The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    Advice to Democrats: Divide and Conquer

    By Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 12:56pm | Politics

    Putting aside anxieties over the economy and fury at Republicans, Democrats, the media, and whomever else makes us hopping mad, let's play a little game of political strategy.

    While House Speaker John Boehner's formidable skin-tone and Michele Bachmann's spine-chilling folksiness has driven many a Democrat to gibber in fear, it's helpful to remember that Republican power in Washington is not exactly overwhelming.

    Republicans lead the House of Representatives by 37 votes. That's not a lot. From 2007 to 2009, Democrats led the House by 78 votes and controlled the Senate to boot but somehow failed to accomplish anything of note or even to dominate the national discussion.

    Republicans, however, have something that the Democrats lacked. I know what you're thinking, but no, the answer is not mental illness. The Republicans have unity.

    Unity is what enables Boehner to drive the hard bargains. He doesn't have to worry about wayward Republicans joining with Democrats to challenge him from the left. And it was, conversely, Democratic disunity that made the health care debate so difficult in at a time when Democrats had massive Congressional majorities plus the White House.

    Thus, the key to undermining Republican power is to fracture the party. A schism is already building between the Republican leadership and Tea Party radicals; Democrats just need to create pressure in the right spot to open the crack.

    The debt ceiling is the wedge. Republicans congresspeople have been besieged by constituents--including wealthy donors--demanding that they resolve the debt ceiling crisis. The right-wingers will never budge, but the more moderate Republicans are approaching a breaking point.

    Democrats should craft a plan designed to split the GOP in two. The plan should include a smattering of symbolic spending cuts to give Republican moderates some cover while remaining wholly unpalatable to the right wing--even less palatable than the John Boehner's current proposal.

    The Democratic minority cannot actually introduce a bill to the House, but they can take it to the public. They can pass it in the Senate, obtain endorsements from prominent businesspeople and economists, seek favorable media coverage, initiate call and write-in campaigns, et cetera. The objective would be to put an immense amount of pressure on the House leadership to move forward with or (preferably) without Tea Party support.

    The trick is exploit the natural pressure now bearing down the GOP. Give the moderates an escape hatch that they can climb through and leave their bellowing colleagues in the hole. Once we get them into separate rooms, they'll be much easier to handle.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    I think the wedge strategy is spot-on Genghis.  Right now Boehner seems to be trying to avoid that at all costs.  Didn't he back off on a vote this morning because of carping from his Tea Party wing?  He can't keep doing that.  The first thing the Democrats need, however, is to propose a plan as you suggest.   The problem will be, of course, that if the cuts in your hypothetical could backfire and unite the Republicans under the banner of the alleged failure of Obama and the Dems to propose "real" and meaningful cuts.  


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:21pm

    A fair concern. It depends on execution. The Dems would have to stay on the offensive--put the focus on averting catastrophe rather than cuts and compromises. That is getting easier every day as the markets buckle and heave.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 2:08pm

    The Dems don't know how to play offense.  They could have done it with jobs, infrastructure, health care, public education, outsourcing, off-shoring, real estate fraud, etc.

    There are a million reasons why we shouldn't be compromising with the Republicans, but the Dems insist on playing defense. Then when and if the ball is ever in their court, they fumble it and give it up every time.

    I'm a Democrat.  It drives me crazy.


    by Ramona on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:56pm

    Here, have some Will Rogers quotes:

    I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

    Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.

     


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:04pm

    Right. Which usually means an unfair fight with an enemy who is single minded and, in case of the tea party, willing to resort to sabotage.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:02pm

    I know what you mean, Obama's calmness drives me nuts. Throw a punch already. But lets not forget that so far Obama has given up nothing in entitlement cuts. You could look at his enticements in the grand bargain as putting Boehner in the hole because he understood the Freshmen, like teenage boys spoiling for a fight, better than Boehner. I continue to hold the odd view that establishment folks in both parties have been aiming to get the tea party out on a limb and then cut the limb off. With McCain's salvo today, coupled with the predictable, and perhaps orchestrated, nervousness in the markets, the tea party might just get capped.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:41pm

    The debt ceiling wedge would be the first step.  The unity of the GOP is strong enough that even if the Dems could be successful in this instance, and I think I can, unless another wedge was quickly found, the GOP was quickly put it behind them as they focus on the big prize - the 2012 elections, which is pretty much most of the motivations behind making this into a crisis.  I'm not sure what that next wedge could be.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:03pm

    As a fan of divide and conquer thinking I appreciate hearing such a proposal coming from the Democratic side.  Particularly when it is directed towards the opposition.  :<)  E.J. Dionne, Jr. among commentators I read also often advocates such ways of thinking, usually without offering specific proposals. 

