It’s all over for Obama or Boehner. But which one blinks?
If he blinks, he’s probably finished. (House Speaker John Boehner from Wikipedia)
One of the dynamics shaping this week’s government shutdown — indeed, perhaps the single most important dynamic — is the fact that the nation’s two most important political leaders have their backs squarely set against the wall.
The top Republican in the US, House Speaker John Boehner, has held tenuously to power ever since the mid-term elections of 2010 swept his party to a majority.
He has, despite criticism from the right and the left, done a reasonably masterful job of using a weak position to thwart and hamper Barack Obama’s presidency.
It’s fair to argue whether those goals are laudable. And it’s fair to debate whether Mr. Boehner might have served the country better by passing meaningful legislation — including common sense reforms to the Affordable Care Act.
But given his fractured caucus, and the increasingly rigid ideological posture of his base, that was probably never in the cards.
Instead, Mr. Boehner moved with real strategic skill to clip the wings of a Democratic presidency which from November 2008 through the end of 2010 struck many as the second coming of Camelot.
That agenda didn’t make him popular and it didn’t endear Republicans or Congress to Americans, but it was profoundly effective.
But that game is now played out. Mr. Boehner’s caucus is hungry not just for clipped wings and minor tactical victories, but for a full-on turkey shoot.
Giving in to Republican demands would effectively end Barack Obama’s presidency. (Photo: Wikipedia)
They want Obamacare eviscerated, and they want a divided political culture in Washington to deliver historic conservative gains — changing everything from abortion rules to Social Security entitlements to the Keystone XL pipeline and expanded offshore oil drilling.
All that with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats holding a solid majority in the US Senate.
Unless Mr. Boehner can deliver — or at least prove somehow that he’s not the one who blinked — his balancing act as House Speaker is probably at an end.
On other other end of Pennsylvania Avenue sits another politician with his back against the wall.
To the dismay of his supporters, Barack Obama turned out long ago to be more of a talker and a compromiser than a fighter.
In the aftermath of the Bush years, a lot of liberals — and even many centrists — wanted a two-fisted Democrat in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman.
Instead, they got a technocrat, an academic, a guy perfectly comfortable working in the gray zone, satisfied with good deals even when they’re not great deals.
Despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, the facts just don’t bear out the idea that this White House is a my-way-or-the-highway kind of operation.
The Affordable Care Act itself is a dogs breakfast of compromise, a mish-mash of liberal goals (bringing healthcare to as many Americans as possible) and conservative strategies (partnering with private insurance companies and adopting an individual insurance mandate).
But my sense is that Mr. Obama has reached a sort of Rubicon with his party and his own left-leaning base.
If the President folds, or even gives symbolic ground, under this kind of bare-knuckled tea party pressure, he certainly won’t be driven out of office. That’s not how our non-parliamentary system works.
But make no mistake: Mr. Obama’s presidency would effectively be over.
His chief legislative victory, Obamacare, would be dismantled. His position in future negotiations with Republicans would be crippled to an almost laughable degree. His trust-level among Democrats would be flat-line.
So with two cornered politicians, where do we find ourselves?
I think most pundits would say that at this point, Mr. Obama has a slight advantage. His position as president is politically more stable than that of Mr. Boehner, who as House Speaker works from an inherently dodgy position of authority.
And for all their protestations to the contrary, it is Republicans who chose this moment and this ground upon which to fight. Polls show that that decision galls many voters.
But the outcome is by no means sure and people behave in unpredictable ways when placed between a rock and a hard place.
These two powerful men know that when the government does finally reopen, one of them will almost certainly be left behind , by their party and by history.
Tags: boehner, government shut down, politics
From a position of weakness the republicans have basically won the ideological battle. The new norm is smaller, or at least not much bigger, government. Amazing that this has taken place with the other party firmly in control.
