Another Failure Of All-Or-Nothingism
The radical Republicans just suffered yet another big defeat. President Obama today signed into law the "clean" budget for the Department of Homeland Security he had been demanding all along. For the last three months, we've all been watching the Kabuki drama play out, but the ultimate outcome was never really much in doubt. Like a badly-written detective drama where the audience spots the killer in the opening act, almost everyone knew the Tea Partiers were going to lose this battle. What is mystifying is that the battlelines were drawn by the very people who were going to lose. Perhaps mystifying is the wrong word to use. True believers are always mystifying to those who don't profess the same faith. Because this increasingly looks, from the outside, like nothing more than pure religious faith, after all. If I were to label this religious belief system, I would have to call it "All-Or-Nothingism." I would define it as: "An overpowering faith that refusing to compromise and refusing to accept partial or incremental victory will win over all your opponents in the end and give you 100 percent of what you seek."
I call it religious faith because absolutely no concrete evidence exists to prove that this tactic is ever going to work. At least not in the halls of Congress. How else to explain over 50 votes to repeal Obamacare, when President Obama is obviously never going to sign his primary legislative victory away? That takes some strong and unfounded faith, doesn't it? At its heart is the utter certainty that others will also "see the light" and join in your righteous efforts -- again, with nothing but faith to go on.
The All-Or-Nothingists in the House were on full display during the government shutdown of October, 2013. With no evidence whatsoever, they were all positive Obama and the Democrats would be forced, in the end, to capitulate to their purist dogma. That didn't happen, of course. What happened instead is that instead of getting half a loaf (or three-quarters of a loaf, or maybe even the whole damn loaf except for the crusts), they got absolutely nothing for their efforts.
The whole reason we just went through the D.H.S. drama was because the All-Or-Nothingists convinced John Boehner in December that this time it was sure to work. Boehner did put his foot down and insist that most of the government be funded by an omnibus bill through the end of the fiscal year, but he let the Tea Partiers stick to just a continuing resolution to fund D.H.S., with a deadline of late February. Thus the "cromnibus" was born. To the Tea Party faithful, holding the funds for Homeland Security hostage was all but guaranteed to force President Obama to overturn his own newly-announced immigration policy. That didn't happen, either. The only difference in the drama was that this time Boehner refused to let the department actually shut down (as he had allowed the entire federal government to shut down in 2013). But the All-Or-Nothingist tactics remained the same. As did the eventual outcome -- a total victory for Obama, and nothing for the All-Or-Nothingists.
This, obviously, isn't the smartest way to play the game of politics. Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress, and yet still seem hobbled by the House Tea Partiers. Because of this dynamic, there is little chance for compromise, partial victory, or even incremental steps towards Republican goals.
Think about it -- if Republicans had set their sights lower than "everything we want, right now," they could possibly have made some legislative gains by now and successfully pushed back against at least some of Obama's agenda. On immigration, for instance, a brilliant move would have been for the House to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill which stated that the 11 million undocumented immigrants already in America could apply for legal status; but that doing so would also mean that they forfeited their chance of ever become a U.S. citizen. They could become legal residents, in other words, but never get the chance to vote. This "path to legalization" was discussed among some Republicans earlier, but nothing ever came of the notion.
It would have put the Democrats on a very tricky spot, had an actual bill ever appeared. It would have divided the Latino population with a gigantic wedge. After all, many people existing here without papers might agree that a work permit and legal residency was enough, and that not being able to vote was a small price to pay for never having to look over their shoulders in fear for the rest of their lives. Democrats would have the choice of supporting an idea which fell far short of a path to citizenship, or holding a hard line against any legalization short of that. It'd be an agonizing choice, especially if the Republicans got some political momentum behind the plan with the public at large.
