It was the election of 1994 that knocked the idealism out of me. Republicans ran on a national platform of reform, they won — and nothing happened. My recollection (someone correct me if I have this wrong) is that a series of substantial reform bills passed the Republican house in short order, and all of them died in the Republican senate. My guess (without having thought too hard about it) is that this is the natural order of things because Senate campaigns are so expensive that no matter what legislation the House sends up, there’s always some committee chairman with a large donor who opposes it.
There is no reassurance to be had from the identities of the likely new chairmen-to-be: Thad Cochran at Appropriations, Pat Roberts at Agriculture, Jeff Sessions at Budget, Orrin Hatch at Finance. Even aside from the question of what you can or can’t get past the White House, these are not the sort of people I want rewriting the tax code; they are not the people I want setting agricultural policy; they are not the people I want in charge of immigration reform.
So color me cynical about whether this election will make much difference. On the other hand, it was pretty nice to see voters in a variety of states repudiate vicious attacks on candidates who dared to defend outsourcing, candidates who dared to cut education spending, candidates who dared to cut the size of government, and candidates who dared to resist the demands of public employee unions. For the most part, I was unhappy with the Republican candidates for their failure to articulate anything positive. But by and large, it seemed to be the Democrats who sank to the lowest forms of demagogy, and I was glad to see those candidates lose.
Besides, I don’t follow sports, which means there’s only one night every two years when I get to engage in recreational exuberance, rooting with wild abandon for “my” team without regard to the fact that it’s only a game. In that light, I had a very good night indeed.
Mitt must be licking his chops. 3rd time’s a charm.
“it was pretty nice to see voters in a variety of states repudiate vicious attacks on outsourcing, cuts in education funding, cuts in pretty much any other kind of spending, and resistance to the demands of public employee unions.”
OK, this sentence threw me for a loop. I take it you mean voters repudiated high spending, rather than the cuts, right?
Steve Reilly: I meant that they repudiated vicious attacks on the cuts. Will rewrite to make this clearer in a little while.
One thing is for sure. I can guarantee you republicans won’t try to repel Romne(Obama)care. It’s actually not that unpopular.
Hell we were paying for it already, might as well make people pay some sort of premium if they can afford it.
@Josh
I wish Republicans would kill the employer mandates and the mandates for inexpensive care in the PPACA but I have little hope for them to do something as sensible as that and they scare me on Syria. I do not see how intervention can help in Syria and I think ISIS will implode eventually anyway. The bombing can only hurt IMHO.
“On the other hand, it was pretty nice to see voters in a variety of states repudiate vicious attacks on outsourcing” Steve, whether you like it or not, don’t you think that all other things being equal, the vast majority of voters would support a candidate who attacked outsourcing?
Landsburg’s generally right. Here’s how the next two years unfold:
1. Immigration: Nada. Maybe there will be some kind of faux immigration bill tied to the repeal of Obamacare, the EPA, and the Thirteenth Amendment. But I don’t expect this to go even that far.
If Republicans passed a bill providing a path for people who arrived illegally as kids to gain citizenship, what would be the result? Working-class whites living in the midst of declining job prospects would decry this as amnesty. And even the people who gain citizenship will be unlikely to reward Republicans with their votes, knowing that the Democrats would have gone further and granted citizenship to their parents. Plus, Republicans’ continuing efforts to disenfranchise minority voters will continue to repel minorities.
Would there be any up-side for the Republicans? Kinda; it’s imperative if the Republicans ever expect to win the White House again. But, realistically, they don’t.
Despite last night’s wins, the GOP remains in a death spiral. It’s a game theory problem: The things Republicans as a group should do for the good of the national party are contrary to the things any given Republican politician should do to curry favor with his own constituents. To get the Republican presidential nomination requires you to adopt the views of the people who dominate the primaries. MA Gov. Romney wasn’t a terrible candidate going into the Republican primaries – but he was unelectable by the time he got out. I see little prospects for changing this dynamic until those constituents die.
No, just as Nate Silver could predict a Democratic shellacking long before last night, he’ll be able to predict a Republican shellacking in 2016 pretty much regardless of intervening circumstances. The number of open seats, the changing national demographics, and the kind of turn-out that a presidential race brings will dictate big wins for Democrats. Only TV pundits and horoscope writers cite policy as a basis for electoral outcomes anymore.
2. Maybe progress on health care, assuming the Supreme Court strikes down federal subsidies for states that lack their own health care exchanges. But even here, I expect there’s no limit to the pain Republican politicians would let people endure if required to signal opposition to Obamacare. Google “Mississippi Obamacare” for a case study.
3. Budget: This one’s tricky. Even the Republicans know that shutdowns are unpopular, and that they (perhaps unfairly) will get the blame. Thus did the Republicans pass continuing resolutions the last time around. But can the Republicans continue to do so now that they cannot point fingers at the Democratically-controlled Senate? I’m guessing yes: Republicans with national ambition will pontificate about the need to stop accommodating the White House and will vote no on all spending — but the majority will quietly pass continuing resolutions and keep the issue out of the headlines. An improving economy will drive down deficits even if there’s no new spending cuts beyond the Sequester.
Actually, I could imagine Republicans breaking the Sequester to increase funding for the military, and Obama going along.
4. Tax/entitlement reform? Conceptually the Republicans could fashion some kind of reform that the Obama technocrats would embrace: “chained” cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security; repealing the medical device tax; etc.
But no new taxes.
5. Courts: And no new judges. If someone dies, their robe will lie empty until 2016.
6. Investigations: All Bengasi, All the Time! While an endless series of investigations might well be a side-show that showers the Republican Party in even greater shame in the eyes of swing voters, it might well have a real, practical effect of damaging Hillary.
Again, I surmise the Democrats could run a cocker spaniel and win the White House in 2016. The question is, why would they? The answer is, of course, because the cocker spaniel has momentum, endorsements, and an enormous war chest. But if the cocker spaniel were knocked out of the race, the Democrats would be free to run Elizabeth Warren!
Much like entitlement reform, keeping Hillary off the 2016 ballot is something the Democrats are institutionally unable to do for themselves; they need an outside force. And Republicans may be too willing to oblige. The Republican establishment, controlled by the finance industry, would vastly prefer Hillary to Elizabeth, and so will try to restrain their party, but to no avail. When you ride the back of rabid populism, you cannot steer, but you dare not let go.
Someday Ken Burn’s grandkids will create a documentary entitled “Warren: Rise to Greatness.” It will feature cameras panning across still photos as a tinny recording of Miley Cyrus’s Wrecking Ball plays in the background, and a voiceover reminds us of the circuitous path Elizabeth took to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
So be of good cheer: Happy Days are Here Again….
I’m sure my memory isn’t that clear on the ’94 election but the emphasis on this election was so strongly on the Senate that there is an above average chance that the Senate will not be killing house resolutions. Three points that would support that position:
1) there is considerable dissent within the Senate Republican caucus and incumbent Senators know that their positions are not safe
2) Senate Democrats did a pretty good job of poisoning the well by (a) doing NOTHING, (b) changing long-standing rules that encouraged grid-lock, and (c) refusing to even offer a budget
3) given the length of the current recession, doing nothing really is not an option
[4) (bonus reason) there is a female Republican Senator who’s first campaign ad included her background of castrating pigs…pretty good reason not to be pushing a lot of pork through the system]
The lament that “nothing changes” comes from left, right, libertarian and progressive. It’s not true. If you have a strong vision of how government “should be”, then change can be agonizingly slow and incermental. IMHO income tax bracket indexing, capital gains tax rate reduction, welfare reform, debt ceiling legislation and obamacare were all pretty big changes (like them or not). And yes, they took place over decades and had little to do with Newt and the Contract. But, when I think back to 2008 when Obama and the Dems came roaring in, largely due to dissatisfaction with endless middle east wars and not because the electorate was pining for carbon taxes or socialized medicine, I realize that the slow pace of change isn’t a bug – it’s a feature.
The 1994 Republican takeover of the House accomplished a lot. Killing Hillary health care and gun control, welfare reform, budget reforms that led to a balanced budget, and more. The 2010 Republican takeover has already done a lot to get the deficit under control.
Killing immigration amnesty may not be what you want, but it is what a lot of Republicans want.
@Josh 4
Those types of comments weren’t even clever 4 years ago when they were relevant. You’re also wrong, the bill itself is majority disapproved but repeal is not popular. Most likely they’ll pass bills to cut out the mandates to employers and individuals and also the coverage provisions that don’t make sense.
Steve,
What specifically were you looking to see accomplished in 1994? Welfare reform passed, obviously, and that seemed pretty big.
nobody.really (#7),
Claims of a Republican death spiral are greatly overstated. While it’s true that demographics and the 2016 map are not favorable to the GOP, the notion that the party is in permanent decline is nonsense. Parties adapt in order to survive; Republicans will be no different.
By and large, I think pundits and others have misunderstood the reasons for GOP struggles in 2012, which are the basis for the death-spiral talk. First, the Democrats’ winning coalition was not built on fundamental demographic realities (such as college students or immigrants voting Democrat) but on the Democrats’ fantastic analytical and get-out-the-vote machinery. The Republicans will likely catch up by 2016. Second, they were also aided by excitement over Mr. Obama himself, who will not be on the ballot and, in any case, has lost his shine. Hillary Clinton will not be able to create that level of excitement. Third, Republicans were hurt by Tea Party-backed candidates who were not really politically experienced. That problem was largely solved this year with more experienced Tea Party-backed candidates. The TP is maturing as a political movement. Fourth and most important, the electorate always gives a party a second term in the White House. The only exception in the last 130 years or so was Jimmy Carter, and Obama was no Carter. Obama was basically guaranteed re-election on that basis alone. Do note that even with his coattails, Democrats in 2012 lost ground in the Senate and made very little progress in the House.
So what does 2016 bring? Hillary will be a formidable candidate, of course, but here’s why she may not win. Voters don’t like giving any party a third straight white House term. Since the 2-term limit was passed, it’s only happened once with Reagan-Bush, and that was after Reagan had the biggest landslide victory of the modern era. Clinton, by contrast, will carry lots of Obama baggage. Moreover, if current trends continue, Americans will likely be more concerned about foreign affairs than about the economy. That favors Republicans, who in the mind of the electorate are better at foreign affairs. Finally, American voters will be even more sick of the political status quo than they already are, and Hillary is nothing if not an Establishment candidate. Getting her elected is going to be harder than people think.
Well, kinda.
After Romney’s defeat, the Republican establishment published a blueprint for change. It proposed, among other things, softening on immigration. But actual elected Republican politicians found they had to repudiate the blueprint, lest they invite a primary challenge from constituents who do not want adaptation; they want doctrine!
Rightly or not, the Republican Party is pretty thoroughly associated with racism in the minds of many growing minority groups. And the constituents of rural, predominantly-white districts just don’t care what these minorities think. So what’s a party to do?
One strategy is to play the God card. “Hey, all you immigrants from conservative (and mostly Conservative Christian) backgrounds: Ok, we’ve been on opposite sides regarding race — but we’re on the same side regarding religion, and that’s more important!” Maybe it’ll work. But trends on religious affiliation don’t look promising.
Here’s a different strategy: Stay the course. Ride the nativist wave for as long as you can; make no accommodation. But at the same time, launch a second party – the Libertarian Party, maybe? – that often works hand-in-glove with the Republicans but does make accommodation to the sensibilities of ethnic minorities, single women, LGBTs, etc. At the risk of citing Miley Cyrus twice in one thread, you get the best of both worlds: The support of rabid, reactionary nativists, and the opportunity for a viable political movement in the future, untainted by the unsavory (albeit formerly useful) whiff of racism.
It’s not about party; it’s about policy. Use the one to get the other.
Roger at 10th comment:
I do think Steve understated the value of the Republican wins in 1994, so this is friendly fire. They had killed HillaryCare BEFORE the 1994 elections.