    I agree Boehner is under immense pressure.  He is in a really difficult position. Unless he and Cantor actually are doing an exceptionally well-choreographed good cop/bad cop thing and Cantor and his gang of kooks will, in the face of business pressure, at the last minute go with a deal as the best they can get for now.  Cantor and his gang, in turn, are scared to death the Tea Party enthusiasts (aka hardcore right-wing base of the GOP, the super-Republicans) without whose support most of them wouldn't be in office will kick them out next November for selling out.  In upping the ante rhetorically so much they've put themselves in that precarious position.

    Your suggestion doesn't offer an indication of what kind of "symbolic cuts" you have in mind.  I guess I am skeptical that Boehner and whatever faction he has influence over would accept such a slender offering (from his point of view) after he has proposed much bolder already.  Wouldn't it seem like a retreat by him?  Wouldn't his support for any toned-down proposal get him removed as Speaker by his own caucus?  Don't you interpret his primetime the other night as directly addressed to his own caucus?  I did.  He must be scared out of his wits they're going to bring him down. 

    But my interpretation is real and serious strain between the Boehner and Cantor wings, such as to leave in doubt whether there is anything that can pass the House.  Meaning Obama would have to act unilaterally to avoid a default, and take his chances when they likely sue and/or impeach him. 

    Not sure at this point whether I'd rather see a default averted through an only moderately bad, figleaf-type deal of the sort you're proposing (if that is a real possibility), or by Obama acting unilaterally.  We're already at the point where there is increasing chatter that a credit rating downgrade is all but a given at this point. 

    There may be at least a decent legal case for unilateral action, basically now, to avert that damage, haven't looked into the constitutional scholars' commentary on that.  At least it wouldn't do anything to harm the economy, and should avert the default outcome, at least for now.  Let the Republicans who sue or impeach him try to make their case that in averting a downgrade or default Obama acted irresponsibly (of course they'll accuse him of being King George III, a tyrant, a dictator, a fascist, etc. and all sorts of other crap, all the stuff they've already said about him, we know that now) 

    On the potential plus side, if Obama goes that route it could give him another opportunity to make the GOP pay a price politically for this gambit, one they richly deserve to pay.  A huge downside of unilateral action, depending on the legal grounds offered, is the precedent it sets, which surely will at some point be used for mischievous or worse purposes and come back to bite us. 

    No good options, just trying to figure out the least bad one.

    P.S. In the course of writing this I got an email from a friend, saying in part "I saw on Fox News at lunch today that the tea party held a meeting to  dispose of Boehner. They are apparently trying to or talking about ousting him. Or maybe just trying to scare him to get back in line. I see where the/a spokesperson for the tea baggers said they didn't care if they got blamed for the default."

    Unclear who in this context "the tea party" holding the meeting, ostensibly to get rid of Boehner, refers to, and I've not sought to confirm his account.

    Who is the GOP's Robespierre?  I say Cantor.  If Boehner gets deposed we might get  Cantor as Speaker,


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:10pm

    In this context, the "tea party" holding the meeting is most likely the Tea Party Caucus. Notably, Eric Cantor has said he will not join this caucus.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 3:33pm

    You're right. The conflict has at least three factions, maybe more. But if Cantor ultimately achieves the pole position, he'll be stuck with the same problem as Boehner. Republicans desperately need to minimize any point of division between pro-business moderates and the small-government nuts. The debt ceiling was a stupid mission because it unnecessarily inflamed this tension.

    The opportunity for Democrats is that once mutual distrust takes seed, it can be difficult to eradicate, even once the debt ceiling issue is behind us (if it ever gets behind us).


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:58pm

    Well I guess this is why we have politicians.  They're good at playing these kinds of mind-numbing, value-free tactical games.  Personally, I don't care which of our two conservative parties wins the phony debt ceiling debate over conservative agenda A or conservative agenda B.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:08pm

    Some are better at it than others.

    I think that you should care, not because you want the Democrats to win but because you should want the Republicans to lose. The weaker they are, the less rightward force they will apply to American politics.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 4:52pm

    I'm sure I can be made to care on some level.

    But nothing that is coming out of the mouths of any of the major Washington politicians over the past few months has anything significant to do with the real world.  It's just dust and wind.  It's a debate that might as well be taking place on Jupiter, and be concerned with how to shrink the Great Red Spot.  I find it impossible to take sides on their massively beside-the-point debate.

    Wake me up when they start talking again about something that really matters.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 5:04pm

    Look, I've been saying for a while that the debt ceiling "crisis" is a charade. What's interesting about it is not the debt ceiling per se but the fissures that it has exposed.

    On the Democratic side, it has highlighted the deep divisions between centrists and liberals on economic policy.

    On the Republican side, it has highlighted the deep divisions between the pro-business corporatists and small-government fanatics on economic policy.

    This is the new American political landscape. Take a hard look at it. The liberals, unfortunately, have the quietest voice in chorus. The good news, however, is that there is opportunity here. The whole country is increasingly disgusted by the bickering of the three loudest participants.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 7:11pm

    Look, I've been saying for a while that the debt ceiling "crisis" is a charade.

    I remember.  Meaning what?  That you think there is, and always was, essentially zero chance of a default?  What about of a credit rating downgrade?  


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:45pm

    An interesting thing happened to me tonight.  Just a few minutes after I got in from work, I got a call from a friend in town who is active in Democratic politics.  She was making phone calls for the Obama campaign, which is apparently now gearing up here in New Hampshire.  She was apparently building up some kind of early call list or supporters list, or maybe just taking the temperature of known 2008 Obama supporters.

    I gave her an earful and told her that in my opinion Obama is doing a terrible job, and that if Bernie Sanders were running in the primary I would vote for him.  She said she loved Bernie herself, but pressed me on what I meant by "terrible."  I told her the same things that everyone here has already heard from me.  I said that in my opinion Obama had completely lost touch with the real world - which consists of people, their jobs, their incomes, their children and their futures - to screw around with this asinine and overblown long-term debt business and to try to foist a cynical, job-killing Republican-style austerity plan on a recession-wracked country.  I told her that his new conservative pitch might be a great sell for establishment courtiers like David Brooks or Tom Friedman, and the plutocracy they protect, but it does nothing for me.

    She listened sympathetically, and I asked her if the campaign was interested in getting this kind of feedback and passing it up the chain of command.  She said, "definitely yes", and that she would convey the message to whomever.  In New Hampshire we tend to believe remarks like that because the New Hampshire primary is in-the-trenches retail politics, where each potential voter in a relatively small state is courted and called multiple times, and where the foot soldiers have frequent contact with the on-the-scene campaign captains and operatives.

    So then like 30 minutes later, I got another call from another Obama campaign worker - or from Yada-Yada for America, or whatever they call themselves.   It wasn't a follow up, but just a redundant call.  And so this new caller also wanted to know whether, as a 2008 supporter of Obama, I would be supporting him and campaigning for him in 2012.  I let loose with an even more forceful harangue, again said that he was doing a terrible job, that I couldn't be more disappointed in his performance, and that at this point I had absolutely no intention of doing any work on his behalf in either the primary campaign or the general election campaign.  This caller sounded younger, and the tone in her voice was a nervous and uncomfortable half-laugh that made me imagine she was thinking  "Uh-oh ... crazy guy."  So she just said thanks, and excused herself to move on to her next call.

    What surprised me a bit was my own reaction to these calls.  I realized my voice was actually quivering with emotion, which is not like me.  I'm usually pretty calm and affable during these kinds of calls, no matter on whose behalf the call is made and no matter what I think of the person.

    I went out for a long walk with my dog later and was asking myself why I was so emotional.  And I realized that what is going on now is very personal for me.  It's not just like when I was a younger person, and my politics were all about sentimental or philosophical positions on issues that don't concern me personally.  It's different now.   I feel like I and my family are under direct attack from a greedy and criminal plutocracy, that our well-being and way of life are threatened, and that our future hangs in the balance.   And I feel that Barack Obama is either a collaborator with, or an actual leader of, the forces of oligopolistic rule and class privilege that are attacking me.

    One last little thing.  I am a Facebook friend of the blogger Steve Clemons.  Steve posted a status update about an event he is going to tonight with various prominent Democrats, including Richard Trumka.  I told him to give Trumka a thumbs up for me, and to tell him to come to New Hampshire to run against Obama.  Steve messaged back that he was with Trumka when my message popped up on his iPhone, and he showed it to Trumka.   No word on what Trumka thought about it.

    But anyway, I think it is worthwhile to find ways to get your voice heard.  Be a squeaky wheel.  Somebody whose job it is to listen for squeaky wheels will be listening.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:13pm

    That's a great story. Let us know if they call you back. I forwarded one of your posts once to the husband of someone in the administration, but I don't think that it went anywhere.

