A few weeks before the 2012 presidential election, a very curious argument made the rounds on the right, and was touted by some high-profile pundits. The argument wasn't just strange, it also lacked in self-awareness, but it was presented without apology.
The pitch was straightforward: Republicans will simply never work constructively or cooperatively with Democrats, so if you want to avoid "gridlock," voters have no choice but to let Republicans control everything. An inflexible GOP, allergic to compromise and obsessed with obstructionism, would rather destroy the government than work cooperatively with Democrats, ergo, don't elect Democrats.
Given the election results, it appears most of the electorate apparently didn't buy the argument. But the underlying principle hasn't gone away just yet. Today, for example, Michael Gerson makes the case that when it comes to next week's dangerous sequestration cuts, "all sides bear responsibility for this self-destructive turn of events." And what have Democrats done wrong? The former George W. Bush speechwriter argues:
Democratic proposals to avoid the sequester are consistent with an aggressive blame-shifting strategy. Replacing a measure that currently consists of 100 percent budget cuts with one that includes 50 percent revenue increases would probably secure zero Republican votes in the Senate. If Boehner were even to publicly consider this approach, he would likely lose his speakership. The Democratic alternative is designed to be unacceptable to nearly every Republican, making it not a plan but a ploy.
It's important to think this through because the argument is nearly identical to what we heard in October.
What Gerson is arguing is that in the sequester fight, Democrats are to blame -- or least share half the blame -- because Democrats are not simply giving Republicans what they want. Dems know the GOP won't accept a compromise that requires concessions in both sides, so Dems are being needlessly "aggressive" and are pushing an "unacceptable" solution by asking the two sides to meet somewhere in the middle.
Why? Because the Democratic compromise offer expects Republicans to be reasonable -- and according to Gerson, this necessarily means Democrats are being irresponsible.
It's just amazing to see this in print, presented as a serious observation. Democrats are open to a balanced compromise, Republicans aren't, so Democrats bear some responsibility for the mess by asking far-right extremists who abhor compromise to accept a deal that requires equal sacrifices from both sides.
If only Democrats would accept Republican extremism at face value, and realize GOP officials aren't interested in constructive bipartisan policymaking, they could simply give Republicans what they want and spare us all the aggravation.
Gerson concluded, "The American political system is not designed for efficiency. But it presupposes deliberation and leadership. The serial abdication of both eventually has an economic and human cost."
And in this case, Obama is open to deliberation, and he's trying to lead by adopting a compromise both sides should be able to live with, but Gerson still blames both sides -- because the president's offer doesn't preemptively accommodate Republicans' unyielding inflexibility.
Leave a Comment:
If only the country would understand that the modern GOP is a rump minority of crazy people. They, and they alone are responsible for the precipice at which we find ourselves. It is long past time that they be made to understand that 1) the really, really, REALLY did lose the last election; 2) that "compromise" is the underlying foundation of our Constitution and government. That means no more ultimatums, and no more obstruction. If you want something, you're going to have to give a little on the things you don't want. It's a fools' errand to believe otherwise. Luckily, Republicans seem to have the edge on ideological know-nothings who wouldn't believe that the Sun rises in the East, if Obama told them that it did. You're done; now just go away and let the adults run things for a change.
These people never learn. In 1860, their "solution" to the slavery problem was for the North to accept the expansion of slavery throughout the West. Here's a solution: expel the Confederacy, which solves the problem of have to deal further with crazy inbred Southern idiots.
I saw a documentary about this teenage criminal who had mugged a man at gun point. The man fought back, and the criminal shot him in the head. The man survived, but he has permanent brain damage. The teenager went to jail.
The interviewer asked the teenager if he was sorry for what he had done. The kid said no, it was the man's fault, because he fought back. He should have just let the kid rob him.
At least that criminal was in jail.
Democrats bring this on themselves by continually giving in. It's time to stop compromising with extremist terrorists.
wasn't it Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who said, "compromise" means democrats coming over to our side?
Actually, that has been the Republican stand for many years. Cruz is just one of the latest to say it.