If that's too close to the "amnesty" the All-Or-Nothingists love to scream about, then consider a different legislative strategy. Republicans could have made good on their promises to tackle immigration in the House in incremental steps. They could have passed a border security bill by now (they've certainly had long enough to do so) which toughened up the border and precluded any other immigration policy changes until the border was deemed secure enough to take the next step. But they haven't even been able to manage that, much less pass any other incremental immigration reform bills. Even though the entire Republican Party largely agrees on beefing up border security, they have been incapable of acting on the issue. That's not on Democrats -- that's entirely the fault of the All-Or-Nothingists.
Republicans could have attempted some horse-trading with Democrats, too. "If you allow us to add this, then you can have one item from your Column A, how's that?" This is the traditional way of moving legislation in a divided Congress, but so far Republicans don't seem very interested in engaging in such bargaining. President Obama has actually been willing to offer up tradeoffs of this type, even when it meant agreeing to things Democrats truly hate (as he did in the "Grand Bargain" -- which collapsed when the All-Or-Nothingists got wind of the deal). He's never going to sign a "repeal Obamacare" bill, but he might allow certain bits of it to be chipped away, in exchange for a few items on his "to do" list. Now that Democrats are a minority in the Senate, they might be even more open to wheeling and dealing over crucial legislation. Republicans could have advanced much more of their agenda by now if they had ever been able to make this tactic work for them. But, at least since the Grand Bargain collapse, they haven't even shown any inclination to try.
The only way this logjam is ever going to break is if John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi get together and hash things out, behind the scenes. Mitch McConnell has already shown the ability to work with Senate Democrats, because he is more aware than Boehner that holding a simple majority does not mean Republicans get everything they want out of his chamber. Pelosi would likely be open to agreeing that Boehner would give the Tea Party a few weeks to make all the noise they wanted; but then when the crunch time came, House Democrats would join with those House Republicans who didn't worship at the Church of All-Or-Nothing in order to get a few things passed that both sides wanted.
I know this will read as blasphemy to the All-Or-Nothing congregation, but there is a third option. You're never going to get "all" as long as there is a Democrat in the White House and more Democrats than one-third of both houses of Congress. It's just not going to happen, no matter how fervently you believe it to be true. Instead of winding up with a flat-out "nothing" -- over and over again -- you can indeed get "something" out of the process. Compromise is not a dirty word, and neither is incrementalism. The only thing stopping you from getting a few legislative things you desire is your faith in All-Or-Nothingism.
The problem, though, is that this requires giving up deeply-held beliefs. Beliefs so deeply-held they border on the religious. And it's always hard to argue logic with true believers of any faith. Which means we all may be doomed to watch as Republicans in Washington continue to lurch from self-induced crisis to self-induced crisis in an eternal Sisyphean loop. They push the stone up the hill, and it rolls back down and crushes their hopes, once again. That is my prophecy for the end result of All-Or-Nothingism, at least for the foreseeable future.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris: don't be giving them good ideas! Much better to let them self-destruct.
I submit that it's Democrats who worship the gods of ALL OR NOTHINGNESS...
Two words prove this..
KEYSTONE PIPELINE...
Where is all the talk of "compromise" when it comes to the pipeline??
The reason Republicans have given up trying to compromise with Democrats is because Obama has threatened to veto each and every compromise attempted..
Besides, why should Group R compromise with Group D when Group D is always saying that Group R are nothing but "terrorists", "arsonists", "hostage takers" and other vile names??
Would ANYONE compromise under those conditions??
Democrats have poisoned the well too often and too much for compromise ever to be a possibility..
These are all good, solid and logical points...
Which is why they will be ignored.. :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
I submit that it's Democrats who worship the gods of ALL OR NOTHINGNESS...
Two words prove this..
KEYSTONE PIPELINE...
Really? Nine Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in the Senate to support the Keystone pipeline and overturn Obama's veto. Name the last time a similar percentage of Republicans did the same to support a Democratic legislative proposal!
"I would have to call it "All-Or-Nothingism.""
