Boehner: Democrats win in a shutdown
Sobering read in the Politico, in which the fissures within the GOP House caucus are clear. The older guard, many of whom were around during the Clinton-Gingrich shutdown showdown in 1995-96, believe a shutdown would be just as disastrous this time around as it was last time. The younger or less established reps, many of whom were elected in the 2010 wave, are less apt to see a shutdown as disastrous.
What would be nice, would be a similar Politico story about where the cracks might be in the Democrat caucus. But that story doesn’t exist. So the blabbing Republicans have handed the Democrats a strategic advantage, just by talking, and in particular by talking to the Politico, which leans left.
I think a shutdown this time around would not play out quite like the last one, for a few reasons.
This wouldn’t be the first shutdown, for one thing. That first one was a bit shocking to most Americans. But its aftermath wasn’t quite the GOP disaster that it’s made out to be. Republicans actually picked up seats in Congress. During that shutdown, it was obvious that the Republicans were most in favor of it; this time, it’s the Democrats who are openly pining for a shutdown, and for purely partisan advantage.
Clinton was re-elected in 1996, but largely because the economy was growing and because he tacked hard to the middle, signing welfare reform and presiding over a GOP-led balanced budget. Clinton was also re-elected largely because the GOP nominated Bob Dole, and the contrast between the still youthful Clinton and the aged and unexciting Dole was just too great to overcome. And Clinton had help from Ross Perot again, who pulled about 8.4% of the vote in 1996, much of which would presumably gone to Dole. Dole would still probably have lost, but if Gen. Colin Powell (who was then still a pretty solid conservative) had run, the story would have turned out entirely differently. Clinton’s strengths in 1996 were largely a product of the weaknesses of his opponent; the role that the shutdown played in his re-election has since been exaggerated.
Also, this time around the media landscape has changed entirely. 1995-96 was the Stone Age compared to 2011. Rush Limbaugh was already national, but Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity — none of them were on the air doing what they’re doing now. There were no blogs of any influence. The Right and Left didn’t have the message and organization infrastructure that exist on both sides now. The nation’s financial shape was nowhere near as dire as it is now, and Obama and the Democrats own that situation entirely. Where Clinton was an engaged and wonkish president, Obama has earned the reputation of being frivolous and disengaged when real policy battles happen — and Obama is continuing that trend this week. Fox News Channel itself didn’t even begin broadcasting until 1996, and its dominance was several years in the future. YouTube was a decade away. There was no facebook. There was no Tea Party, no MoveOn, no Freedom Works, and none of the Soros groups existed. Messages move much faster now than then; should a shutdown occur, it will happen in an entirely different messaging environment. Speed, creativity, mobilization and message discipline will win the battle.
That’s not to say that a shutdown is a good idea. I haven’t made up my mind on that but I don’t agree that it will be an unmitigated disaster for the Republicans and a clear win for the Democrats. I think the outcome is likely to be muddier than that, and will depend on which side masters the moment most effectively.
Bryan, I think you err in believing the Obama administration is forcing a shutdown of the federal government with the major objective of “winning” something politically, though that is certainly a secondary objective. IMO it’s really a “Wag the Dog” scenario whose major objective is creation of a temporary distraction which will get the Obama administration out of its current spate of unfavorable headlines about Libya, the budget deficit, its 180 degree turn on terrorist trials, etc.
And the MSM will do its part in lying completely about what is going on, and presenting the Democratic Party line on these events as the gospel truth. Which will include, when the Obama administration ends the government shutdown, in presenting the Obama administration’s acceptance of the GOP terms it won’t accept now, as really a great victory for President Obama over the evil GOP. Nothing will have changed except the Obama administration’s own decision to shut down the federal government.
I’m saying that the shutdown is just a short-term political gimmick and that the Obama administration already intends to end it, without anything changing except its own decisions, when the Democrats have gotten as much public relations benefit from the shutdown as they think possible. And the major benefit is distraction from the current bad PR for the Obama administration created by nasty reality.
This is solely about PR, not policy, money or anything substantive.
Obama has been going along with the continuing budget resolutions to fund the fedgov since the democrats in the house failed to write a budget last year (they are required by law to write a budget).
So why is O laying down the law now?
It’s April now.
Starting in April, the IRS has to hire a bunch of temps and work a bunch of overtime to process tax returns. Shutdown = no tax refund for months. As long as the media can pin this on the republicans, it’s a big win.
I wish Boehner would man up and fight these guys. Let the dems shut it down, and when they come back to accept the 61 billion, raise it to the promised 100 billion.
The 2010 election was based on the GOP cutting the size of government. By not passing a budget when they had absolute control of both houses, they put the ball in the GOP’s court. Use it Boehner.
lets make the cut 2 Trillion
I don’t think the people are going to blindly accept the lefty-media’s notions that a shutdown is THE END OF THE WORLD! and THE REPUBLICANS’ FAULT! I suspect there’s a strong undercurrent of thinking that goes something like “Hey, great idea! Think of the money we could save if we shut it down permanently!”
Oh, sure . . . the media is already preparing the sob stories about the people affected. But on the whole, I suspect the idea of shutting down an increasingly useless government won’t sound too bad to most people.
Amen! May your words come to pass. We could conclude that a new Constitutional Assembly is needed since the Communist occupation forces in Washington do nothing but destroy our patrimony by debt and taxation. Call the governors of the 50 states to send their reps to Omaha, abort the federal government institutions, return DC territory to Maryland. Save the Republic.
In a shut down, only “non-essential” employees and functions are actually shut down. This gives us a great opportunity to take as much time as needed to decide whether to EVER restart them. I would suggest *one at a time*….
For example, someone’s going to go crying off to the National Parks and saying those bad old Republicans want to close ‘em. So, pass an appropriation funding ONLY the National Parks at a reasonable level. Send it to the Senate and let them vote it up or down. If they vote it up, say, “we heard you — your beloved Parks are saved!” If they vote it down, say, “we heard you — now give us the Senate next year and we’ll make sure your beloved Parks are saved!”
On the other hand, a government shutdown of the Department of Education or NPR funding need never be “fixed” at all.
Fund the military shut down the rest come back in January 2013.
Now that is a good plan-make sure the EPA,TSA FCC ICC and ATF never come back