Richard Mourdock
Boehner: ‘I Reject The Word’ Compromise
By Ben Armbruster on Dec 13, 2010 at 9:45 am
During an interview with incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) last night on 60 Minutes, host Leslie Stahl noted that President Obama has said Boehner will “have a responsibility to govern” as Speaker. “You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower,” Obama said. “We have to govern. That’s what we were elected to do,” Boehner told Stahl, adding that it won’t involve compromising, but instead finding “common ground”:
Stahl noted that Boehner compromised his position on the Bush tax cuts to get a deal with Obama last week, noting that he had wanted the all the Bush-era tax cuts extended permanently but only got a two-year extension. Boehner again said it wasn’t a compromise. “Why won’t you say you’re afraid of the word,” Stahl asked. “I reject the word,” Boehner said.
On MSNBC this morning, Joe Scarborough explained, “John Boehner right now is running the herd over…80 plus new members. And he can’t run around saying the word ‘compromise’ because they’ll get skittish.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/12/13/134669/boehner-reject-compromise/?mobile=nc
I'm really tired of John Boehner telling me "what the American people want."
The attitude of Boehner and other Republicans has a long history in American politics, one that belongs exclusively to the far right. These people basically think that they are uniquely privileged to have their way in everything, and I imagine that it is endlessly frustrating for them to have to live in a world with other people who have their own ideas. John C. Calhoun found the solution to this problem in 'concurrent majorities'.
Calhoun experienced a lot of frustration in his political career because he was pro-slavery and anti-tariff, and neither position enjoyed popular support at the time in the nation as a whole. This was a particular problem in the House of Representatives owing to the fact that the slave states were more sparsely populated than the non-slave states. Consequently, policies favored by the Southern planter class tended not to do uniformly well at the national level. Calhoun found that intolerable, and came to the conclusion that majority rule was inherently tyrannical.
Calhoun decided (as a matter of obvious convenience) that the numerical majority, which did not take into account the minority position (his own), was not the majority that should ever carry the day. That was the privilege of the 'concurrent majority', which is made up of those supporting the minority position plus however many there may be from the other side who are willing to cross over in the spirit of compromise. It doesn't matter how small a number of people are in the 'concurrent majority' as long as they are willing to go along with whatever Calhoun's side wanted.
Calhoun was Andy Jackson's first veep, so the attitude Boehner displays isn't a new one. Like Calhoun, he pretty much takes it for granted that his side has the privilege of standing it's ground, while it is the responsibility of the other side to give way. Compromise is for thee, not me.
The problem here is that Democrats haven't actually cut anything yet. Lots of promises, plans, and proposals, but no actual cuts. (actual reduced spending, not smaller increases in spending) Republicans on the other hand have provided a real revenue increase.
Why in the world should anyone believe Democrats until they actually produce something concrete? Ergo bring on the sequester as proposed by the White House as documented by Woodward.
Shooter, the only reason you want the sequester to go through is that it will give you (and the Republicans) a cudgel to beat the President and his party over the heads with. Even though the Republicans stated when the sequester was passed that they thought it was a great piece of legislation and were glad to have passed it.
Only when the full ramifications of what will happen have come to light are they lying through their teeth and blaming it all on the President and the Democrats. So again, since the Republicans have found it so much easier to get what they want, then lie about it, why should we trust anything they do or say?
That's an interesting argument considering the budget deficit has been steadily falling since 2010 and is 300bn less this year than last. Not sure how that happens without cuts. It's also interesting considering the 1 trillion cut in 2011 in the debt ceiling debacle. Again, not sure how you cut 1 trillion without cutting anything but I'd love to hear how. If it's true then you have every reason to be upset because you're correct in that the tax increase was real, I just doubt the veracity of your comment.
Shooter, where is the Republican plan?
edit: I could find the actual Demo plan in the few minutes I have left to edit this post, but here is the reporting on it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/283307-white-house-endorses-senate-sequester-plan-urges-gop-to-act
ummm that might be because no one has done anything yet...
And since when did the House abdicate it's primary responsibility for controlling the purse?
Seriously this is the responsibility of the house and every time they need to do something they always seem to ask why the Executive branch or the Senate haven't done anything yet...Whats the house plan I haven't seen one yet
Well one thing is certain eh shooter, the republican party of today is easy to recognize.
The point here is that it's useless to negotiate with someone that isn't believable. Who cares what the Democrats offer, because they'll never fulfill their side of any bargain.