In an historical nod to the Native American Party/American Party 1845-1860, I suggest "All For Know Nothingism." There are strong parallels between the Know Nothings and the modern Tea Party wing of the Whigs - oops, Republicans.
House Republican behavior makes political sense to me.
It's about Representatives winning local elections, not about passing federal legislation. Follow the money.
It's about Representatives winning local elections, not about passing federal legislation. Follow the money.
And that is different than House Democrats....
How, exactly??
Michale
I mean, seriously..
We saw how Democrats were all about "compromise" over TrainWreckCare...
And don't give me the BS about "Single Payer"...
DEMOCRATS killed Single Payer all on their own based on pressure from the health insurance industry lobbyists...
Democrats idea of "compromise" is simple...
"Do it our way and then we can talk about what you want"...
Michale
M-4
"And that is different than House Democrats...."
No Dem equivalent to the Tea Party posing primary challenges....that's different
and
Different R & D constituencies....
Otherwise, no fundamental D-R differences, just follow the money and you understand a large measure of the political dynamics driving health care position. Different sides, same basic play book.
5) Did I raise single player? You have a habit of putting words in other peoples mouths...or posts.
The Democrats did what they had to do to get the votes to pass AHC. That's the way representative government work.... deals are struck.
John M -
First off, welcome to the site! Your first comment was held for moderation, but you should now be able to comment instantly from now on.
One caution: don't post more than one link per comment, as multi-link comments are automatically held for moderation, which can take a while (sorry for the delay in posting your initial comment, I should add). Just keep it to one link per comment, and you should be fine.
Again, welcome to the site!
-CW
M-5
The Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare (or what you call train-wreck-care in what I assume is an attempt at humor), is nothing but compromise. The central idea of the law was created by the Heritage Foundation (a Conservative Think-tank) in the 1990s.
The problem is ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome, AKA racism) on the part of the ultra-right-wing of the GOP.
PF
The Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare (or what you call train-wreck-care in what I assume is an attempt at humor)
It's an attempt to call a spade a spade, but why quibble.. :D
. The central idea of the law was created by the Heritage Foundation (a Conservative Think-tank) in the 1990s.
The problem is ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome, AKA racism) on the part of the ultra-right-wing of the GOP.
Yea, I have heard that schtick before and I have already shot down that theory...
Michale
The Democrats did what they had to do to get the votes to pass AHC. That's the way representative government work.... deals are struck.
Yea, but usually those deals are struck across the aisle. Not within one's own Party..
We're talking compromises between Democrats and Republicans. Not between factions within the same Party...
I'll ask again, thereby driving home the point as factual..
Why should Republicans compromise with Democrats when Democrats attack Republicans so viciously??
Where is the incentive to compromise when there will be no credit given??
The recent Amnesty For Criminals/DHS issue is a perfect example.. Republicans finally compromised in the manner that Democrats want. Give Democrats EVERYTHING...
Did the GOP get any credit around here??
Of course not. They were still attacked..
So, I axe ya.. Why should Republicans compromise??
Michale
Really? Nine Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans in the Senate to support the Keystone pipeline and overturn Obama's veto.
And did Obama compromise with his veto?? No he did not..
Name the last time a similar percentage of Republicans did the same to support a Democratic legislative proposal!
Uh... How about the most recent DHS legislation to go thru Congress??
How about every time Republicans capitulated to Democrats in the last six years??
By the bi...
"WELCOME TO THE PARTY, PAL!!!"
-John McClane, DIE HARD
:D
Michale
And did Obama compromise with his veto?? No he did not..
I mean, seriously...
Obama goes on and on and on about how Congress won't work together and how Congress can never get anything done..
So, when Congress DOES work together and when Congress DOES get something done, what does Obama do??
He vetos it...
"Mr Gambini. That was a lucid, rational and well thought out objection."
"Thank you."
"OVERRULED!"
-My Cousin Vinny
:D
Where is the incentive to work together in a bi-partisan manner when King Barack The First promptly decrees, "NI!!" and makes all that effort for naught..
