The federal government is going to shut down this weekend, barring some miracle. And Democrats really need to make sure Americans know exactly who insisted on this avoidable crisis. It’s the House GOP, as I explained at New York.
If you are bewildered by the inability of Congress to head off a government shutdown beginning this weekend, don’t feel poorly informed: Some of the Capitol’s top wizards are throwing up their hands as well, as the Washington Post reports:
“’We are truly heading for the first-ever shutdown about nothing,’ said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. Strain has started referring to the current GOP House-led impasse as “the ‘Seinfeld’ shutdown,” a reference to the popular sitcom widely known as ‘a show about nothing.’ ‘The weirdest thing about it is that the Republicans don’t have any demands. What do they want? What is it that they’re going to shut the government down for? We simply don’t know.’”
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Many House Republicans, led by a band of right-wing hard-liners, want to impose their fiscal and policy views on the nation despite the GOP’s narrow majority in the House. Their chief asset, beyond fanaticism, is that the federal government can’t remain open past the end of the fiscal year without the concurrence of the House, and they don’t really mind an extended government shutdown, if only to preen and posture. They are being encouraged in this wildly irresponsible position by their leader and likely 2024 presidential nominee Donald Trump.
But the hard-liners’ real motive, it seems, is to use the dysfunction they’ve caused in the House to get rid of Speaker Kevin McCarthy for being dysfunctional. The not-so-hidden plan hatched by Florida congressman Matt Gaetz is to thwart every effort by McCarthy to move forward with spending plans for the next fiscal year and then defenestrate him via a motion to vacate the chair, which just five Republicans can pass any time they wish (with the complicity of Democrats). Indeed, the Post reports the rebels are casting about for a replacement Speaker right now:
“A contingent of far-right House Republicans is plotting an attempt to remove Kevin McCarthy as House speaker as early as next week, a move that would throw the chamber into further disarray in the middle of a potential government shutdown, according to four people familiar with the effort who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.”
McCarthy’s tormenters would like to have a successor lined up who will presumably be even less inclined to compromise with Democrats than the current Speaker. And that’s saying a lot, since McCarthy has already bowed to the Gaetz demand that House Republicans reject even the idea of a continuing resolution — the stopgap spending measures used to forestall or end government shutdowns in the past — and instead plod through individual appropriations bills loaded with provisions no Democrat would ever accept (e.g., deep domestic spending cuts, draconian border policies, anti-Ukraine measures, and abortion restrictions). It’s a recipe for a long shutdown, but it’s clear if McCarthy moves a muscle toward negotiating with Democrats (who have already passed a CR in the Senate), then kaboom! Here comes the motion to vacate.
Some observers think getting rid of McCarthy is an end in itself for the hard-liners — particularly Gaetz, who has a long-standing grudge against the Californian and opposed his original selection as Speaker to the bitter end — no matter what he does or doesn’t do. In theory, House Democrats could save McCarthy by lending a few “no” votes to him if the motion to vacate hits the floor, but they’ve made it clear the price for saving him would be high, including abandonment of the GOP’s Biden impeachment inquiry.
So strictly speaking, the impending shutdown isn’t “about nothing”; it’s about internal far-right factional politics that very few of the people about to be affected by the shutdown care about at all. Understandably, most Democrats from President Biden on down are focusing their efforts on making sure the public knows this isn’t about “big government” or “politicians” or “partisan polarization,” but about one party’s extremism and cannibalistic infighting. For now, there’s little anyone outside the GOP fever swamps can do about it other than watch the carnage.
Interesting that the only post to get any response in a while is this one, showing, I think, how Democrats this time around are more interested in personalities and images rather than real policy issues. Pretty sad.
Thanks, folks, for the comments. I’d like to specifically address Gregg’s, since his there-are-plenty-of-other-veep-options argument against the unity ticket is one you hear from a lot of people (viz., Mark Schmitt’s post in the TNR colloquoy).
