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.
DemDude: see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34157-2004Dec3.html which indicates that if the GOP attempted to suppress turnout in Demcoratic areas of Ohio they weren’t very successful:
“Second myth: The Bush campaign won by mobilizing GOP strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic areas.
“Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at 6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County (home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes — an increase of 42,497 over Gore’s 2000 effort. In Stark County (Canton) — a bellwether lost by Gore — Kerry won by 4,354.”
As for Diebold, how many times does it have to be pointed out that Ohio did not use Diebold’s e-voting machine? (Most Ohio counties used puncchcards. A few used an older Diebold machine which does leave a paper trail.)
As I’ve said before, I as a Democrat am not at all despondent over this election. It’s hard to beat an incumbent president in time of war, and Kerry was in some respects not the ideal candidate, yet he came close. For 2008, all we have to do is to get 1.4% of the electorate to change its mind. But we’re never going to do thi if we keep trying to persuade ourselves that we don’t have to because we “really” won (at least the electoral vote) anyway…
No doubt an honest vote count would diminish Bush’s margin even further. Yet, I don’t believe Bush stole his popular majority — it’s just too hard to steal 3+ million votes all over the country without getting nailed somewhere. I’m finally persuaded, however, that, yes, the election was probably stolen in Ohio. There is lots of compelling evidence — too much to present here. Jesse Jackson gives a pretty good quickie summation in htttp://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse30.html. The bummer is that there isn’t much that can be done about it. Given that the Ohio Secretary of State is also Bush’s state campaign manager and Diebold’s shamelessly pro-Bush admission, it is unlikely that any black box shenanigans can be proven. No doubt, many, if not most of the stolen votes were suppressed and never cast in the first place, as frustrated voters in African American precincts were misled to non-existent polling sites, or discouraged by long lines caused by few voting machines. Add to that bogus felon disenfranchisement and other GOP “ballot security” scams, and it’s not hard to imagine 120K votes for Kerry in Ohio being turned into vapor. Yes, we should protest, demand a full recount and raise hell about it. But even if we get conclusive proof, the US Supreme Court would surely screw the Democrats again. The GOP vote theft machine can only be dismantled by Democratic victories in statewide and state legislative races, so that genuine ballot integrity reforms can be implemented.