People will notice if the Republicans get any crazier

By Frank Moraes 

The other day, Jonathan Chait wrote a provocative post, "Are House Republicans Voter-Proof?" In it, he argued that the Republicans likely have nothing to worry about in going full-tilt Michele Bachmann. After all, most people don't even know which party is in control of the House of Representatives. Why would they blame the Republicans?

Under normal circumstances, I agree with Chait. If the Republicans keep doing what they have been doing killing the economy inch by inch, the electorate will not notice. As I wrote last week, I fully expect the Republicans to pick up some seats in the House and also likely take control of the Senate. But I do wish people would stop talking about the Sixth-Year Curse. This is the belief of political observers that the president's party loses big the sixth year of his presidency. Sean Trende has debunked this idea. What actually happens is that the president's party loses big in one of the midterm elections. That already happened to Obama in 2010. Although it is likely that 2014 won't be a good year for the Democrats, they are already doing about as badly as they can. There aren't many seats (in the House at least) that they can gain.

Chait mentions five factors that work in the Republicans' favor. The first is the silly Sixth-Year Curse. The second is that Democrats tend to do badly in midterm elections. That's true, but that's already figured into the calculation. The third is that there aren't many swing voters anymore. I'm not sure how this gives the Republicans an advantage when most of those swing voters are just Democrats now. The fourth is the observation that Democratic voters are concentrated and thus their votes don't count as much. That's true in the Senate races, but not in the House. So I don't get his point given that the big issue is the House. And the fifth is that the 2010 redistricting favors the Republicans. That's true, but again, already figured into the calculation.

All he is saying is that the Republicans can continue to misbehave and get nothing done without a voter backlash. And that's true! But no one is suggesting that the Republicans are idiots. They respond to incentives and they see that in 2014 they are not going to harmed if they vote yet again to defund Obamacare. What people like me have been talking about is the longer term. Over the next six to eight years, if the Republicans don't start to change, they will be overwhelmed by the demographic change. And no amount of redistricting and voter suppression is going to save them.

But this isn't even about the long term. If the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling or if they simply shutdown the government, people will notice. The TV news will be all about this. Even Fox News will have a hard time blaming it on the Democrats. And people won't have to know who their legislators are or who controls the House of Representatives. They will just freak out about the crazy party that hates the government.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

Conservative goals and the NSA

By Frank Moraes

Yesterday, I happened to hear David Brooks on NPR. He was asked about the huge NSA surveillance program. He said, "I'm somewhat bothered by the secrecy, but I don't feel it's intrusive. Basically, they're running huge amounts of megadata through an algorithm. That feels less intrusive to me than the average TSA search at the airport. And so I don't think it's particularly intrusive. It is supervised by the court. It has some congressional supervision." Okay, it's Brooks. What's the big deal?

Well, that morning, the Wall Street Journal editorial page wrote, "We bow to no one in our desire to limit government power, but data-mining is less intrusive on individuals than routine airport security." I think it is interesting that Brooks is brought on NPR as a "reasonable" Republican and he just spouts the WSJ editors. Brooks is not supposed to be just some random politician; he's supposed to be an independent thinker. But let's leave that aside.

Jonathan Chait wrote a good article yesterday, "Conservative Freedom Lovers: You're Doing It Wrong." In which he showed the cognitive dissonance in the conservative movement regarding issues of freedom. For example, noted that Jack Welch is a-okay with the NSA spying, even as he claimed that Obama was secretly manipulating the Jobs Report for his own nefarious purposes.

Or consider Roger Vinson, who was one of the lower court judges who struck down Obamacare. He claimed that if the government could force people to get health insurance, it could force them to do anything. So he's a big believer in freedom. Or at least certain kinds of freedom. As Chait noted, "Judge Vinson has reentered the news for having approved the National Security Agency's program of collecting all of the phone records in America."

This is an issue I talk about a lot: the tyranny of libraries. I first noticed this with libertarians. They argued that taxes to pay for libraries were as awful as taxes to pay for the military. The situation is far, far worse with conservatives. They argue that taxes that go to the military and spying only make us more free whereas libraries are some kind of communist plot. This puts history on its head. Autocrats do not rule by the force of their public libraries. They rule by the force of their military and secret police.

A common complaint of conservatives is that the Founding Fathers did not believe in a large government like we have. That's true. I don't think it means anything, of course. The world has changed dramatically and larger governments are a necessity. Regardless, the parts of government that the Founding Fathers most feared were the parts that conservatives proudly embrace.

Dean Baker often makes the point that on the economy, conservatives don't want small government, they just want big government for the wealthy. It's clearly bigger than that. In every possible way, conservatives want a big government to make sure that those with wealth, power, and prestige will continue to have it. As usual with conservatives, they don't suffer from cognitive dissonance if you understand what their real goals are. And those goals are shared by "moderate" David Brooks and the extreme and shrill WSJ editorial page.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More