Shooter
So in other words...you got nuthin
No, what Benen calls radicalism is simply that Democrats have no credibility.
Oh, Pot, you never acknowledge anything good about kettle.
So, um, where was that Republican plan again?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=united+states+deficit+last+five+years
If Shooter were right then we should scrap the entire concept of cutting because the deficit will go down on its own.
Where are the jobs and why are we chasing the paper tiger rather than fixing the real economic problem? Because of people like Shooter.
Shooter, the sad part is, you know that the only adults in DC the past 4 years have been the Dems. It just burns you up that this President has tried to do a lot, and was able to deliver on some of the things he promised. You'll never admit that the Republican party have become nothing more than a reactionary party, with no real ideas outside of passing legislation to make the rich richer, and keep the pockets of the MIC well lined.
Heck, as Rachel has said before, we actually had Republican lawmakers and presidents in the past that cared about all of the nation, not a small and wealthy few. But these days it's all about keeping the money flowing to those benefactors who demand nothing more than the evisceration of this nation at the expense of the vast bulk of it's citizens.
It's like 2010 Groundhog Day... we are doomed to repeat this scenario until we defeat them...
Since when has paranoia become the main political strategy of the modern Republican party?
Are those Republicans cokeheads or something? Now that would be genuinely radical! -Kevo
The simple solution to the problem is to elect Democrats.
Brian Beutler over at TPM has some astute observations regarding Republican legislative strategy.
To wit:
“Since the House acted recently (last Congress), we need to do everything possible to keep the focus on the Senate and the President,” said one senior House GOP aide.
But anyone who has studied House Republicans for the past two years knows that they tend to come to these fights prepared. Specifically, when a major legislative deadline looms, they pass conservative legislation in the House to either force Senate Democrats to act, or pass them the blame for the consequences when they don’t."
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/house-republicans-wont-pass-sequester-replacement.php
Whatever bill that may have passed in the last session of Congress does NOT get carried forward in this Congress. The problem is that WE have "representatives in office that "haven't got a clue" about how the government functions, what their jobs entail, or how to do them. Not only do they NOT listen to reality/truth/facts/logic - this bunch actually believes that democrats need to "kiss their bum" and give them what they want!
Screw them! The sequester was agreed to by both sides, mainly because the GOTP walked out on the Simpson-Bowles deficit cutting commission (Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor ring any bells) and so the sequester was supposed to bring both sides back to the negotiating table because there were things that both sides didn't like that were put into it! And NOW they want to try the false equivalence of "both sides" - NOT!!
Maybe the sequester needs to happen! It needs to happen because at some point WE have to STOP these people from creating one crisis after another simply because they have NO CONCEPT or CLUE about governing or leadership!
Beutler tends to give Republicans way too much credence. That description does not match reality very well at all. Remember "Plan B"? The reality is that House Republicans always think they're prepared, and that they have some clever plan to force Democrats to do what they want, but since their "plans" are usually based on their own delusions of what "real Americans" want and straw-man ideas of what Democratic positions are, they more often shoot themselves in the foot with infighting, act like idiots to maintain the 6% approval rating for Congress, and if they do pass legislation, it so blatantly favors ideology over reality that it goes nowhere in the Senate, and they're forced to vote for a sane Senate plan that they hate.
People who hate government and want to prevent it from working are rarely good at legislative tactics. But no matter how many times they get rolled, they never seem to doubt their own genius.
Might be, officer, that I shot my hostage. But the others didn't pay ransom, so you've gotta imprison them! Not me!
For some reason this reminds me of this old song:
How could you believe me when I said I love you
When you know I've been a liar all my life
I've had that reputation since I was a youth
You must have been insane to think I'd tell you the truth
The problem with this logic is that Republicans have backed down twice and they will back down on the sequester. Sending the economy into a recession is not good for business, Wall Street and the banks. Those interests have a lot of money at stake if we sink into a recession and they will force the Republicans to do what they do not want to do---compromise. This is a waiting game for Dems who can sit back and watch public opinion and the Republican establishment campaign contributors turn against Republicans. It will force Boehner to again break the Hastert rule and bring a bill to the floor that will pass with Dems and a few Republicans.
RE: "Hubris: Selling the Iraq War"
I watched this broadcast last night, and I was proud of you & your staff Rachel!