As for this current thing I thought that the NPR piece on negotiation was interesting this morning. The first “expert” from Harvard said that basically the democrats and the president are doing the right thing holding firm. But one of the later commentators had a great point. If you have two cars speeding down the road toward each other and one guy is willing to take off the steering wheel and throw it out the window. He wins. There are people in the GOP that are willing to do this. The presidents entire legacy is at stake here. If the economy tanks history will “blame” it on him while guys like Ted Cruz and others will not even be mentioned in the history books. Yet they are the ones that threw the steering wheel out the window. The president is a smart man, in the end he will not let his country go down the tubes.
This is a good of a place as any to make the following comments.
Nothing about the stupid killing of an unarmed woman by the police in Washington?
Nothing about how our cowardly elected representatives applauded and thanked to police for saving them from this now dead and unarmed woman?
Like I care who wins or loses in this latest nonsense?
We, the people, lose.
Paul – your game of chicken analogy is more appropriate to the debt ceiling fight coming up. Boehner has evidently said he is not willing to go ever that cliff (Thank heavens). Your point about the republicans winning the spending battle is sort of correct though (unfortunately). It has been at a great cost to the nation. The “sequester” did reduce federal spending but not in a very sensible way.
I guess Boehner will lose his speakership after he lets Democrats raise the debt ceiling. That will be an act of courage, although losing a title to save the US (and world) economy seems an easy decision.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Endless_Victimhood
Peter, yes absolutely, I was referring to the debt ceiling. I suspect these two things are going to be rolled together. Currently the government shut down in some sense is politically positive for the democrats so there they have thrown out the steering wheel.
Pete, I don’t know. A car can be a pretty deadly weapon and she was certainly trying to hurt someone. Did you see some of the video? Also, these guys have to assume that someone doing something like that has a bomb and is trying to deliver it to a target. Here it looks like the target could have been first the White House and then the Capital. I think they probably did the right thing.
“But make no mistake: Mr. Obama’s presidency would effectively be over.”
Oh it is worse than that.
The presidency itself would be forever changed. Some political scientists and historians are suggesting that our entire political system would be forever changed.
Imagine a political system where a fringe of one political party, in one house of congress, can grind the entire country to a halt anytime they have a problem with anything. Even if, as in this case, the thing they have a problem with has already passed through every major democratic and constitutional process.
Again, think about that… what sort of political system would we have if a small minority can thwart our democratic and constitutional processes anytime they don’t like the outcome of those processes?
Imagine when the roles are reversed here. Imagine if a minority of Democrats decided to shut down the government because they didn’t get their way on Gun Control.
Does that strike any of you as a tenable system? Does that sound like democracy to you?
Indeed, if Obama “blinks” here and decides to re-negotiate with the tea party, then Obama’s presidency would effectively be over. So too would a lot of other, more important, things.
“Again, think about that… what sort of political system would we have if a small minority can thwart our democratic and constitutional processes anytime they don’t like the outcome of those processes?”
But we already do have a democratic and constitutional process that allows it.
The republican’s problem is that all their leaders have been telling the wacky-conference that they should wait for the debt ceiling fight when they have the most “leverage”. It turns out they dont have any leverage, because they arent willing to shoot the hostage. (The wacky-ones may be willing). But everyone else seems to understand that the republicans (and the rest of the world) has too much to lose, and virtually nothing to gain.
have too much to lose.
“But we already do have a democratic and constitutional process that allows it.”
What is going on here is not part of any democratic or constitutional process. It is a hijacking of those processes by a minority of people who did not like the outcomes of those processes.
I am sure you can tell the difference.
But feel free to make the argument that a country should be shut down whenever a minority of people don’t like the outcome of a previous legislative vote, an election, and a Supreme Court decision. I’m all ears
The Hastert Rule (a majority of the majority party must be for a bill in order to put it up to a vote) is not in the Constitution or Rules of the House, but is simply a recent Republican invention, and a very pernicious one. Especially in a nearly evenly divided House, like the current one, to be controlled by a minority of members. This was NEVER intended by the Framers. It is even more drastic than the Filibuster Rule in the Senate, which after-all is (laudibly) intended to protect minority party rights. The Hastert Rule is at the heart of this nasty impasse – a significant majority of House members would vote for the standard (i.e. ‘clean’) Continuing Resolution.