Hell, Obama should have just signed the damn jobs bill just as a reward for Congress doing SOMETHING together...
Michale
Paula -
I used to worry about giving the GOP advice (would I be blamed if they actually used it?) but I don't worry so much anymore. They seem immune to basic political strategy these days...
Michale [2] -
Um, how exactly has the GOP compromised on KXL? What concessions have they offered? Name one.
You seem to have picked a pretty bad example. Dems have indeed compromised on this one, not the GOP. Dems brought it up for a vote last year (Reid didn't have to), even if it was for crass political reasons. This year, some Dems voted for it. No GOP that I'm aware of voted against it.
So the bipartisanship and compromise are all on the Dems side on this one, sorry. How about this: I'll give you a Mulligan. Come up with a better example, and I'll forget you brought up KXL. How's that for fair?
:-)
John M -
Aha! See, Michale, it's not just me that can spot the flaws in your example...
TheStig [4] -
I kind of see the Tea Party (and to a lesser extent the GOP) as the modern equivalent of the Whigs. The Whigs were created as an angry opposition to one man, Andrew Jackson. They called him a king, which is why they took the name Whig. Their entire reason for being, as a political part, was to be anti-Jackson.
Substitute "Obama" and "Tea Party" and you'd have today.
Interestingly, the Whigs could never agree on much of anything once Jackson (and his veep, Van Buren) were gone, and collapsed as a political party as a direct result.
Michale [6] -
That's almost as weak an answer. Dems allowed over 100 (130? I'd have to check) Republican amendments to be voted on. Many of them made it into the final legislation. That was indeed compromise, even if Republicans didn't wind up voting for the final package.
You're right about the single-payer/public option being torpedoed by Dem-on-Dem violence, I'll give you that. Max Baucus and Lieberman have a lot to answer for, that's for sure.
Michale [10] -
Theory? It's well-documented fact. Here you go:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/03/28/the-individual-mandates-conservative-origins/
That's got a link in it to the original Heritage Foundation document. Them's the facts, Jack.
[11] -
I give Republicans credit for doing what I predicted they'd do all along. The frustration rises from the fact that the intervening Kabuki drama was entirely unnecessary. I'll start giving Republicans a goodly bit of credit when they reach one of these deals BEFORE the last possible minute (or even AFTER the last possible minute). Fair enough?
[12] -
You can't compromise on a veto. It's a binary thing. Obama either signs the bill or doesn't. There's absolutely no room for compromise.
Still waiting for a single example of a true compromise from Republicans, too. You know, "we'll give in on this issue, if Dems give in on that issue." Haven't seen one of those in a long time, personally.
-CW
Um, how exactly has the GOP compromised on KXL? What concessions have they offered? Name one.
KXL is as pure bi-partisan legislation as is possible to be..
You seem to have picked a pretty bad example. Dems have indeed compromised on this one, not the GOP. Dems brought it up for a vote last year (Reid didn't have to), even if it was for crass political reasons. This year, some Dems voted for it. No GOP that I'm aware of voted against it.M
Yea, only in a vain attempt to save what's er face..
But it's interesting that you would think Reid actually DOING HIS JOB is a "compromise".. :D
Aha! See, Michale, it's not just me that can spot the flaws in your example...
And which I promptly devastated.. :D
That's got a link in it to the original Heritage Foundation document. Them's the facts, Jack.
And, as I pointed out, one uber-right group does not GOP legislation make...
It's like saying that some Truther Group that proposes some outlandish legislation is a Democrat Party legislation..
I give Republicans credit for doing what I predicted they'd do all along.
And you are the ONLY one that does so..
What does that tell ya? :D
Still waiting for a single example of a true compromise from Republicans, too. You know, "we'll give in on this issue, if Dems give in on that issue." Haven't seen one of those in a long time, personally.
That's because, as we saw with the recent DHS thing, Democrats aren't willing to give on ANY issue..
Michale