The Republican Party Dilemma
Published in La Tribune
(France) on 16 July 2011
by Jérôme Marin (link to original)
The American Congress has made progress in negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, seeing as Republicans have accepted a proposal that would make small cuts to federal spending. But, in doing so, they have upset some right wing party electorates, a move for which they could pay a high price.
At first it seemed like a last minute win-win proposition for everyone in attendance at the United States Congress last Friday. Even though the negotiations seemed highly improbable, Democrats and Republicans had managed to settle their differences in order to avoid closing many administrations — a preliminary victory for Barack Obama. The American president has indicated that he is still managing the country despite withdrawing somewhat after last November’s midterm election defeat. His political opponents have foreseen from his 2012 campaign announcement that he is more concerned about his reelection than he is about the serious problems of the country.
But Obama played the role of chief mediator well, increasing the number of meetings with the leaders of both parties and keeping an open agenda — an attitude he will have to adopt so that the last 20 months of his term are not defined by a Congressional stalemate, the current configuration (with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by Democrats) allowing each of the two parties to systematically block each other's votes.
While recognizing the need to raise the debt ceiling, Democrats will finally be able to praise themselves for having proposed spending cuts. They eventually conceded to only $38 billion dollars, where their opponents initially wanted $61 billion. Most importantly, they will emphasize that this proposal is a symbolic rescue plan agreement and does not meet the requirements of an ideological approach. The best example: the family planning for which their adversaries, motivated by their right wing, wanted to cut all public financing.
Frankly, the Republicans can claim credit for being on the verge of one of the most significant budget cuts in the history of the United States. They are certainly less significant than hoped for, but they could not objectively expect much more. Like their leader, John Boehner, they were able to exercise restraint in order to reach a compromise. They have not made the same mistake as in 1995, when the closure of administrations and their policy of systematic obstruction ended up greatly benefiting Bill Clinton, who was comfortably re-elected a few months later.
If we look closely however, the GOP has not necessarily come out on top. It has disappointed several members of the Tea Party, the hard-line right wing element fighting against the current big government that borrows more than 40 cents for every dollar that it spends. This agreement “does not set us on a path to fixing the spending and debt problems our country is facing,” said Rand Paul, an emblematic member of the movement. It must be said that the senator from Kentucky is pleading for no more than a constitutional ban of budget deficits. According to a poll conducted for the Wall Street Journal and NBC, 68 percent of Tea Party supporters wished that Republicans had insisted on their positions. Their reactions were not soft: "a total victory for the liberal democrats," "the selfish successful children incapable of making difficult decisions demanded by the voters," "a disappointment for millions of Americans who were expecting $100 billion in cuts," "2012 Campaign," etc.
This perfectly sums up the dilemma the Republican Party now faces for the next election. They must be both moderate and willing to accept concessions so as not to cut off a portion of the electorate, the independents who could make the difference. At the same time, they must satisfy their conservative wing as much as possible to avoid causing a sense of frustration among Tea Party members, who know well how to mobilize effectively. During the midterm primary elections, the unknown candidates that the movement supported set the tone, subsequently winning the primaries. Many were seen as too radical and were later beaten by Democrats.
"The Republicans could have surely done better without the Tea Party," explained Robert Shapiro, professor of political science at the University of Columbia. A similar scenario could occur next year, both for the Senate and House elections, as well as for the presidential race. By taking advantage of dispersed votes, a Tea Party candidate could still set his sights on the White House. Blessed bread for Barack Obama.
At first it seemed like a last minute win-win proposition for everyone in attendance at the United States Congress last Friday. Even though the negotiations seemed highly improbable, Democrats and Republicans had managed to settle their differences in order to avoid closing many administrations — a preliminary victory for Barack Obama. The American president has indicated that he is still managing the country despite withdrawing somewhat after last November’s midterm election defeat. His political opponents have foreseen from his 2012 campaign announcement that he is more concerned about his reelection than he is about the serious problems of the country.
But Obama played the role of chief mediator well, increasing the number of meetings with the leaders of both parties and keeping an open agenda — an attitude he will have to adopt so that the last 20 months of his term are not defined by a Congressional stalemate, the current configuration (with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by Democrats) allowing each of the two parties to systematically block each other's votes.
While recognizing the need to raise the debt ceiling, Democrats will finally be able to praise themselves for having proposed spending cuts. They eventually conceded to only $38 billion dollars, where their opponents initially wanted $61 billion. Most importantly, they will emphasize that this proposal is a symbolic rescue plan agreement and does not meet the requirements of an ideological approach. The best example: the family planning for which their adversaries, motivated by their right wing, wanted to cut all public financing.
Frankly, the Republicans can claim credit for being on the verge of one of the most significant budget cuts in the history of the United States. They are certainly less significant than hoped for, but they could not objectively expect much more. Like their leader, John Boehner, they were able to exercise restraint in order to reach a compromise. They have not made the same mistake as in 1995, when the closure of administrations and their policy of systematic obstruction ended up greatly benefiting Bill Clinton, who was comfortably re-elected a few months later.
If we look closely however, the GOP has not necessarily come out on top. It has disappointed several members of the Tea Party, the hard-line right wing element fighting against the current big government that borrows more than 40 cents for every dollar that it spends. This agreement “does not set us on a path to fixing the spending and debt problems our country is facing,” said Rand Paul, an emblematic member of the movement. It must be said that the senator from Kentucky is pleading for no more than a constitutional ban of budget deficits. According to a poll conducted for the Wall Street Journal and NBC, 68 percent of Tea Party supporters wished that Republicans had insisted on their positions. Their reactions were not soft: "a total victory for the liberal democrats," "the selfish successful children incapable of making difficult decisions demanded by the voters," "a disappointment for millions of Americans who were expecting $100 billion in cuts," "2012 Campaign," etc.
This perfectly sums up the dilemma the Republican Party now faces for the next election. They must be both moderate and willing to accept concessions so as not to cut off a portion of the electorate, the independents who could make the difference. At the same time, they must satisfy their conservative wing as much as possible to avoid causing a sense of frustration among Tea Party members, who know well how to mobilize effectively. During the midterm primary elections, the unknown candidates that the movement supported set the tone, subsequently winning the primaries. Many were seen as too radical and were later beaten by Democrats.
"The Republicans could have surely done better without the Tea Party," explained Robert Shapiro, professor of political science at the University of Columbia. A similar scenario could occur next year, both for the Senate and House elections, as well as for the presidential race. By taking advantage of dispersed votes, a Tea Party candidate could still set his sights on the White House. Blessed bread for Barack Obama.