IF Obama buckles (I am confident he won’t), as dave stated, it will set an awful precedent; legislative hostage-taking will become more and more prevalent. Much more is at stake than funding the ACA, although that in itself is a big deal. Boehner knows this, and it is to his great discredit that he let his party’s radicals lead the government down this path.
Nothing so radical going on here, in fact, most of the European democracies operate this way. In the UK, for example, the PM governs with either a majority in the House of Commons or a coalition of parties that makes a majority. If a small group opts out of the coalition over policy differences, for example, and the PM no longer has a majority, the government falls. Here, we are stuck with executive and legislative branches chosen in separate elections. Sometimes it makes for gridlock but overall, I think it provides solid checks and balances as well as stability.
OL, I think there are two other big differences between European democracies and the US. (1) Many more parties, which makes it much easier to form coalitions to move things along. With two strong parties that usually have strong party discipline, cross-party coalitions are MUCH more difficult. (2) If a budget bill falls, the government falls and new elections are called. This is intended to prevent the kind of impasse we currently face.
Overall, I like our system better than the European parliamentary democracies – it has been historically much more stable – but I think we are heading into uncharted waters here.
Larry,
The United States does not have a parliamentary system.
Interestingly, Former House Speaker Denny Hastert doesn’t support the ‘Hastert Rule’. And has a lot of other interesting things to say relevant to the current impasse.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/03/denny-hastert-disses-the-hastert-rule-it-never-really-existed.html
“But feel free to make the argument that a country should be shut down whenever a minority of people don’t like the outcome of a previous legislative vote, an election, and a Supreme Court decision. I’m all ears ”
Easy. I am making no such argument. I was simply pointing out that what they are already doing fits with what you say we cannot allow to happen.
They are doing it. It is within the scope of how the government works.
Tom,
I think we are essentially in agreement. I don’t think this is the apocalyptic battle some make it out to be.
wow, dave, you sure are smart!
“They are doing it. It is within the scope of how the government works.”
Again…
No, it is not within the scope of how our government works. Nobody ever, not the founders, not anyone, intended for this to happen.
It is a hijacking of how our government works. An abuse of our government systems.
You seem to be making the argument that because someone found a way to abuse those systems for purposes that were not intended, that it is therefore somehow within the scope of how our government works. That is, of course, absurd.
Larry,
So now that we agree that the US is indeed not a parliamentary democracy, let’s go ahead and stop saying that what is happening here is no big deal because similar things happen in parliamentary democracies. M’kay?
They are two fundamentally different systems.
“You seem to be making the argument that because someone found a way to abuse those systems for purposes that were not intended, that it is therefore somehow within the scope of how our government works. That is, of course, absurd.”
Again, I am not making any such argument. Simply pointing out that what is happening is well within the scope of the rules for the congress. It isn’t abuse when you are following the rules. Even if the current rules are wacky.
Back in the 70s when the democratically controlled house AND senate were shutting down the government over medicaid funded abortions wasn’t there already a law that defined what could be done as far as abortions with medicaid funds (I think there was a ban on the books that prevented using medicaid funds for an abortion with some exceptions). Isn’t that the same kind of thing that is going on now (with a bit of a twist)? I keep hearing that we have never seen a case where one group of legislators tried to affect an already settled law with the threat of a shutdown. The government was shut down three separate times in 1977 over this. There was a democratically controlled house, a democratically controlled senate, and a democrat in the White House.
dave,
M’No
@pete klein, they not only applauded the police, they thanked them for being so selfless and doing their duty— even though they were not getting paid– that’s one of the points they felt strong about making.
yup THAT’S what stands out…..
bone-er is not a good speaker of the house.
he isn’t even a good politician.
politicians are supposed to be savy enough to craft laws around obstacles, even if that obstacle is another law!
none of are elected officials are practicing their trade so to speak.
no clever solutions coming from that bunch of loosers.
Boehner is not a politician, he is a thug.
if he was a “leader” from another country, we would not tolerate his rhetoric, or his terrorism.
he would get a visit from seal team 6
Gosh, it’s like old home week here at the In Box. Great to see all the old rabble rousers back at it. Wish we were debating something less tedious.
