What can the Republican Congress do?
Let me begin by stating my point of view. I’m with commenter “Harold,” who writes:
Not only should Republicans break the filibuster, they should break, bend, ignore every rule and tradition in the Senate. Republicans don’t seem to get that they are in an Alinsky jam here. The Democrats are making them live up to their fine old rules while the Democrats live by power and power alone.
As soon as the Democrats ended the filibuster for judicial appointments, arguments for Republicans to retain it became weak, because the reason for keeping it was always to protect one’s own minority rights when the time came. This required that both parties support the rule, knowing that someday it would be their turn to benefit from it (when they were in the minority) and another day it would be their turn to be stymied by it (when they were in the majority but not the supermajority). Respect for the rule also required a modicum of compromise from whatever the minority party du jour might be if Congress wanted to get any work done at all. But that sort of thing ended a while ago, too.
So there is no longer any reason to uphold something I always had defended. Now the situation is such that Republicans are fighting a battle where the implicit rules of the game have changed. As “Harold” puts it, they are in an Alinsky jam here. And they better study up on their Alinsky or they’re going to be in huge trouble (they already are in trouble, actually). But I don’t think most of them have the temperament, or perhaps even the interest, to go bold.
However, let’s not pretend that the jam they face is one in which there’s a simple way out. There may not even be a way out at all, although there are ways that could offer at least a chance of an out. But the difficulty of the situation is why I not only am very frustrated with the Republican leaders (and some others) in Congress, I also am frustrated with people who say that it is obvious what they should do and that it surely would be successful. That is wishful thinking of the highest order—although I may agree with those people on the fact that the GOP should do it anyway.
Right after the election of 2014 there was a brief surge of joy among many on the right about a campaign hard fought and won. But then reality set in, a reality of which many of those same people had also been previously aware. It had long been clear that Obama and the Democrats would do whatever it took, and that a supermajority would have been needed to have had a really good chance of stopping them. Even had the GOP gotten a supermajority (and there was never any real chance of that happening in 2014) I believe that Obama would have just bypassed Congress even more and done exactly what he wanted. Defunding would, however, have been easier to accomplish.
But absent a Republican supermajority, Obama and Reid can continue to call the shots. Obama signaled right after the 2014 election that the Democrats’ loss meant nothing to him, and that he was perfectly willing to bypass Congress. As for the future, if the presidency is really a lock for Democrats from now on because of the Electoral College picture (I don’t believe this theory, but I’ve read many analyses that espouse it), and future Democratic presidents and Democratic members of Congress are willing to follow in Obama’s and Reid’s footsteps in terms of power and ruthlessness, the only conclusion I can come to is that Republican majorities in Congress will never matter much unless they are supermajorities, and that showdown after showdown (and shutdown after shutdown) would be the name of the game.
So what power does the current Republican Congress have? Why even bother to have elected them? One obvious reason is that they stop affirmatively Democratic legislation (such as Obamacare) from being passed. Congress was already Republican enough after the election of 2010 to have been doing that, of course, even when they didn’t have the Senate, because they had at least 40 votes there. Now they have a significant majority of the Senate, but little has changed in actuality because they still don’t have the 60 Senate seats to force cloture, nor do they have the needed 2/3 to override a presidential veto. So their power to pass affirmatively Republican legislation in the Senate continues to be to reduced.
That means that unless they can get a significant number of Democrats to cross party lines (good luck with that) they are limited to either (1) passing less controversial bills where they can get six Democratic senators to join, as with Keystone; or (2) ending the filibuster, in which case they can pass bills galore but can’t make them stick because of the veto problem and the lack of votes to override. But at least they could highlight Obama’s obstructionism as they pass—and he vetoes—bill and bill after bill.
To recap: they can impeach but not convict. They can pass bills in the House that can’t get through the Senate, or that can get through the Senate but not get past the veto. They can…they can…what? They can decline to fund important parts of government, and try to bully the Democrats and Obama into blinking, but Obama rests secure in the fact that the public will be manipulated by the press into blaming Republican “obstructionism” for any lack of funding. That doesn’t mean the Republicans shouldn’t do it anyway, but it does mean they run an excellent chance of taking the hit for it rather than Obama and the Democrats.
