels and repealing it, so what would Ryan and Bachmann say about reining in Medicare costs?  Nothing.  Only comprehensive HCR will deal with it.  Obamacare may or may not solve the problem, but it should be given a chance to show what it can do.

Second, defense spending has to be reined in.  The problem there is that much of defense spending is also a jobs program for powerful congressional districts.  For every stupid, unnecessary weapons system we axe, we kill jobs.  Guess what Americans think is more important right now?  Some in the Tea Party have talked about cutting defense, and if they do follow through in a Left-Right coalition to cut some egregious examples of wasteful defense spending.... well, you'll be able to color me surprised.  Just because Gates, the Tea Party and the Progressive Caucus want to cut defense spending doesn't mean the mandarins of the Congress will let it happen.

Thirdly, you have discretionary spending (Social Security doesn't add to the deficit and can be easily fixed by ending the cap on payroll taxes.).  But the idea that there are billions of dollars to be cut in discretionary spending is false and folly.  Once the Teahadists start talking about what they will actually cut, people say, well, I don't cut that!  Let's cut education, cancer research, highway construction, environmental protection, food safety and veteran's benefits and ride that to an electoral majority!!!

This goes back to the central point about the GOP since the age of Nixon.  They are very good at winning elections.  But ultimately they don't really pursue a governing policy that works.  Bush Sr was a pretty good foreign policy president, but overall, you have most GOP administration riddled with corruption and creating the unsustainable climate of tax cuts and increased defense spending, while never cutting the entitlement and discretionary spending that people actually like and, more importantly, need.

America has to raise taxes.  That is the only serious position when it comes to reducing the deficit.  Obama said he would end the Bush tax cuts on the top earners.  While inadequate to closing the gap, it's a lot more serious than what the rebuttalists said about raising taxes.  Which, as you might have guessed, was nothing at all.

Which, interestingly enough, was what they said about creating jobs, improving education or doing anything at all that the American people say is important right now.

Well played.

No comments: