The Institutional American Left, Conservatives and the Debt Ceiling Battle

Our politicians are engaged -- not in debate but in ideological war over the conditions for raising America's debt ceiling.  A game of brinkmanship is being played out as the deadline (variously defined) approaches.  Both sides agree that the US credit rating hangs in the balance and that the ceiling must be raised.  At issue are government spending and taxes.  The Right is intent on reductions as a quid pro quo for an affirmative vote, and it has offered numerous good faith proposals, while the Left is equally intent on the continuation of deficit spending and raising taxes.  On the one hand, there is concern for putting the nation's fiscal house in order and on the other there is a real fear that the continuation of political power is at stake.



Conservative Republicans, backed (and pressured) by the Tea Party Movement, have taken a hard line on the issues of significant -- but in no way draconian -- spending cuts and the complementary position against increased taxation.  Some, Jim DeMint and a small group of like-minded senators, are determined to stand unrelentingly on principle.  They apparently believe that the ultimate consequences of unsustainable spending levels and taxes that debilitate the economy are worse than failing to meet the debt ceiling deadline [1].  Republicans in large mostly claim to hold the same position in an effort to demonstrate party unity.  That unity, however, is questionable because the majority of  Republican senators are somewhat less fastidious about matters of principle.  One can almost hear them saying, "Principle is all well and good, but where two things are concerned, I can be flexible.  First, I don't want to lose my job and all the benefits it entails.  Second, even if I remain in office, things would be rather unpleasant if I failed to retain the beltway social status that comes from being seen as moderate [2] and collegial.  After all, most of the people in government whom I deal with -- elected  and otherwise -- are not conservatives.  To succeed in politics one has to get along" [3].  For this larger group of Republicans their words and actions must be carefully balanced.

Life is simpler for Democrats.  Pesky notions of principle need not be entertained: the game is entirely about power [4].  The resolution of the debt ceiling impasse -- whatever the consequences -- is of no importance.  What is essential is that the Left appear to "care" about the welfare of  dependent identity groups, and the Right is made to appear hard, cold and heartless.  Therein lies the way to power and control; therein lies victory.
Arrayed on the side of the Left is the enormous -- if arguably declining -- power of institutional America.  Media, government bureaucrats (federal, state and municipal), the educational establishment, the canard -- the dominant meme -- of an "enlightened" European socialism and a docile, if increasingly engaged, electorate.  Institutional America owes its well-being to big government, and its empowering trump card is the appeal to emotion.

Conservatives, on the other hand, would seem to have majority popular on their side; but popular opinion, if poorly organized, is not sufficient to win the day.  Institutional America, though holding a small numerical minority, is highly motivated by self-interest, and it is well organized.  For the Right a substantial ray of hope lies in the Tea Party awakening and its allied Tenth Amendment movement.  They are the mechanisms of majority organization, and they are gaining influence on independents, and -- slowly -- on the wobbly Republican establishment, increasingly finding themselves rooted out of their comfort zones.  They have animated the House, less so the senate; but their message is resonating in state and local governments.  The emotional appeal of the Left is being blunted by the spectacular and pernicious failures of policy that adversely affect most Americans at home and abroad.  Those who are outside of institutional America.  Having long languished in the national imagination, ideas of liberty, the rule of law and constitutional small government are gaining currency.  We are approaching a showdown between the self-interest of the institutional minority and that of the country at large.
So now let's return to the debt ceiling impasse.  How will it be resolved?  It seems to me that it is a question of momentum; have the Tea party and populist movements gained sufficient political power to influence Republican law-makers?  If so, by how much?

The Republicans can win this fight, I believe, by putting forth a common-sense proposal and refusing to yield to institutional pressures that will be formidable.  DeMint's "cut, cap and balance" formulation (and litmus test) would seem to fit the requirements: cut spending, cap spending and balance the budget.  If Republicans adopt and hold to this strategy, I think it will shift the political burden of responsibility for the default-Armageddon scenario to the Democrats, who are counting on another Chicken Little panic -- one similar to those created by TARP and Stimulus proponents.

The Democrats, predictably, will trot out the class warfare memes noted in the current president's stunningly inept (uh, uh, I'll just wing it) speech on Wednesday (6/29).  They will solicit tears for the horrors that will surely befall their dependent constituencies -- the poor, minorities, the sick and aging... But this crisis may well be a bridge-too-far; one manufactured crisis too many.
How contest will play out we don't know.  But here are the possibilities as I see them:

1.  The Republicans win.  The economy will improve, the debt will be reduced and in the longer term the budged is balanced.  Conservatives will take enormous heat from the institutional Left who feel the pain of being weaned from the public teat, but, ultimately, it will be seen as a fiscal and political victory for conservatives.
2.  The Democrats will not yield, the debt ceiling is not raised and the Republicans are blamed (again by the institutional Left) for what may turn into a financial debacle much worse for liberal constituencies (and the country at large, given the potential loss of credit rating and effects on the international economy) than measured reductions in spending.  Will the blame rest on conservatives?  I think not, if the Republican alternative is aggressively defended as a reasoned alternative.
3.  The Republican wobblies capitulate and the debt ceiling is raised without significant reductions in taxes and spending.  The consequences -- but in the longer term -- will be the same or worse than those of failing to raise the debt ceiling.  There will likely be a purge of  "moderate" Republicans in a weakened party, and even a possibility that the party will fold.  The Tea Party will gain strength, and conservative reforms will shift to the states, which, for the long-haul, is a good thing; I believe the only thorough reform of the federal government cannot come from within; it has to come from the widespread assertion of state sovereignty through nullification.  That promises the best hope, but it raises the question of whether in response (its power at stake) the federal government is willing to provoke civil war.



------------------------

1.  I tend to agree with them.
2.  "Moderate", translated, means center-Left, which, over the last generation, has become far to the left  of the traditional Democrat center.  Any position not left of the old center is now seen as "extremist".
3.  Here the old satirical song, The Vicar of Bray comes to mind.  The chorus, in a version I prefer to the one referenced:
And this be law that I'll maintain
Until my Dying Day, Sir.
That whatsoever King may reign,
I'll still be the Vicar of Bray, Sir!
4.  What passes for principle among liberals are the Marxist mantras that pander to their collectivist base of useful idiots.