I am pleased for one overriding reason. I see Obama and the democrats as having been largely lawless in the past few years. You need only look at the IRS or the way the ACA has selectively applied to see that, but there are many, many examples. I think the new republicans will be better about such things, and some of the remaining democrats more frightened.
Ken B, hasn’t the IRS thing been pretty conclusively debunked? The the same BOLO list that contained terms like “Tea Party” also contained terms like “progressive”. (The IRS had set up a “Be On the Look Out” list of search terms agents should use to find 501c3 applicants that were politics-focused rather than social welfare-focused.) So conservative groups were targeted by the BOLO list to the exact same extent as liberal groups. The only reason that more conservative groups fell under the BOLO criteria is that in 2009-2010 there were more conservative groups applying for 501c3 status.
David, my recollection was that HillaryCare was expected to come back, until the 1994 election. Had Democrats done better in that election, they might have tried again.
Keshav
I do not think so. Plus we have evidence of intent. One of many http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/23/targeting-the-constitution/
Not to mention the emails, and the lies about the emails.
And the lies about who ordered what.
This will be investigated.
Nor is the malfeasance restricted to 501 stuff.
Keshav
A blog tracking the IRS scandal http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/11/the-irs-scandal-1.html
@Landsburg,
“On the other hand, it was pretty nice to see voters in a variety of states repudiate vicious attacks on candidates who dared to defend outsourcing, candidates who dared to cut education spending, candidates who dared to cut the size of government, and candidates who dared to resist the demands of public employee unions.”
Hmmm, not so much. I think voter repudiation had more to do with general dissatisfaction over the speed of recovery than any statement about policy. SD, AK, and NE, and AR all approved increases in the minimum wage by pretty good margins:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/a-big-night-for-minimum-wage-increases/
The democrats have their issues I disagree with.. But at least usually there’s some gray area like with obamacare. There are aspects of obamacare that are stupid . But overall it can be argued that a system substantially like obamacare is still a good thing.. Maybe not. But possibly. republicans on the other hand are so anti drug, so anti gay , so pro-religion, and so anti immigrant that I just can’t being myself to like them.
It’s ironic that the “free market” republicans are so anti immigrant too. Did they ever consider that the laws are you complex ? Mexicans moving here is generally a good thing if they’re not felons. They provide cheap labor for Americans. Why had a republican never said this ??? Instead they just are overly religious and cater to that part of their base usually.
Steve, call you a cynic but…? Well, from what I have read from you, not what I have heard, you have often been cynical, at times, for example when exploring the brain jolts and fuzzy ideas of Paul Krugman. But Steve Landsburg does not commit cynicism voluntarily. He lives in the university, though, and in this cloistered life at times seeks complicated reasons to convice his colleagues that his plain views are consistent with their twisted thinking.
I do not think the latest group of Republican senators recently elected are are anything but Reagan Republicans, bad news for the Marxists down the hall from you, but better for us free people.
We shall leave to further discussion whether Professor Landsburgh is a Cyinic, a Stoic, or an Aristotlean, or a closet logical positivist.
Would Hillary care been better than Obama care?
With respect to 1994, welfare reform comes to mind
Steve Landsburg: I think your recollection of the fate of the 1994 promises is more negative that what actually happened. They promised 10 major bills. Like you said, some were passed in the House and died in the Senate, but some passed the Senate and were vetoed by President Clinton, and some were passed and became law. Some of those that were vetoed or died in Senate later became law in revised form.
The best example of this is welfare reform. The “Personal Responsibility Act” was vetoed by President Clinton in 1995, but another, very similar law (the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act”) was signed by President Clinton in 1996.
A tax relief bill (the “American Dream Restoration Act”) was passed and signed into law, and still mostly is law.
The initial tort reform bill was vetoed, but a modified tort reform bill was vetoed and the second veto was over-ridden and the second bill became law.
The did pass a law requiring that the same labor laws that apply to the rest of the country apply to Congress, and that is still somewhat intact.
The line-item veto was passed, signed into law, then found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
At least two of the proposals required Constitutional Amendments, which failed to get the 2/3 vote required. The Republicans had majorities, but less than 2/3, in both houses.