Politics

A Successful Conservative Tactic

Yesterday was a particularly interesting day.  A few interesting exchanges took place between outgoing Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and various Republican Senators, for example.

Another interesting event was the Republicans’ call for a budget to be passed and, while we’re on the subject, the postponement of the raising of the debt ceiling. In case you haven’t heard, it’s called the “No Budget; No Pay” act and it was passed by the House.  The gist of it is that, unless a budget is approved by both houses of Congress, its members will have their pay withheld until one passes.

Keep in mind that the US has not had a budget resolution passed in four years.  Also note that budget resolutions are non-binding and are basically recommended guidelines that may or may not reflect reality.

The link between these two events yesterday is that both were designed to sound good while having little substance behind them.  In other words, they are an opiate of the masses: actions that will get publicized, are easy to remember, and sound like legislators are active and on top of things.

Now, before moving forward, it must be said that these two events were engineered by members of the GOP and, as far as their goals are concerned, they went one for two.

The lambasting of Mrs. Clinton by the Senate committee backfired a bit.  She was not deferential to its members.  As seen and heard in the largely publicized clips of her testimony, she accepted responsibility where the facts supported it and rejected efforts to paint her as disengaged during the crisis in Benghazi. The message they wanted to get out was that the administration was incompetent in handling this event.  Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) at one point called it “the worst tragedy since 9/11” and that, had he been president at the time, he would have relieved her of her post. In other words, “You didn’t do your job and you should have been fired”.

The message that did get out from her testimony is that the GOP is not clear on facts and is more interested in pointing fingers than in understanding what happened and the lessons to be learned.

In the case of the debt ceiling ordeal, the message was that “if we can’t do our jobs, we should not be paid”. They succeeded on that front and, to the average American, it sounds like a good idea.  After all, those of us who go to work every day do not expect to get paid if we don’t do our jobs. If we don’t do our jobs, we get fired.

The Tactic

These were implementations of a Republican tactic that is especially effective with the general public:

1. Create a mountain from a molehill: Benghazi (a tragedy but low on US priorities), debt ceiling (has been raised routinely with no questions in prior administrations).
2. Link it to an emotionally charged issue: 9/11, the national debt.
3. Propose solutions that are not solutions but sound like tough measures (Senate hearings that result in no action; delay raising the debt ceiling and put Congressional paychecks on the line).
4. Go home and tell constituents you are fighting the good fight for them and the country.

This tactic has been used very effectively in many cases. A couple of recent examples are:

1. The gun control debate: “The government wants to take your guns away. It’s against the 2nd Amendment. We should put armed guards in every school. I am fighting to keep them from confiscating your guns and trampling on the Constitution.”
2. The gay marriage debate: “People should not be allowed to marry because they are gay. The Constitution says marriage is between one man and one woman. We can recognize civil unions for legal purposes. I am fighting to preserve marriage as defined in the Constitution.” (Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all.)

You get the idea.

So, why can’t Liberals/Progressives/Democrats use the same tactics? Looking at arguments rationally takes time and thought.  These are not particularly appetizing to the current environment. Everything is neatly packaged for quick consumption. It takes time and thought to read the labels and make a choice.

We live in good times, though.  Better times are probably ahead on the social, political and economic perspectives.  The US has elected a Democrat twice in a row to the Presidency by a historically large margin.

But do not expect the conservative side of the equation to take this lying down.  If there is one thing the Administration should be prepared for, it is the application of the tactic outlined here directly against the President.  It happened with President Clinton in the second term (Monica Lewinsky and impeachment). They will probably try it again.

One Step Beyond…the Fiscal Cliff

We are up against the edge of the “fiscal cliff” as I write this and I think a couple of things are apparent.  First, this whole automatic tax increase/budget cut idea was silly.

Really, thinking people do not believe that anything “automatic” like the current budget rule can work in something as massive and real as an economy.  Especially, the world’s largest economy.  This, I believe was the result of too many members of Congress getting together and thinking that a hard and fast rule like this made for good campaign strategy.

What politician would not like to say he/she is “fiscally conservative” and strong against deficits by signing on to something absolutist like this?

The bottom line is that the world does not work that way. But, apparently, the US government does.  Is this really the only type of measure that can motivate the executive and legislative branches to do their jobs?

The second thing about this is that we really need to look at what is being discussed here.  Very simplistically, it is the interests of those making above $250,000 per year against the interests of those who make less than that.

Yes, there is more to it.  Most on one side want to get rid of Social Security, Medicaid and other safety nets.  Most on the other side believe that government can be a constructive and beneficial player in our society.

When you get right down to it, though, it’s pretty simple.

It will be interesting to see what the compromise they come up with looks like.  It will be more interesting to see the public’s reaction during the mid-term elections.