I have one last thought. It’s just a fact thing, not an analysis thing.
Republicans are trying to suggest that the shutdown isn’t their fault. But the simple reality is that they can end it at any time, and the Democrats can’t.
So it’s fair to debate whether or not the shutdown is a good idea or whether this kind of tactic is a reasonable way to try to wrangle concessions out of your political opponents.
But to suggest that the GOP isn’t the driving force behind this event strikes me as muddle-headed and a very tough sell.
It’s hard to argue that you’re taking a principled stand on ground that you’ve chosen for a fight for American values — while also vaguely suggesting that it’s all someone else’s fault.
Again, Mr. Boehner can end this at any time in about fifteen minutes. Obama simply can’t. Neither can Harry Reid.
–Brian, NCPR
Why do you think any of that matters at this point Brian? I think you are right, so like that White House aide said this morning they will win the “game” eventually. I also think that the GOP know they have caused the shutdown. They said they were going to make it happen. Some of their constituents are glad that some parts of the government are shut down. Also, the senate could have caved and passed the house bill, no?
I think there is a case that Reid for example has also stopped much legislation in the Senate which would pass an up or down vote; a better idea would be to say look we will put up and probably pass a clean bill for the CR if you will put those up for an up or down vote in the Senate. There are ways to negotiate this.
Also I think the idea that the country or even the government is “shut down” is simply not true in either case. Some spending has been stopped. The main levers of government lumber on.
Now if they really stopped government, you would have a bill in about a nano second. The first day that social security checks were not sent out or that medicare payments were stopped, at that point indeed you would have the real impact of shutting down our government. In some ways that is what should happen; many people just don’t get it on how important government spending is to them personally and to our economy.
A “clean bill for the CR” is a huge victory for the GOP. This includes sequestration. If they were smart they would have taken that and then moved on. We would be talking about problems the president is having with his own party, his approval rating, and problems related to the fact that three years were not long enogh for the federal government to prepare for the launch of the ACA. Big republican mistake.
This article shows the polarizing controversy that has surrounded this presidency all along. One of the greatest indications of how passionate people feel about Obamacare is the fact that the Wikipedia article on this topic has been edited more than 5,400 times by more than 1,400 people! 4,500 unpaid hours have been spent by passionate individuals, on writing, editing, and re-writing the text that makes up this 13,000-word document. The writers of Wikipedia articles must, in the end, find a common ground, despite their drastically differing personal views. Emotions are running hot these days, and as the leading Wikipedia Visibility Agency, we are seeing an increased need for individuals and companies to protect their Wikipedia profiles from vandalism.
http://www.WikiExperts.us
“It isn’t abuse when you are following the rules.”
If you exploit and use rules in ways that were clearly not intended and that harm the system… that is the very definition of abuse.
Are you are one of those people who cheats at Monopoly and then yells “Show me in the rules where it says I can’t steal your money when you go to the bathroom!”?
Yeah, ya know, technically you are right. It does not explicitly say you that you can’t steal someone’s money when they go to the bathroom, but I think a majority of reasonable people would call that an abuse anyway.
“I think there is a case that Reid for example has also stopped much legislation in the Senate which would pass an up or down vote”
Examples?
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/donald-segretti-ratfking-100413
“Are you are one of those people”. this isn’t about me Dave. They are working within the rules of the congress. Like I said they are wacky. and I don’t personally like what they are doing.
“Are you are one of those people who cheats at Monopoly and then yells “Show me in the rules where it says I can’t steal your money when you go to the bathroom!”?
these kinds of personal insult type comments are annoying and part of the problem with our discourse in this country.
here is a good Washington post piece from someone from Stanford who explains why we allow such rules with our system:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-are-we-still-fighting-over-obamacare-because-our-system-was-designed-that-way/2013/10/04/0ad4aaf6-2b79-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html?hpid=z2
it addresses the parliamentary issue raised earlier in this discussion.
The republicans are a disgrace. They are engaging in economic terrorism. Imagine if Obama refused to sign legislation to raise the debt ceiling unless Congress passed immigration reform. The Republicans would be calling for impeachment.
