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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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.

Recommended

Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Advertisement
Advertisement