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.
Brantley-
I’m obviously not Ruy, nor a member of the staff here. But I’d point out that there was no 16 point jump. Several sources put the race at a 5% Bush lead. If that’s so, then if you run enough polls, you’ll find one with as large of a lead as Gallup shows for Bush, along with several that will show a virtual deadlock, such as Pew or Harris. Add to that varying methodologies for determining what are likely voters and you get an even better understanding of why polls give you different figures.
I’m skeptical that many people are attending to the CBS documents issue. As I browse, most undecided people seem to be reporting that they want to hear more about what will happen in the next 4 years.
Your detailed analysis of poll data is always interesting. What is your analysis of the large jump, 16%, in favor of Bush in the USA/CNN/Gallup poll released today? Could this be a sympathy response for Bush that has been created by fact that the CBS memos denigrating his Nat’l Guard service are proving to be fakes?
Brantley Johnson – Angry Democrat!
“The Star has been criticized for “overly academic weighting” which probably mean they give high weights to undereducated voters.”
Do you know who made those criticizms? The head of the MN GOP. Mysteriously, he made those criticisms On Sept. 10th, when the Strib was surveying Sept. 7th through Sept. 13th. Then the poll comes out on the 15th and it has no credibility.
Convenient. Add to that the fact that after posting a 9 point Kerry lead, the Stribs headline says “Bush Inching in on Kerry Lead.” What a bunch of saps.
Mason-Dixon were the only ones to have Norm Coleman leading in the final 2002 polls.
The Star has been criticized for “overly academic weighting” which probably mean they give high weights to undereducated voters.
MN is close. A 9 point Kerry lead seems a bit of a stretch.
Both of these polls used RVs. What of the Star Tribune poll that used LVs and came out with Kerry up by 9?