Republicans in the United States House of Representatives are thoroughly out of touch with reality. The Senate variety of their party is scarcely better, and the candidates for their nomination are laughable. Among other things, this tells us that the opposition party will not help us to correct their reckless brethren—even if they were willing to try, they don’t possess the ability to impose responsibility.
Unruliness has been the calling card identifying the vanguard of the Party of No. It must have been heady stuff for Boehner, McConnell, and other party poohbahs when they realized they could count on these buffoons to support any legislation, no matter how extreme. Change was the order of the day, even when it was destructive or even devastating. Right-wing allies were typically shielded from the worst of the fallout of the irresponsible policies, and an increasingly desperate but well-meaning Democratic plurality sought to mitigate the most egregious of the fallacies peddled by the fiscal fantasists.
Given the binary nature of the House power structure, Democrats reduced to minority status by the gerrymandering of successive decades, have been increasingly unable to respond forcefully to draconian positions. The truth, too, is that far too many Democrats have become intoxicated suckling at the same corporate teats as their opponents. Even when opportunities arose, “our side” has failed to capitalize.
The nominal “leaders” of the War and Tax Cut Party enjoyed riding the tiger until they had to (finally) recognize that they had been carried off to an abattoir. As if they were lambs discovering the foxes menu, they see now that the rebellion is now targeting them.
Boehner, significantly right-wing himself by historic standards, has had to face the fact that ideologically he’s just not extreme enough for the firebrands he so enjoyed leading. Decidedly out of his realm, he finally had no alternative but to face the fact that his time at the forefront has ended. His “further right than thou” party mates aren’t even allowing him to exit the stage gracefully. His abortive attempt to leave was ended when his hand-picked successor was rejected by the same people who have made it impossible for him to remain as Speaker.
It’s true, Kevin McCarthy accidentally told the truth about the Benghazi scheme. That alone disqualified him in the eyes of “The Freedom Caucus.” Their carefully constructed mechanism to harass their most feared Democratic opponent is truly a fragile house of cards, resting on distortions and willful deceptions.
Having reached for the brass ring, McCarthy will be content to keep the job he already has—if his new bosses will allow that.
Disarray is a euphemism for the debacle facing the Republicans, and it’s tempting to watch with satisfaction as they destroy themselves. Unfortunately, they are much like the suicidal gunmen who strike so routinely, as President Obama has observed. They are doomed to failure, but their negative impact can spread the pain far further than should be possible.
Paul Ryan may be “drafted,” although one has the impression he wants to ascend—but first wanted the other Republicans to recognize how badly they need him. I think, as flattering as the adulation of his caucus must be, this position will not be worth it for him. First, he will have the impossible task of heading the Dog Party (sorry canines!) without looking too much as if he’s being wagged by the Freedom Caucus loonies. They’re making this harder by overtly defining the next Speaker’s role as more ceremonial and secretarial. They have little interest in accepting guidance from Ryan (or anyone else), and an epic fear of being primaried in one of their carefully constructed “safe” districts by someone even more extreme has swept the House. Unyielding before, their recent “success” has done nothing to make them any more willing to compromise.
A second problem for Ryan is that, if he becomes the public figurehead or “face” of the extremists, he will forever be identified with their unworkable proposals. He has done well, in the past, to disassociate himself from some of the crudest language of the policies he supports. Hiding behind the disguise of being a “numbers man” he has spoken in pious tones about an ideology that is putrid in practice. That illusion will disappear fast if Ryan has to appease the fire breathers in his party. His hopes of higher office will disappear the instant he becomes the chosen leader of the right-wingers who have scuttled Boehner and McCarty.
Thirdly, Ryan will be expected to support proposals that are simply illogical. He isn’t the “thinker” his party believes him to be, but he’s probably not ignorant enough to buy the wishful thinking that is the bedrock of current Republican orthodoxy. Simply accepting the internal contradictions of their catechisms would test the resolve of a more limited person. It’s not unheard of for a politician to stretch the truth, but if he becomes Speaker Ryan may never be in a position to even risk that loose association with facts.
Given their trajectory, the tea baggers in the House will “outgrow” Ryan at some point in the not so distant future. He will then be discarded like last week’s news, perhaps with a ceremonial sign of respect—but with the acid hatefulness of the outliers who are now steering the once-Grand Old Party that is not assured.
Without a forceful rejection of their behavior (if not their ideology), House Republicans will plumb the depths dragging the whole institution down with them. Already the damage they’ve done is all but incalculable, and there is no reason to expect them to self-correct.
What is the prescription for treating this legislative virus? Is there any group (or, even more doubtful, individual) who can effectively treat this lethal malady? Whatever the answers are to these questions, the first step has to be to do no more harm.
It would be great to hope then Republican Fever will break and they will behave more responsibly. That is a self-deception we simply can’t afford, though.
Not only are the Republicans certain to wander endlessly in the morass of their dank ideology, they will impose the harshest punishments available on any of their number who are seen as breaking ranks.
Once again the onus is on us. We have limited options for dealing with people who seem convinced that the worse they make things for everyone else the better they will be for them.
I expect it will be controversial, and I can’t really defend this approach. I wonder, though, if we should try showing the American people to where this road leads. If the Republican base is excited about defaulting on our national debt, there is in fact little we can do to prevent that disaster. It might be best to be sure the public understands how painless (or even beneficial) the tea baggers claim that will be. If shutting down the government sounds like an unexpected day off from school (a “snow day”), let’s be sure people know who to thank for such largess.
The more we fight to avoid such preventable disasters, the more emboldened the RWNJs are to throw tantrums. If they want to do the equivalent of lying on the floor and holding their breath, so be it. It is truly unfortunate that innocent people are those most likely to be harmed by their power plays, but they do risk awakening a slumbering voting public right before a crucial general election. For a long time the far right has been sure that their most extreme ideas will be limited by others, and a pattern of capitulation has only made them feel bolder. Still, partly out of necessity, letting them tip their hand (even more) may act as an inoculation.
Their lack of equivocation, and progressives’ eagerness to avert disaster, are seen by many as signs of strength and weakness. We regularly compromise with ourselves, while the Republicans refuse to even acknowledge facts—the better to appease their true believers. When we manage to make their actions less painful for others we also let them pretend their goals aren’t so vicious. This really works against us, because it lets people get accustomed to each dreadful step in a dreadful decline without recognizing exactly who is causing their pain. They see Republican stubbornness as strength, and each of our wavers as weakness.
In an ideal world, we would stand toe to toe with the other party fighting for our principles. Rhetoric aside, I’m not sure we have enough fight in us to go that route, though. Another tactic, such as a sumo wrestler might employ, would be to simply let our opponents to use their speed and power against themselves. In their rush to deliver a good pop, they may fling themselves out of the ring. A more restrained movement may always have disadvantages competing against unbridled opposition, yet the lack of restraint may also breed recklessness.
Consider this to be a trial balloon, posted by one with extremely limited influence. Just as a decent athletic coach might reconsider their entire system based on personnel available or the effectiveness of past performances, I think it’s healthy for us to evaluate our approach from time to time. What do you think?