I would also go as far as to say that Mr. Murrow, Mr. Friendly, and the former staff of CBS news from the late 1950's, would be proud too!
Perhaps the subtitle to the book "Hubris..." should be "Treason."
Lets call a duck a duck.
Thank you for responsible news & your zero tolerance policy to apathy!
Gretchen
I just hope the people that still believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and trained AQ and Iraq had WMDs watched it, but I rather doubt it. If it's not on Faux, it ain't true. Yanno?
On a side note, Rachel mentioned some people were going to be upset with the documentary. May I say, the time for getting upset was when it was happening and not when the truth finally sees daylight.
And I second that thank you and for a job well done.
The GOP: the gift that keeps on giving.
They continue to make our task of taking back the HOUSE even more likely.
Hypothetical situation: What if we all just rolled over and gave the Republicans exactly what they asked for, with the caveat that they must acknowledge that they received it. Would we all suddenly become fabulously wealthy? Would the "job creators" suddenly hire in job lots? Would they bring their money out of their off shore tax shelters? Would we have equal rights for all? Would the very poor and/or the elderly be taken care of? Would our sick have access to affordable quality medical care? Would our ladies reproductive rights be guaranteed?
Or, as I believe might happen: We would become a theological based oligarchy indebted to the company store, worked at minimal wages until we have no further use while our corporate masters live in luxury?
We DID that! And now we are paying for it with money borrowed by China. And NOW 'they've seen the light' and want us to do it all again!
Dems would get blamed because Republicans never take responsibility for their actions. They have denied any responsibility for taking the country under Bush and a Republican Congress from budget surplus to budget deficits. When that fact is pointed out, the current Republicans say that Bush was not a real conservative. But who voted for Bush twice? The Republicans run from their responsibility when they complain that Obama should stop blaming Bush for all the economic problems. If Bush is not responsible then the Republicans must be responsible for the problems because Dems did not control the White House and Congress when the deficits began.
Actually Mego, less than one-third of our debt is in foreign hands. Of that one-third, China owns about a fifth. So China holds less than 7% of our debt.
http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2012_4fd.doc
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
Just another misleading mythical mistake.
'Because the Democratic compromise offer expects Republicans to be reasonable -- and according to Gerson, this necessarily means Democrats are being irresponsible.' The GOP, while working on their 'messaging' is trying SO hard to blame anyone but themselves, are constantly putting out conflicting talking points or just 'word salad'.
I got a better solution, quit electing Repubs.
Also Ashley Judd in 2014!
Obama has changed the Republican hostage taking dynamic. Republicans are a little slow on the uptake, but in the end an agreement will be struck. My guess is there will be a partial government shut down for a few weeks while the House Republicans do the work they should have been doing all along. My hope is the Democrats don't give too much. I really want to seem some defense department cuts and the super alternative minimum tax installed on people making more than a million a year (the Buffet Rule tax change.)
Someone needs to ask Cantor, Boehner or Ryan how going with 100% spending cuts would be any different from allowing the sequester to take place. I suspect they realize that the two are the same thing and rather than take the blame for the disaster that would follow 100% spending cuts which would be squarely on their shoulders, they are trying to shift the blame for the sequester on the Democrats.
Notice how the teatards get in an uproar when Obama goes golfing or on a few days vacation yet say nothing when the House in Congress takes off for a couple weeks in the middle of things needing to be done? Especially when they only work two days a week anyway.
And if the teatards would speak the truth, they would be saying: Look, we are going to be sure the American people get screwed no matter what the dems try to do. If we can't do it at the federal level, our members will do it at the state level. The best solution is to vote for us because you KNOW we are going to screw you anyway.
Last week Reed Richardson over at The Nation took exception to the characterization that Marco Rubio as a "moderate" Republican. He rightly notes that Marco Rubio is as extreme as any Republican, except maybe when it comes to immigration. I think that's just the point: there is no such thing as a moderate Republican--at least on the national scene.
The problem we have is not really with the extreme nature of the Republican Party. The problem is with what allowed the party to become so extreme: the media and its insistence that the Republicans cannot (By definition!) be any more extreme than the Democrats. So the problem is not with Michael Gerson. It is with Tom Brokaw. It is with Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. These are the people who allow the Republicans to be extremists without paying any price.