I can see a similarity between a filibuster in the Senate and this action in the house. Regardless of what the writers of the constitution envisioned. I see a similarity to a union strike.
Why is my comment awaiting moderation?
Dave there is a series of job related bills that he is sitting on that all have broad bi-partison support at least in the House and would likely pass an up or down vote in the Senate.
I think a negotiation would start with that. I think the GOP is in a losing position trying to defund the ACA through this method of not voting on funding for the government. It should be part of the budget negotiations over the long term. The ACA is here to stay and they should look at negotiating changes to it, not overturning it through this method.
This is politics however and we will see. There are also I think some technical moves that the Democrats can take to do an end around.
The process isn’t the problem, it’s Obama’s imperious, autocratic manner of ramming socialism ( and bad socialism at that) down everyone’s throat. Ever wonder why he keeps having the same problem over and over? If he tried governing instead of dictating it might be different. You can’t expect everyone to agree with you just because you say so.
You just gotta wonder about some people’s ability to deceive themselves. And by some people I mean mostly Republicans. Let me start going through the list. There is the whole Obama birther thing. There was Benghazi and the wild accusations about Hillary and Obama. And Syria, everybody was saying Obama was going to get us into a war in Syria.
Well, as it turns out Obama has managed to get the international community to unite and there are UN inspectors destroying chemical stockpiles in Syria today. Top that off with a very real chance to negotiate a better relationship with Iran which could lead to a much safer, more secure Middle East.
So what is going on here at home? The same kinds of people who were happy to get us into a war in Iraq, and to run the national debt up by trillions of dollars, who said that Obama wasn’t forceful enough against Syria, and who still don’t believe he was born in the USA or that he is a Christian are holding up important legislation on the budget and soon will be trying the same thing on the national debt.
Some people listen to them! And they get their crazy backwards opinions taken seriously by the media who can be trusted to tell “both sides” of any story even when one side is the side of rational thinking people and the other side the opinion of people who are prove-ably wrong again and again. Sheesh!
right, except for that part where obamacare was originally passed by majority in both houses of congress, obama was just reelected by a comfortable margin, and democratic candidates just took a majority of the overall vote in house and senate elections.
KHL,
If you really want to dredge up the birther issue, look at the way McCain handled a similar issue. He got out in front of it, laid out all necessary proof and it was a non issue. Obama, on the other hand, couldn’t be bothered and let a ridiculous issue fester and grow. “Because I said so!” is not the way to govern.
Just like it has taken 100 years for the South to get over the Civil War, it will take a while for some Americans to get past our first black president.
Thanks Larry! I now have a giant bruise on my forehead in the shape of my open palm and I’m developing a headache.
Why don’t you ask Ted Cruz about being a natural citizen if your mother was a citizen at the time of your birth – no matter where your birth occurred. I know I’m not supposed to say unkind things about people on here but …
(okay, I deleted the rest of my comment to save the moderator some trouble)
And since we’re now talking about Cruz there is some information out there that Cruz is doing just fine with health insurance even if he doesn’t get gov’t coverage because his wife, exec with Goldman Sachs (huh! who would have guessed?), carries the family insurance plan through work – a benefit valued at $40,000 per year.
True or not true? I don’t know, but it’s worth looking into at least as much as Obama’s birth certificate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/ted-cruz-dick-durbin_n_3992395.html
The issue isn’t where anyone was born, it’s Obama’s style and manner. He expects everyone to agree with him because, as anyone with half a brain knows, he’s always right. I can just see the sardonic smirk he puts on when he’s about to explain things to the ignorant. I guess that’s the way of things with liberals: they know more than everyone else and will be happy to tell everyone what should be done….about anything. That, along with the ridicule and personal attacks that are always the fall-back position when challenged and the constant whining about any opposition makes them so difficult to deal with. Get over yourselves!
The problem the Tea Party people have with Obama is his blackness. Forget about the fact that he is only half black. Any amount of black makes one black according to the purists. That is the number one issue, although it is swept under the lily white rug.
If the Tea Party continues to hold this country hostage, we can kiss this country goodbye. It was great fun but it was just one of those things.