That’s the situation we have now. If Republicans don’t have the courage (or foolhardiness—take your pick) to act in this extreme way, it will be up to the courts to stop things, be it Obamacare subsidies or amnesty. Both issues have cases pending. At this point I’m willing to say that the current case pending in Texas about amnesty is one of the most important ones the courts (and ultimately it may be the Supreme Court) have ever faced. The lower court’s decision was based on very narrow grounds, but that was just an injunction and not the final word, which will almost certainly be decided on larger constitutional grounds by higher courts.
That’s one of the reasons I’ve always emphasized how crucial court appointments are. Of course, there’s always the possibility that Obama would defy the courts if the decision were to go against him. Would Obama do that? I have come to think the answer is “yes.” He would do it either overtly, or covertly if possible.
[NOTE: So, if the Democrats wouldn’t hesitate to end the filibuster if they needed to, why didn’t they do it in order to pass Obamacare? The answer is they didn’t need to; with the “creative” use of reconciliation, they passed it despite the election of Scott Brown that was specifically aimed at giving the Republicans the requisite 40 votes to stop Obamacare.]
The activist game is the only social political game there is.
When the entire Democrat party has gotten behind a President who violates the Constitution, “playing by the rules” is folly. The Senate Republicans have to use the only power they have left, which is to go nuclear on the filibuster and pass the House-passed DHS funding bill with a bare majority. Let Obama veto it and shut down the government. The people are too dumb to understand that it is the Democrats who are being obstructionist right now, but when Obama vetoes the legislation, enough of them will understand whose fault it is.
Eric:
I could have saved myself a lot of work if I’d just written what you wrote 🙂 .
Why would democrats who ran as republicans (and wrote papers saying to do so) want to oppose their side? yeah. they were elected as republicans, but nothing in our laws or rules says that a democrat cant run and win under a republican ticket and help control both sides of the argument…
making most other analysis an exercise in sillyness
like wondering why a container full of poison but marked sugar kills someone… its not the label, its the substance. duh
Ben Carson said, “I was a rabid, left-wing Democrat. I’m running as a Republican because you have to run as something.”
Republicans that used to be Dems
Condoleezza Rice
Michele Bachmann
Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Rick Perry
Jesse Helms
Phil Gramm
Joe Lieberman
Richard Shelby
Norm Coleman
Buddy Roemer
Nathan Deal
Trent Lott
Amy Tuck
Steve Levy
Former Governor Sonny Perdue
Parker Griffith
Ben Westlund
Strom Thurmond
Juan Arambula
Jerry Brown
Michael Bloomberg
other than the dead ones, it explains a lot.
but it also means that party declarations are meaningless once they decided to run and control both sides of an issue…
one more reason they dont like oaths…
CapnRusty:
You put it very succinctly and correctly, as well.
The American people don’t seem to care about eliminating the filibuster. The Democrats would do it in a heartbeat; they have proven that. There is no reason to protect something (minority rights in the Senate) that the Democrats have already shown they will not protect. That leaves the Republicans with no choice. Either they are afraid, or they don’t really care to pass the legislation.
“at least they could highlight Obama’s obstructionism as they pass–and he vetoes–bill and bill after bill.” neo
It is not Obama’s obstructionism but rather Congressional democrat’s obstructionism that should be highlighted.
Since this is Obama’s last term, highlighting Obama’s obstructionism is of limited utility. Obama’s vetoes are only of use in being necessary to get to the override vote. It is critical that the Republican’s bring to the floor an override vote for every bill that Obama vetoes. Congressional democrat’s must be on record as either standing behind the legislation or being practicing hypocrites.
The focus needs to be on Congressional democrat’s repeated refusals to vote to override Obama’s vetoes. Only when a pattern of refusal by democrats to vote for overriding Obama’s vetoes is evident, can the charge gain credibility that they place ideology above the will of “the people”.
A vote for legislation that is not followed up with a vote to override an Obama veto reveals hypocrisy, motivated by their desire to avoid exposure, that they place ideology above “the common good” as the majority of Americans define it.
And, in being seen to be placing ideology above “the common good as the will of the people sees it” they are seen to have betrayed their own professed beliefs. Expose and Alinskyite them!
Artfldgr:
I’ve written a ton of words on this blog about political change. A great deal of political change is very real, and features a left-to-right (or Democrat to Republican) change. Many of the people who experience this change become very dedicated conservatives. So a mere change means nothing in terms of where the person’s affiliation, principles, and thoughts presently lie.
Plus, although I don’t have time to research every name on your list, some (for example, Bachmann) are/were among the most conservative officeholders in both word and deed. (Bachmann, by the way, was raised in a Democratic family and became a Republican while still in college—which shows true conservative bona fides, IMHO, because that’s a very early left-to-right conversion).
In addition, several of those names leapt out as having never been Republican. Jerry Brown? When on earth is he supposed to have changed to Republican? Joe Lieberman is not now and never has been a member of the Republican Party; he left the Democratic Party and became an Independent, but continued to vote for the most part with Democrats.
Here’s Rick Perry on his first few years in politics as a not-liberal Democrat, before he became a conservative Republican.
Geoffrey Britain:
Obama’s obstructionism and the Democrats’ obstructionism are both important, and go hand in hand. However, I think Obama’s is extremely important despite the fact that he won’t be up for re-election (unless he really wants to defy the Constitution). That’s because it has to do with public perceptions of the Republican Party as a whole.
If things are blocked (and were blocked in the past), the Democrats and Obama (with the cooperation of the MSM) always pinned it on the Reublicans. Obama has been a big part of that, and his reputation and legacy and that of the Democrats as a whole during his term depend on that perception continuing. If both Obama and the Democrats in Congress can be exposed as obstructionists, and the Republicans as the ones who want to do thing to help America, that is huge. Obama is a big, big part of the perception about this.
I wish there were some way Reps could use the Joe Manchin defections (Keystone, Obama’s amnesty) against the Dem power structure. If they could make local noise about how the Pelosi-Reid power structure doesn’t allow thinking Dems to truly represent their constituencies, maybe they could encourage other Dems not from CA, IL, or NY to stand up to their controllers. Scott Walker managed to break through in WI. Why couldn’t a few others break through in swing states? It would take a lot of local politicians to take on the actions of DC controllers and thus threaten wishy washy local reps and senators, but maybe it could have some effect.
What makes you think the GOP establishment is opposed to amnesty? Jeb Bush openly chides the base for being opposed to amnesty. He speaks for the establishment.
Steve:
Nothing makes me think that. In the interests of brevity, I left out the part where I was going to explain that I’m just talking about the ones who actually want to stop this or that legislation. Some do, some don’t. But I decided to keep the post (already very long) to the general idea of what they are able (and unable) to do, even if they should want to.
It’s not just about amnesty. It’s about what approaches are open to the GOP to do whatever it might be that they want to do (such as Keystone, or changing Obamacare, or blocking Obama on the Iran deal, things they pretty much want to do).
The GOP has the power of the purse. They can bring the whole show to a stop if they want to.
Let me echo what Steve just said. The power the Congress has is to appropriate or not appropriate funding for all government purposes. I understand that Obama will veto appropriation bills he doesn’t like, forcing a government “shutdown” and the press will loudly, relentlessly blame the shutdown on the Republicans. But if the Republicans can stick together, not cave in, let the shutdown continue, and, most importantly, energetically take their case to the public and campaign for their policies against the Obama press, they may prevail.
The last brief shutdown was supposed to be a disaster for the Republicans according to all the pundits, but, even though the Repubs caved and hardly defended themselves at all, it didn’t turn out that way, did it?
neo @3:23,
It is definitely all of a piece and the two do indeed go hand in hand. To use a baseball analogy, any hitting coach will agree that without follow through, effectiveness is greatly reduced. You hit through the ball, not at the ball.