    I agree with the squeaky wheel strategy but note that a single squeaky wheel amid the colossal traffic jam of American politics is hard to hear, no matter how squeaky. You need millions of squeaky wheels. Or the wheel has to be very, very big.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:05am

    Likewise, thanks for sharing that, Dan. 

    So far I've been blowing off people calling me for money for Obama.  I haven't decided what to say to them, if anything.  Apparently the campaign apparatus doesn't work so as to take people off their call lists who've told them, as I have, that they're not giving money. 

    Or else, they hear that from folks and figure it'll blow over and they'll come back into the fold.  Because they have nowhere else to go.  (word has it the White House's current saying on how things are going is something like [paraphrasing]: "Well, we're villified by our opponents and we're outraging our supporters in the course of not getting much done."  Which might, perhaps, lead to a conclusion that, while there is something like a meaningful, passably sensible, compromise, split-the-difference "center" of opinion on some matters, stimulus vs. austerity, and the debt mess, maybe aren't among them?

    My anecdote for today comes out of an exchange with our son as I was driving him to basketball camp this morning.  He asked why I'm "always blogging".  I told him I'm trying to be a citizen of our country and that I think of doing what I do as an act of caring about and trying to take responsibility for the world he and his sister and all the other kids are going to be living in.  That I could spend my time buying and selling fancy cars, or sucking up to some rich person in our community with a yacht so I might be able to get an invitation some day and listen to a bunch of self-absorbed jerks whose talk about public affairs, such as it is, consists of bitching about how high their taxes are.

    Ok, I used considerably simpler and slightly different examples in what I actually said to him.  He's 13.  Which reminds me of a story a friend of ours shared about a child listening to an adult talk to her in language she couldn't remotely understand and, having listened until the adult stopped, replied "I'm 8.  You have to keep this simple."   

    I hoped that, even if he didn't always appreciate it, our son might at least understand it. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:40am

    Just a note from a confirmed "Obamabot."  Upon receiving an e-mail from OFA (or a similar organization), I opted out of receiving future e-mails.  I was the prompted to explain why.  I left a comment to the effect that I was tired of Obama's constant capitulation to his political opposition.  I believe the word "pussy" might have been uttered.

    This was in the spring of 2010. 


    by brewmn on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:06am

    I can think of a few folks around here who would be surprised, and pleasantly so, to hear of this.  Of course they might just think you're cheap.  wink


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:37pm

    I, for one, welcome the Brewman to Reality City, and look forward to his evolution towards good mental health...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:45am

    I've always tried to live there, jolly.  You'll note that I decided Obama wasn't going to benefit from my meager political largesse a little more than a year after he took office.  It was clear to me by that time he wasn't going to fight our fight in any meaningful way.  That said, I still think he'll win in 2012, and I hold out some hope that we'll look back on his presidency, if not with pride, at least with the knowledge that it was the transitional political moment that pushed the John Birch wing of our politics back into the corner they scurried out of when right-thinking folks were blinded by the genial folksiness of Ronald Reagan.

    And, are you really sure you;re the best person to be assessing the "good mental health" of others? ;) 


    by brewmn on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 4:02pm

    So far, it doesn't look like Obama is having the slightest difficulty in raising great gobs of money, AD.

    But he might be coming up very short in the enthusiasm department.  I wonder what the White House plan is for getting the buzz and mojo back.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:43am

    Bernie:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If_1T4Os270&feature=player_profilepage


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 8:15pm

    You do know though, that if we push for Bernie; some will accuse us of undermining the Democrats chances in upcoming elections?

    We are told "Some day the Democrats will all think like Bernie".  Win the Future, don't vote for Bernie Now, do it in the future.

    Some Democrats and Republicans would tell us "You wouldn't want to hurt the Democrats, by voting your conscience now. Wait and keep waiting; we should take baby steps for the good of the Democratic Party"  

    Bernie speaks up in defense of many. The Democrats give lip service, "Win The Future"


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:01am

    I understand the frustration, and don't have any easy answers. However, Republicans are as likely to tell you not to vote for Bernie because you don't want to hurt the Democrats as Democrats are to tell you not to vote for Bachmann/Palin because you don't want to hurt the Republicans. I.e., most Republicans would love for you to vote for Sanders. (The only ones that wouldn't be the ones who would be afraid he might actually win, just as with Democrats and Bachmann/Palin. That said, I think Bachmann/Palin are more likely than Sanders, as frightening as that sounds.)


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:11am

    Your assessment strikes a reasonable chord in terms of partisan strategy. It's supported by a post from redstate today, linked below, which also points up the conservative angst toward the Bush years I mentioned in my last blog post.

