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.
Did the NPR survey include only NPR listeners? If so, it is perfectly irrelevant since these people are much more intelligent than average Americans.
I would love to get more feedback on ED’s question. Do any of you personally know of anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 and who will be voting for Bush in 2004? I do not know anyone. In addition, with all of the stories I have read over the past year, I have only heard of one person who voted for Gore and who will vote for Bush — with literally dozens who voted for Bush who are undecided or who will definately vote for Kerry. Since this is a very unscientific sample, can anyone provide more data points?
Thanks,
Paul
It’s easy for some of the Blitzer/Dobbs polls to be manipulated. Atrios is famous for “torturing” them by sending literally thousands of hits to their polls. However the polls on the main page draw a much larger audience, and I would think it’s hard to ‘freep’ a poll with half a million responses. I still think it is likely that they simply reflect the blue state views. But the blue states probably account for more than 60% of the population. So that begs the question, how does a Gallup poll of 800 people break down demographically?
Kaus, I didn’t mean those turncoat politicians. I was talking about the average electorate. Ed.
Ron Silver a dem? Are you kidding. He’s been a right-winger for yhears.
I vote in some of those on-line polls on CNN Wolf Blitzer and Lou Dobbs has one every day. They are always like 90% for the Liberal view. Cnn is not so Liberal but not as far to the Right as FOX. So it’s hard to tell how true these polls are.
I happened by an online poll on the CNN website which had almost 500,000 responses! And the results were 58% Kerry, 40% Bush. At the very least this says that people who use the web regularly are overwhelmingly for Kerry. This also jibes with Kerry’s margins on the East and West coasts. And it suggests that these national polls are heavily skewed to midwest states. Is that possible?
All Kerry needs to say regarding the war on terror now that Bush says it cannot be won — Bush is wrong! We not only can win the war on terror we WILL win the war on terror! I’m sorry the President feels we do not have the capacity to win this war, for the American people expect victory.
Ed, there are some Dems supporting Bush. Zell Miller, Ed Koch, Ron Silver come to mind. All together there’s probably several dozen of them in the nation, and they’ve all been recruited to appear at the RNC.
Scott.. this is a great moment for Kerry to talk on foreign policy.. great moment for him to talk about alliances to win this war on terror… its a beaming opportunity… I just hope these folks can ride this wave to the shore..
cheers
he said the war on terror can’t be won? I missed that – we need to go after that bigtime – don’t remember any Democrats saying the war on terror can’t be won – we just said invading Iraq wouldn’t contribute to it . . .
I wonder why I don’t see or hear of any Demorcrats for Bush? But, I know of a whole bunch of Republicans for Kerry? I bet there are very few if any one that voted for Gore who are going to vote for Bush. The numbers are many who voted for Bush in 2000 and now are voteing for Kerry.
It looks like Bush is softening his stance on everything… he agrees that he was involved in that smear campaign, he agrees that Kerry is a hero and served honorably, he says that the war on terror cant be won anymore.
Are we talking a flip-flopper here? Are we seeing a president who has become soft on the under belly? Are we looking at someone who has shifted position on his base and expects them to follow? Is he now appealing to a different type of voter, moderates maybe? Where is he going with this softer Bush approach?
Are we now being shown a compassionate Bush? No staying the course anymore? Maybe he turned the corner himself and left the economy behind.
I hope the DEMS realise that he is providing added fodder and fuel for direct attacks on his policies. He has literally opened a gaping hole on his presidency and left it there for issues to be put on the table and debated. There is even room to classify him as a flip-flopper because this new approach goes contrary to everything he has been preaching for the past four years.
Rise up Kerry supporter and DEMS… another golden opportunity is here.
Cheers
John Kerry said the same thing on Chris Matthews show a while back. He said “Chris, I am going to win this thing”!
It means that when you overcount Republicans and undercount Democrats, Republican candidates usually come out ahead.
Call me crazy, but we’re going to win this thing.
So you can choose your poll: Gallup and others have Bush ahead, Zogby and NPR have Kerry ahead. Who knows what it all means, except that we (Dems) have to keep working and donating money to the cause right up to election day.