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.
I’ve also begun to wonder if the veepship is being floated in order to innoculate Nunn later, in case Obama plans to make him Secretary of Defense. That, of course, would outrage gay people as well. It would be putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, in the administration of a candidate who likes to talk about ordering military brass to come up with plans for after DADT is repealed (easier than ordering Congress actually to repeal it). The thought of Nunn cooperating with that is hard to conjure up. If that’s Obama’s real pan, maybe we’re supposed to sigh and say “Well, at least he’s not Vice President.” Nunn already is being mentioned for that cabinet post as well — yet nobody is talking about it. Nobody is worrying as yet about an obstructionist Secretary of Defense digging in his heels or dragging his feet or otherwise creating problems. We surely would be if they weren’t talking about him for the Vice Presidency as well.
Any comments on Barney Frank’s clear indication today that if Obama takes Nunn as a VP, he will have a hard time voting for the ticket? My own view is that in choosing Nunn, Obama will raise integrity issues among independent voters in swing states (think Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Nevada), states where many people harbor harsh and negative feelings toward the South. The last thing Obama needs to do is align himself with the cultural politics of Georgia in an ill-fated effort to win Georgia and in so doing leave himself open to the very charges of inconsistency and pandering that he levels against McCain. It’s painfully akin to Gore’s choice of Lieberman, a choice that pissed off a lot of independents who objected to the Lieberman’s moralizing toward Bill Clinton.
And picking Nunn might be Obama’s signal (not just to Georgians but to people in other deep south states, and Nebraska and Utah) that his commitments on cultural issues — especially to gay people — are meaningless posturing, and may be safely disregarded. Primary season, by golly, is over.