    Partisan wedges can be useful if they are followed up by a real challenge to the status quo ruling both parties. If not, we know that angst is mirrored on the progressive side toward Dem leaders, and for good reason. 

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/27/the-great-divide/


    by Watt Childress on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:26pm

    Thanks for the link. Erick Erickson has the attitude. We need more of that GFY spirit on the right.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 7:18pm

    Today Boehner urged the Republican rank and file to "get your ass in line" to support a bill that isn't all that different from the one being crafted by Dem leaders. Hopefully progressives will find a way to distinguish ourselves amidst the shades of grey that currently pass for balance in center-right America. Lord help us.


    by Watt Childress on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 9:27pm

    Great thoughts. That plan would work, if we tried it.


    by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 7:03pm

    You know who could have done this, don't you -- but the MSM ridiculed him instead of reporting that he was rousing his troops: HOWARD DEAN. The most reasonable voice in our party, and someone who is unafraid. Just my own bias. Thanks, Genghis...very thought-provoking, even if the courage-o-meter is as low as ever for our party.

    by CVille Dem on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 8:38pm

    I love this blog and agree with yor sentiment 100%.

    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 1:44pm

    It would be nice if what you are recommending was something that will work but unfortunately it is not.  Republicans are in essential agreement on every major issue and most minor issues.  They also understand that when they stick together they achieve more favorable outcomes.  No temporary fissure in that rock solid unity will have any lasting effect whatsoever on the Republicans.

    In contrast, Republicans exploit pre-existing structural and permanent divisions among those who call themselves Democrats.  The Blue Dog group of Democrats fundamentally disagree with the mainstream thinking of the Democratic Party and openly favor corporate interests over those of the common people.  These so-called centrist Democrats routinely depart from the mainstream of the Democratic Party and undermine the basic agenda the majority of Democrats seek to implement. In other words, the "centrists" are not really Democrats at all but politicians who have aligned themselves much closer tothe interests of their major corporate donors than to their constituency back home.

    The internal dynamicsof the Republican Party used to be somewhat similar to the situation found in the Democratic Parrty.  However, since 1980, right wing Republicans have driven nearly every moderate voice in the party from office.  I had dinner with Sen. Charles Mathias, a famous and well regarded Republican Senator back in the mid 80's prior to his retirement.  I was in graduate school and he was a dinner guest of our program. He stated quite unequivocally that the right wing extremists, then called "the new right" were blunt in communicating their message to Republicans like him and the message was "we don't have room for you in our party any longer: get out!"  Their efforts have been quite successful.

    Because there is really no fundamental disagreement within the Republican Party on issues, the idea that Democrats could help open up a split and exploit for anything other than this one moment of division is a nice, but impractical notion.  The only way to defeatthe Republicans is to fight them, take them head on, denounce them as the extremists they are and for Democrats to start standing for something other than their own re-election. 

    Democrats in Washington from Obama on down are so craven, calculating and unprincipled that they repel voters as much as the Republicans do albeit in very different ways.  But there's no way they can either fight them or divide them if Democrats don't start standing for something.  It used to be that one knew that when all was said and done you could count on Democrats to defend Social Security, Medicare, and the interests of the common people.  Now with Obama's assault on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid he has made the message to America very clear that the people can no longer count on Democrats to be the guardians of their interests, thus making the Republicans' point for them and severely weakening every Democrat running for office in America no matter how high or low.


    by oleeb on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 1:17am

    Oleeb, your history is completely right. The Republican established their impressive unity by purging liberals like Mathias, and I don't want to underestimate their ability to stand together.

    But there is also something different this year. Gingrich and DeLay fostered the young right-wing reps and used them like stormtroopers to push their agenda.

    Boehner, by contrast, is not in control of the right wing, which has an even larger presence than in Gingrich and DeLay's time. The Tea Party Republicans don't owe him anything and do not offer him allegiance. They've been virtually out of control on this debt thing.

    Political conflict is driven not only by issues but also by personalities and factional loyalties. This Republican coalition is more socially unstable than at any point since the early 90s when moderates led by Dole and faced off against Gingrich's conservatives.

    (That said, I don't really disagree about your prescriptions for Dems, who need to recover some kind of core principles.)


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 10:29am

    Yeah, they have some problems and I wish it were possible to actually split them but it just isn't gonna happen and even if it were within reach the Democrats, particularly under Obama, are so weak and inept they couldn't manage to exploit that weakness.  It is sad, but all too true that as disgraceful and reprehensible as the Republicans are, the Democrats match them in terms of incompetence and cowardly weakness.


    by oleeb on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 9:57pm