The action/return grid for the party of "no"
Oversimplified analysis of Republican choices voting with Obama on things like the Stimulus bill.
If they vote yes and the plan works, they get some credit, but the majority of the political benefit goes to the Dems.
If they vote yes and the plan doesn't work, they gain only marginally because they supported the bad action.
If they vote no and the plan works, they pay the highest cost as they were against success.
If they no and the plan doesn't work, they see the highest relative political upside.
Just thinking out loud.
If they vote yes and the plan works, they get some credit, but the majority of the political benefit goes to the Dems.
If they vote yes and the plan doesn't work, they gain only marginally because they supported the bad action.
If they vote no and the plan works, they pay the highest cost as they were against success.
If they no and the plan doesn't work, they see the highest relative political upside.
Just thinking out loud.
posted by mikevotes at
11:46 AM
7 Comments:
If they vote no and the plan doesn't work, they see the highest relative political upside.
They see the least political liability, certainly.
Is it better to be the guy who tries to save a drowning child and fails, or to be the guy who didn't want to get wet and stood by watching?
I don't see any real alternative plan from the Republicans, other than to let the economy hit bottom on it's own. They are contending, in my analogy, that the child was foolish and drowning was the natural consequence of that foolishness.
It's tough to turn that into a "sell". They could, in effect, make fun of how the other guy ruined his clothes for nothing, and how wise they were to stay dry.
But which of my two hypothetical guys do you think the parents of the deceased child would respect the most?
By
Todd Dugdale , at 12:31 PM
If it fails, I don't think it will be seen as nobly as a drowning child, but, I get your point.
On the other hand, they're also betting against the likely natural tendency towards recovery which doesn't seem too bright a bet.
My broad point, though, was that separate from anyy issues, politically, being the party of no is about the smartest choice.
It offers their best chance quickly back to power.
By
mikevotes, at 12:38 PM
It's a lot like Iraq. The difference is that the Republicans can't claim they were "tricked" into supporting the Stimulus. On the plus side, Obama isn't making any kind of overly-optimistic statements about the recovery taking "six months, tops" the way the Bush Administration did on Iraq. Also, the nation will have tangible things to show for Obama's policy, unlike Iraq for Bush.
There was little, if any, political price for the Democrats jumping on, then off, the Iraq bandwagon. I think it would be smarter for the GOP to emulate that approach, especially since so much of the blame for the disaster falls upon them.
Shared economic hardship does create the mindset that "we are all in this together" much more than Bush's military adventures did. And the momentum is on the side of the Democrats in this case. Just as Iraq was successfully cast as "Bush's War", so this recession is already cast as Bush's disaster. If Obama turns out to be a lousy janitor, it doesn't make those who made the mess look any better.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 2:30 PM
I think Iraq is a pretty good parallel, although I might argue whether jumping on and off was costless. All those Dems who voted for the war have had to navigate some pretty tricky ground to get off that position. Think about Kerry, or Edwards, or Clinton. It undermined everytime they tried to criticize even when they were "off" the position.
And the Dems definitely have the momentum right now, but if you'll think back to when the first Iraq vote took place in 2002 before the elections, The Repubs had the mo then. A year after 9-11, it was a pretty tough vote to say no to the Iraq war, especially if you were facing election in that year.
By
mikevotes, at 2:59 PM
For much of America, Iraq was as much a philosophical problem as it was a palpable one. There was much anger/disillusionment over how it was managed and how it was sold to us. This on top of the actual blood in dollars.
The economic collapse? Well that's just a kick in the nuts. No one put off buying a car, or planning a vacation because of the Iraq war. (All due respect for the actual servicemen and their families.)
"If they no and the plan doesn't work, they see the highest relative political upside.
I agree more with Todd on this one. I think the upside is a lack of political liability, not actual winning over of hearts and minds.
However, if a narrative can be created that makes the Repubs look like Tanya Harding clubbing the knee caps of the recovery effort, (foot dragging, talking down, not accepting stim funds, etc) their "no" votes could be spun as a liability.
By
-epm, at 4:24 PM
It undermined every time they tried to criticize even when they were "off" the position.
They couldn't use Iraq to any positive advantage (i.e. make themselves look better), but they could use Iraq to make Bush look bad. This is the same way the GOP could use the recovery - give up any claim of credit, but cast blame on Obama for his bad idea.
The only political "cost" the Democrats paid was the "opportunity cost" of taking any credit for Iraq. Since the majority of the country was in the same situation as the Democrats (once they supported, later they denounced) it was difficult to make them pay any kind of price. It would have been a self-indictment on the part of the public.
Likewise, the majority support the recovery efforts. If opinion later sours, the Republicans can play the same game and jump ship with the rest of the country.
In fact, I would argue that there is a political risk in saying "I told you so!" to the public if opinion sours. Nobody likes being told that. There is, however, solidarity in "mutual suckerhood".
but if you'll think back to when the first Iraq vote took place in 2002 before the elections, The Repubs had the mo then.
Yes, and that momentum carried them through the mid-terms and the general in 2004, despite Iraq not looking the way Bush had spun it. The same could happen with Obama if the recovery stalls, at least through the mid-terms.
{epm} There was much anger/disillusionment over how it was managed and how it was sold to us.
It's possible people like us could be using those words to describe the Stimulus in 2012.
Obama is not the incompetent that Bush was, however.
Overall, "No" is a cautious strategy that eschews big payoffs in favour of minimising big liability. But I stop short at it being the path back to power. It's a way to tread water by holding on to the base.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 4:55 PM
EPM, that's a good point. I made the presumption that failure of the economic plan wasn't tied to their efforts.
....
Todd, I don't want to go too far into the argument because it's all so mushy, but Dems who were eyeing the 2004 pres run effectively had to vote yes on the iraq war. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, all played that card because they didn't want to get caught wrong. (In Washington power circles at the time, the war was thought to be pretty easy.)
And, yes, I think the Dems likely hold the mo through 2010. MArginal positives will be spun as first steps. I think they've likely got this through 2010. 2012, I'm not so sure. If it doesn't work, they may find themselves in the Bush 2004 position of having to scrape by with the base.... but that's still a win.
(But that assumes it doesn't work at all, and my hunch is that there will be some kinda up between now and then.
And, I would diagree a little. If they can get the blame onto the Dems and the economy never comes back, it does give them something of a relative platform back to power. They wouldn't be clean because they contributed to the crash, but they could claim "different" which, assuming this economy continues for four years, might be enough to cause trouble.
Of course, in the "economy doesn't come back" scenario, they would be kings of a pile of rubble.....
By
mikevotes, at 6:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home