Recently, Chris Matthews predicted that Rand Paul will be the Republican nominee in 2016. Given this increases the odds Paul won’t be the Republican candidate (Matthews predicted Giuliani would win the nomination in 2008, and Michelle Bachman would secure it in 2012), I nonetheless want to consider such a scenario, in part because it is plausible, (despite Matthews’ forecasting jinx), but mainly to speculate on the consequences of the Kentucky Tea-Party favorite winning the general election.
First of all, let’s consider the likely circumstances, as far as we can this far out. Although the Republicans have a reasonably good shot at re-taking the Senate in November, the chances are at least as high that the Democrats will reclaim it in 2016. The rationale is this: The Democrats who survived 2010 can survive anything. 2010 was a rout, so there just aren’t very many competitive Democratic-held seats up in 2016. Absent retirements, there are only one or two Democratic-held seats rated as “toss-up” in the initial 2016 senate ratings. Conversely, the GOP will have to defend vulnerable seats in Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or potentially New Hampshire or Ohio.
This hypothetical, however, does not even necessitate the Democrats re-gaining the majority. It envisages a substantial rout, in which the Democrats are reduced to a Liberal rump of about forty-five Senators. Imagine the following scenario: On the West Front of the Capitol, on a bitterly cold January afternoon, President elect Rand Paul stands with an enthusiastic inauguration-day crowd watching on. Behind him are distinguished guests, including his out-going predecessor, President Obama, whose already controversial legacy has been diminished by the electoral defeat of his intended successor, Hillary Clinton.
President-elect Paul has slipped off the black gloves he had been wearing throughout the chilly morning in preparation to place his right hand on the bible now held forth by Chief Justice John Roberts, who towers over the five-foot-eight new President. Adjacent to Paul’s beaming wife stands Vice-President elect Mike Lee, the weak, wintry sunlight gleaming off his high forehead as he watches on, his expression one of resolution, vindication and…
You get the idea. Anyway, once Paul has officially assumed office, the Libertarian reformer launches into a hectic legislative agenda.
The forty-five Democrat Senators, over the course of several caucus meetings called by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have meanwhile devised a strategy. It is one of legitimate equivalency – acting essentially equal to the precedents set by the previous Republican minority.
Firstly, they shall have the same disciplined unity of the Republican minority of forty Senators in 2009, who brazenly declared an all-out effort to dig-in, block the incoming Administration’s agenda whenever possible, and make President Obama ‘a one-term President’.
The legitimate equivalency stems from the fact the new Republican administration would have absolutely no moral, let alone procedural recourse to criticize or complain that Washington was being maintained in gridlock by less than half of the members of one branch of Congress in one branch of government. They would have to operate within the context of the ‘new normal’ they themselves had established.
Just as importantly, they have not forgotten that Paul was one of a clutch of Republicans most synonymous with those years of aggravating intransigence; and after a protracted and acrimonious campaign, no one has a particularly open mind. Fresh in the memories of the Democrat minority are President Paul’s ratings from the National Journal as one of the most conservative senators based on votes cast and his activities on the floor. They recall his talking filibuster to delay voting on the nomination of John Brennan as the Director of the CIA, followed shortly after by a threat of another filibuster, this one opposing any legislative proposals to expand federal gun control measures.
Also fresh in the memories of the Democratic minority are Paul’s longtime opposition to the bank and auto industry bailouts. With Fannie Mae having paid back 110% of what it borrowed, the car industry 83%, A.I.G 115%, and the bank industry 103%, the Democrats feel vindicated about the social-democratic approach Paul derided, and already have their backs up. After eight years of pent-up frustration, having their recent president’s legislative agenda met with unprecedented levels of intransigence, filibustering and brinkmanship, several times placing the nation on the cusp of default and once shutting down the Federal government for more than two weeks, the Democratic minority, despite bland platitudes in public about turning over a new page, in fact feel they have no obligation whatsoever to acquiesce to the new administration’s agenda. On prominent votes, there are occasional aisle-crossings, from red-state Democrat senators such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, but on the whole the caucus holds firm. The constituencies of this core of senators are Liberal enough to buffer them from the political pressure of variables such as a strengthening economy or high presidential approval ratings.
President Paul submits a plan that, among other things, attempts to lower the top nominal tax rate to 25%. The Democratic senate minority enters into a month or two of theatrical pretence, ostensibly considering the legislation, but actually dragging their heels in order to foment and build up strident and coordinated opposition from the Left-wing base. They then say no, and promptly filibuster the legislation. Several months later, they grudgingly allow a minor reduction in the top rates, only just enough for the frustrated and disillusioned Republicans to vote, out of a need to at least get something out of a long and stressful process. Shortly after, Paul proposes a large-scale program of deregulation, and of allowing the free market to regulate interest rates. The Democrats say no and filibuster it.
Paul proposes returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education. The idea dies at the committee stage when it is apparent there won’t be enough support to surmount a filibuster. And on it goes. Again, given the precedents established by the Republicans during the Obama Administration, what possible recourse would the Paul administration have to protest they were being treated unfairly?
The strange thing is, all of this ought to be blindingly obvious; but it is doubtful this hypothetical will ever penetrate the collective consciousness of the Right.
SOURCE, FULL ARTICLE: http://sheppardpost.com/...