It’s true there are a lot of good names floating around out there, but that’s the problem: there are as many rationales for a particular choice as there are candidates. What kind of running-mate does Obama need? A woman? A “populist?” Someone with a strong national security background? Someone from a battleground state? There’s probably no one choice who covers as much political ground as HRC.
Ed Kilgore
In discussions I’ve had about this, the usual comment is why would Obama want Hillary as VP? With Hillary comes Bill, and between them they would be constantly trying to take the spotlight off Obama.
But the VP is powerful only to the extent that the President yields power. Hillary in the Senate has her own power base, and we can expect her to have a leadership position there.
I can envision a situation like that in the late 1970s and 1980, when Ted Kennedy and Tip O’Neill joined forces to destroy the Carter Presidency [at least, that’s how I saw it at the time]. In this scenario, Hillary has too much “integrity” to compromise on health care, or whatever, and noisily protests this and that until, finally, in 2012, she MUST run against Obama for the sake of the country.
Maybe keeping Hillary close at hand is the best course.
As someone who supported Obama during this primary campaign, I would have to say there were times when Hillary said things that were offensive to me, and seemed un-Democratic. These sorts of things happen in all campaigns, and will come back, as they always come back, to hurt Obama in the general campaign. But I am not a Hillary hater, and winning this election is too important to the future of our country to allow my personal pique to undermine my understanding of the big picture.
Really? Perhaps you would like the Clintons and their Dem voters to sit silently behind a curtain, the way the women delegates were forced to do at the First Anti-Slavery Convention.
Of course, it would have to be an awfully big curtain, since the Clinton voters make up half the Dems.
While you’re at it, maybe you can tell the Clintons and their voters; “You can vote for us and send money to us, but we don’t want any input from you, much less sharing any power with you. After all, the Democratic Party has a long tradition of losing nobly, and the only Dem President who’s won two terms is an awful embarrassment to us.”
That way, you can be assured that the Dems lose again in 2008. That’s what you want, right?
You may count me as one who would fall off the Obama wagon if HRC is his running mate. Whether I would then vote Republican is an open question I will reserve judgement about. With McCain running, given his age, I would see HIS VP selection as at least as important as Obama’s.
The arguments against Hillary as VP are well stated above, and resonate with me. To me, his biggest vulnerability is that he is painted by the GOP as “just another pol”, and choosing Hillary as a political ploy would give that theory real legs.
I probably represent the “swing voter” bloc pretty well, based on my history and views. I also have concluded, after 5 decades as a voter that that current Democratic Party has an uncanny penchant for shooting itself in the foot, for pulling defeat out of the hot fire of potential victory. This “dream ticket” (read: nightmare scenario) would be the proof positive of that view, in my opinion.
I could be wrong, I admit, but why risk it? If Obama is not strong enough to craft a winning campaign without a Clinton flavor, then he does not deserve the office of President.
I see two issues: whether such a “unity”ticket would sell and whether it would work in an Administration.
There might be some plausibility that it would sell and help get Obama elected. I think a more interesting question would be who else would help deliver voter segments that Mrs. Clinton has some strength with and who could make inroads into segments that McCain has strengths.
When I heard Sam Nunn’s name mentioned in this regard, my gut reaction was that would make a formidable team. And Mr. Nunn is a real statesman. Self-serving is not a term I would ever attribute to him. There are others.
Whether having Mrs Clinton as VP in an administration– not to mention Bill with time on his hands– would work, c’mon! That would be a situation that would have to be so highly managed. I think Sara Powers’ remark that Hillary was a monster that would say anything was very revealing. It would be very surprising if Obama perceived Clinton as not bringing severe risk factors into his administration.
–Gregg
Ed, besides the repudiation issue you mention, there are two more reasons for Obama not to want Clinton on the ticket. 1) Hillary’s traditionally high negatives and the fact that she is sure to be a GOTV organinzing bonanza for the Right (since McCain is their nominee it is possible that, without Hillary on the ticket, many GOPers will stay home); and 2) Bill. If I were Obama I would not want him on the loose as even a tangential part of the Administration.