Subscriber Content Preview | Request a free trialSearch  
  Go

The Deal Economy 2013

Home    |    Event    |    Blog    |    Awards
Print  |  Share  |  Discuss  |  Reprint

Why our politics are so bad

by Robert Teitelman  |  Published August 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM
obama125x100.jpgThe debt ceiling looks like it will be raised, though who knows? The House Republicans believe they have won -- they at least are spinning that furiously, which presents the unlikely sight of a blackmailer crowing about his successful operation, joined by a variety of seething left-of-center pundits -- and with the scent of Obama blood in the water, maybe they'll hold out for even greater cuts or a deal that protects defense spending. Generally, as the media emerges in full-throated roar, Obama is being declared the big loser from both sides of the aisle; see Ross Douthat and Paul Krugman in today's New York Times. Perhaps. Obama's polls have been falling, probably because the president these days gets blamed for everything from a bad economy to Mississippi flooding to lousy student test scores, as if he's less a political leader and more a medicine man. We elect shamans, not people. Perhaps he did play this all wrong; in politics, substance -- "reality" that we've heard so much about these days -- means little. Obama's big mistake, at the end of the day, was his belief that he could occupy a center in a viciously polarized arena. As the columns and blogs suggest this morning, we've got a deal, but we've also got a nasty political problem. From an electoral perspective -- and part of that political problem is that we can't seem to forget, for even a moment, the permanent campaign -- Obama is already being declared a loser in 2012. We'll see. The electoral issue, particularly in a presidential campaign, is what's more important: deficit reduction (with all the affiliated issues: tax hikes or entitlement cuts) or the blackmail problem, which is to say, the Congress problem. How big is the center these days? How will that center recall these events -- and the possibility that we may see more hostage taking in years ahead? The debt ceiling struggle was a long and ugly tussle, managing to confirm the conventional wisdom of Washington inaction, bloviation, stalemate and failure. It was wildly irresponsible, dangerous and absurd. It shook people up. Several weeks ago, the Times' Thomas Friedman saw the crisis as an opportunity for a "radical center" to emerge, independent of both increasingly toothless, in terms of discipline, parties. I'm skeptical of the formation of an actual center party but not of center bloc. Today, in the blitz of punditry and spin, the center seems to have vanished. But electorally, it does feel as if there's stirring discontent with the highly ideological approach to politics from both parties. That, of course, may be wishful thinking.
 
I take it as good news -- I'm undoubtedly grasping at straws here -- that the commentary today has a thread of reflection about the deeper governance problems. In The New York Times, Jacob Hacker and Oona Hathaway offer a bracing perspective on a Congress that has increasingly over time eluded accountability, distorting the relationship with the executive. "The debate has threatened to play out as a destructive but all too familiar two-step, revealing how dysfunctional the relationship between Congress and the president has become. The two-step begins with a Congress that is hamstrung and incapable of effective action. The president then decides he has little alternative but to strike out on his own, regardless of what the Constitution says. Congress, unable or unwilling to defend its role, resorts instead to carping at 'his' program, 'his' war or 'his' economy -- while denying any responsibility for the mess it helped create." This helps explain the ease of which Republicans have walked away from the wild spending of the George W. Bush years.
 
In fact, all this feels familiar, both the congressional fecklessness -- remember the plague of earmarks -- and the accrual of presidential power in the form of executive orders, signing powers and Bushian arguments of pre-eminent executive power in warmaking, eavesdropping or torture. Everyone understands the barriers to congressional action: supermajority requirements, like the Senate's filibuster rule, and, as Hacker and Hathaway argue, legislative my-way-or-the-highway mechanisms, like a debt ceiling or a balanced budget amendment. But there are far more problems than those. Campaigns have grown more and more expensive, and PACs and corporate donors have become more and more essential. Lobbyists proliferate. Congress has evolved a system to avoid the big issues while keeping a flow of benefits going to their supporters and constituents. Party discipline has broken down, replaced by fundraising prowess. The demands of the permanent campaign are such that it demands a kind of branding for candidates: clear, simple, straightforward, ideological and mostly idiotic. Compromise, complexity and dealmaking become deeply suspect to an electorate that believes they've been sold down the river. Paradoxically, the creation of permanent campaigns fosters the opportunity to challenge from the extreme -- particularly in the House. Hard times makes this likelier.

Brad DeLong touches on some of this, but then takes it to another place. He writes today, "One possibility is that Cantor and Boehner have figured out something that has been inherent in the system since FDR but that few people recognized. Perhaps the president is now the ultimate status quo player in the government: Whatever goes wrong the public takes to be his fault and his responsibility. If anything goes badly wrong his political adversaries pick up the pieces and are strengthened. In that case, whenever the desires of the president conflict with the desires of the speaker of the House, the president has little leverage. Any speaker who does not fear disaster can roll any president. In this future, any bill that a speaker insists is must-pass gets attached to a debt-ceiling increase, and -- unless there are people in the Senate equally willing to risk disaster, which is unlikely because senators are status-quo players too -- so becomes law. It's like a parliamentary system, with the debt-ceiling votes filling the role of votes of confidence."

Much of this makes eminent sense, though I'm not convinced that we're heading toward a parliamentary system; there's simply no way to discipline the members in any way except at the polls. But what it does point out is how weak the forces of the status quo can be when arrayed against the extremes. That's the real worry here. - Robert Teitelman 
Share:
Tags: Barack Obama | Brad DeLong | Congress | debt ceiling | Jacob Hacker | Oona Hathaway | Paul Krugman | Ross Douthat | The New York Times
blog comments powered by Disqus

Meet the journalists

Robert Teitelman

Editor in chief

Bob Teitelman, editor in chief and a member of the company’s executive committee, is responsible for editorial operations of print and electronic products. Contact



Movers & Shakers

Launch Movers and shakers slideshow

Goldman, Sachs & Co. veteran Tracy Caliendo will join Bank of America Merrill Lynch in September as a managing director and head of Americas equity hedge fund services. For other updates launch today's Movers & shakers slideshow.

Video

Fewer deals despite discount debt

When will companies stop refinancing and jump back into M&A? More video

Sectors