Having closely watched congressional developments over the last few weeks, I’ve concluded that one much-discussed Democratic tactic for dealing with Trump 2.0 is probably mistaken, as I explained at New York:
No one is going to rank Mike Johnson among the great arm-twisting Speakers of the House, like Henry Clay, Tom Reed, Sam Rayburn, or even Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he still resembles Winston Churchill’s description of Clement Atlee as “a modest man with much to be modest about.”
But nonetheless, in the space of two weeks, Johnson has managed to get two huge and highly controversial measures through the closely divided House: a budget resolution that sets the stage for enactment of Donald Trump’s entire legislative agenda in one bill, then an appropriations bill keeping the federal government operating until the end of September while preserving the highly contested power of Trump and his agents to cut and spend wherever they like.
Despite all the talk of divisions between the hard-core fiscal extremists of the House Freedom Caucus and swing-district “moderate” Republicans, Johnson lost just one member — the anti-spending fanatic and lone wolf Thomas Massie of Kentucky — from the ranks of House Republicans on both votes. As a result, he needed not even a whiff of compromise with House Democrats (only one of them, the very Trump-friendly Jared Golden of Maine, voted for one of the measures, the appropriations bill).
Now there are a host of factors that made this impressive achievement possible. The budget-resolution vote was, as Johnson kept pointing out to recalcitrant House Republicans, a blueprint for massive domestic-spending cuts, not the cuts themselves. Its language was general and vague enough to give Republicans plausible deniability. And even more deviously, the appropriations measure was made brief and unspecific in order to give Elon Musk and Russ Vought the maximum leeway to whack spending and personnel to levels far below what the bill provided (J.D. Vance told House Republicans right before the vote that the administration reserved the right to ignore the spending the bill mandated entirely, which pleased the government-hating HFC folk immensely). And most important, on both bills Johnson was able to rely on personal lobbying from key members of the administration, most notably the president himself, who had made it clear any congressional Republican who rebelled might soon be looking down the barrel of a Musk-financed MAGA primary opponent. Without question, much of the credit Johnson is due for pulling off these votes should go to his White House boss, whose wish is his command.
But the lesson Democrats should take from these events is that they cannot just lie in the weeds and expect the congressional GOP to self-destruct owing to its many divisions and rivalries. In a controversial New York Times op-ed last month, Democratic strategist James Carville argued Democrats should “play dead” in order to keep a spotlight on Republican responsibility for the chaos in Washington, D.C., which might soon extend to Congress:
“Let the Republicans push for their tax cuts, their Medicaid cuts, their food stamp cuts. Give them all the rope they need. Then let dysfunction paralyze their House caucus and rupture their tiny majority. Let them reveal themselves as incapable of governing and, at the right moment, start making a coordinated, consistent argument about the need to protect Medicare, Medicaid, worker benefits and middle-class pocketbooks. Let the Republicans crumble, let the American people see it, and wait until they need us to offer our support.”
Now to be clear, Congressional GOP dysfunction could yet break out; House and Senate Republicans have struggled constantly to stay on the same page on budget strategy, the depth of domestic-spending cuts, and the extent of tax cuts. But as the two big votes in the House show, their three superpowers are (1) Trump’s death grip on them all, (2) the willingness of Musk and Vought and Trump himself to take the heat for unpopular policies, and (3) a capacity for lying shamelessly about what they are doing and what it will cost. Yes, ultimately, congressional Republicans will face voters in November 2026. But any fear of these elections is mitigated by the realization that thanks to the landscape of midterm races, probably nothing they can do will save control of the House or forfeit control of the Senate. So Republicans have a lot of incentives to follow Trump in a high-speed smash-and-grab operation that devastates the public sector, awards their billionaire friends with tax cuts, and wherever possible salts the earth to make a revival of good government as difficult as possible. Democrats have few ways to stop this nihilistic locomotive. But they may be fooling themselves if they assume it’s going off the rails without their active involvement.
???
it’s WTFSJFKD.
With Kerry only down by 2% in Virginia, Edwards is a great choice. Virginians up and down the state are really down on Bush and with Max Cleland leading the charge at the recent convention, Kerry has a great strategy to appeal to veterans in Virginia.
I was shocked to find a great deal of Democratic support when I went to Roanoke a few weeks ago. Everwhere we stopped along Rt. 11 there were Democrats.
Speaking of Congressmen, we also have a great candidate running against long-term incumbent Frank Wolf in the 10th District. James Socas is a viable candidate raising lots of money and running a great campaign.
He is a “sunshine populist” who excites the base as well as moderates.
In a word, he is Clintonian.
Now we need to start concentrating on winning back congress. One place that we can win is Virginia’s 5th district, currently represented by a vulnerable fanatic, Virgil Goode (thegoodereport.com), who’s being challenged by Al Weed (alweed2004.com), a progressive veteran and farmer. The House is within our grasp, check out Al Weed!
It’s Edwards baby!!!
WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Edwards is a great choice. Edwards helps a little in many states simultaneously. He is a great campaigner and will take it to the enemy.
Gephardt would’ve been the wrong choice. In this field of candidates, Edwards has the most “shine” and that virtue makes him the best underside of the ticket.
> Looks like it’s Edwards
And I think Kerry has made a fairly good choice too, after thinking about it for a while! Yes — Edwards doesn’t exactly bring a lot of military/foreign policy/antiterrorism experience to the table. But he will make a great cheerleader on the campaign trail. He is a “sunshine populist” who excites the base as well as moderates. It’s bound to be an asset as Kerry tries to define himself as a positive alternative to the current President; not merely the anti-Bush.
—
Dick Gephardt would have been less risky, but I think Kerry needed to take risks and pick someone who symbolizes change and the future rather than the past.
MARCU$
Looks like it’s Edwards
The link does work. But it’s only in the “an” portion of the highlighted phrase. “Excellent article in the Sunday New York Times” is not uncluded in the URL.
The link doesn’t seem to work currently. Here’s the correct line:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/04/business/yourmoney/04carrie.html
So should Kerry add Louis Uchitelle to his speech-writing staff?