My concern is that the GOP will not act to bring vetoed legislation to the floor every time for an override vote. That they will only call for an override vote when they see a possibility that Obama’s veto might be overridden. That IMO would be a fundamental mistake (and de facto proof of either incompetence or betrayal) for the reasons previously stated.
It’s a given that an override vote cannot occur without legislation that is first vetoed. I give the ‘weight’ of which is more important to the override vote because I foresee that the majority of LIVs will initially buy into the excuses and misrepresentations that Obama will give for his vetoes. I think that for them to start questioning Obama’s veracity (as we hope) will take more than just his vetoing easily demagogued legislation (which is why it is so important that it be popular legislation).
It’s important to recognize that because of the MSM’s collusion in sedition, we are dealing with another “Teflon President”, albeit from the dark side.
And because that is so, turning around the perception that it is always the republican’s fault, will hinge upon whether there are continual override votes brought to the floor on popular legislation, that Obama has vetoed.
Exposing Obama’s obstructionism only has lasting value if it becomes the means to exposing the democrat’s obstructionism.
Steve,
If they use the power of the purse to “bring the whole show to a stop” it will be they who will be perceived by the LIVs as the obstructionists.
matthew49,
“The power the Congress has is to appropriate or not appropriate funding for all government purposes. “
Obama, the democrats and the mass media’s argument will be that Congress has to appropriate funding for all government purposes that prior Congresses have legislatively approved… and that, Congress must legislatively retract or amend legislation lawfully enacted into law of which it now disapproves… IF it has the needed votes.
That is a legally valid argument to make and would also apply if the situation were reversed with a Republican President faced with a majority democrat Congress wishing to overturn legislation but lacking an override majority.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress to lower funding but not to selectively defund legislation enacted into law and held Constitutional by the SCOTUS.
Whoever it was that said Mitch McConnell should walk around wearing a tee-shirt that says, “I am Harry Reid’s Bitch”, has it about right.
Neo-Neocon:
I can tell you the first thing that you don’t do. Mitch McConnell Announces a Vote on Clean DHS Funding Is Coming; which, naturally resulted in, McConnell Throws in Towel on DHS Fight, but Reid Is Waiting for Boehner to Cave (Updated). Democrat leaders so little respect for their Republican counterparts that they’ve taken to rubbing Republican’s noses in their defeats now. Congressional Republicans have lost all credibility and respect of their enemies, the Democrats, and it’s going to take a long time to win that back.
The first thing Republicans need to do is decide what it more important to them; advancing their agenda or holding the office. If holding office is their priority, then they’re doomed to failure and will, eventually lose those positions that they so covet. If they seek to advance an agenda then what are they willing to stand for; to fight for, even if it means losing. Don’t get me wrong here; this isn’t about losing with honor or going out in a blaze of glory. This is about overcoming their fear of losing.
It’s the old adage about standing up to the schoolyard bully. The thing is that you know it’s going to hurt; that he’s going to hit you as hard, if not harder, that you hit him. But if you don’t, he’s just going to get worse over time.
KRB
Spot on that Obama will defy the injunction in TX but he will do so covertly.
And that’s why we need a real press to investigate and uncover what is really happening.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams, Second President of the United States of America.
I’m afraid he’s right. Our enemies have no honor; therefore, there is no lawyerly way of stopping them. You’ve pointed out, Neo, that the American form of government is really a sort of gentlemen’s agreement — and it isn’t honored by blackguards.
Break the filibuster, shift into 5th gear, pedal to the metal…
“Not only should Republicans break the filibuster, they should break, bend, ignore every rule and tradition in the Senate. ”
That would require something that the GOP Leadership does not have in its DNA- Principles and looking out for the country before their donors.
The Dems in the Senate and Congress have sold their souls for Power and Control a long time ago. But these GOP Numb-nuts haven’t even negotiated that small reward. The just want to be “liked” by the MSM and their Patrons. When they pass on may they find themselves in the deepest levels of Hell for the damage they have done.
Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others. Groucho Marx
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower