in an op ed with the title The high cost of hating government. He begins by telling of of the rally attended by Republican Mike Pence of Indiana where that worthy joined the crowd in urging the government be shut down. Dionne notes that the relatively small gathering of several hundred had a size that indicates how unrepresentative of the American people that attitude is, hates the government, and has no respect for the normal give and take of the political process. He then notes succinctly
in no serious country do threats to shut down the government become a routine way of doing business. Yet in our repertoire of dysfunction, we are on the verge of adding shutdown abuse to abuse of the filibuster in the Senate.
Of course, the Senate Democrats refused to do filibuster reform in 2007, which could have prevented many of the logjams which created the national mood that allowed for the rise of the Tea Party and the loss of the House. Surprisingly, they failed again to address that issue earlier this year, meaning even though they control the Senate they still face the obstacle of needing 60 votes for anything important.
But it is the hostage taking of the threat of shutdown which is on my mind today, as it was this weekend, which is why Dionne spoke to me, and which is why I urge you to read his piece and pass it on.
Dionne rightly notes that because Obama was so determined to avoid a shutdown he gave the upper hand in negotiations to Speaker Boehner. He reminds us that the Republicans have now won 2 rounds of confrontation since November, and have already won either 3/5 or 4/5 of what they sought - and I remind you that they control only 1/3 of the political process. If the results seem out of balance, they are.
Although the President and Sen. Reid claim some victories - as do some die-hard supporters of the President here - as Dionne writes
these victories were largely defensive. Republicans, with control of just one house of Congress, defined the terms of debate. “Concessions we can believe in” was not the slogan Obama ran on.
Ponder that phrase “Concessions we can believe in” - then perhaps you can understand why I am far from alone in my reaction not merely to the deal that was cut to keep the government open, but in the words offered by the President afterward.
And then there is this:
Of both big policy battles since the 2010 elections, Obama insisted that the most important thing was to get them behind us so we could move on to the main act. But when, exactly, will the main act begin? When will he fully engage? When will he challenge the idea that government’s central obligation is to shrink itself?
This is also at the heart of why so many of us are turning the President off. By emphasizing getting the disputes behind us, he will never get to the main act. He has given the Republicans a perpetual hostage-taking situation, and they will continue to nibble to death, or if you prefer take one additional slice at a time, until there is no there there, nothing meaningful left of the core of ideas upon which the idea of "change you can believe in" was based.
There should be no glee over shutting down our government.
When an immediate past member of the Republican leadership in the House advocates a shutdown, even as a political tactic, he needs to be challenged on that, publicly - by the Speaker, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President.
Threatening the functioning of the public sphere is not an acceptable tactic in a democracy.
For all their rhetoric about not wanting to shut the government down, many of the Republicans - not just in the House, but in the Senate - are either so afraid of their Tea Party element or so aligned with it that even when they are not as explicit as Pence it is the unstated but clearly understood subtext of their strategy. They dare the Democrats and the President to call them on it.
It is time to take up that dare. Because we are heading there again. Over the debt limit. Over the budget process for the 2012 Fiscal Year.
I said that Dionne speaks my mind. Having read this piece, I almost sorry I did not stop him when I saw him on Massachusetts Avenue near Dupont Circle last week to tell him how much I appreciate his work. But he was heading to an event at SEIU where he was being honored. Next time I will.
Because it is words like those in his final paragraph that put it so clearly:
For Obama, it is not good enough to cast himself as the school principal scolding competing congressional gangs. He needs the courage to defend the government he leads. He needs to declare that he will no longer bargain with those who use threats to shut down the government or force it to default on its debt as tools of intimidation. We’re all a bit weary of Obama telling everyone to be grown-ups, but this would be the grown-up thing to do.
That penultimate sentence is critical: He needs to declare that he will no longer bargain with those who use threats to shut down the government or force it to default on its debt as tools of intimidation.. Had he done so, the Republicans would have been faced with the prospect of being blamed for the government shutdown. They would have lost their hostage.
Only the President can still change the framing of this debate, a debate that last Friday's deal did nothing to change. Perhaps if he did, finally, he might yet recover some of what he has lost of his support. He might just remind people why they were willing not only to vote for him, but to work so hard for his election. They might "hope" that there is still the possibility of "change you can believe in."
They might. If they are still listening.
Are they?
Is he? Even to to the likes of E. J. Dionne?
I wonder.