So just which side is wearing down?

There is now a second, optimistic school of liberal/progressive/Democratic thought on the matter of Republican barbarity. And, no surprise, it is elegantly presented this morning by that indefatigable optimist, E.J. Dionne:

There are, believe it or not, grounds for hoping that the so-called sequester, stupid as it is, might open the way to ending our nation’s budget stalemate.... [T]he strongest reason for hope arise[s] from one of the most basic human responses: exhaustion.

The NY Times editorial board, however, still grips the old standard:

The Republicans have made it clear that the spending fight will never cease ... [and they're] hoping to wear down their opposition with these eternal battles.

Dionne is correct to point to bipartisan exhaustion (e.g., John McCain, "Even we are tired ... of lurching from one cliff to another"), yet the NYT seems more correct in pointing to exhaustion's pronounced imbalance in that bipartisan mix.

Did not the Republican House just yesterday swiftly and undramatically pass a continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown later this month? Yes it did. But it did so only because its CR restructured the Democratically dreaded sequester in ways that pretty much suit Republicans only. So the House CR is a product not of bipartisan exhaustion, but of partisan triumph.

We'll see how crisis-averse House Republicans are after the Democratic Senate refashions the Defense-biased, neediest-crushing CR. I'd wager now, though, that congressional Republicans will indeed avert a shutdown, because Democrats will capitulate in this latest of budget clashes, because Democrats are the exhausted ones while Republicans are merely content.

Why wouldn't they be? The even larger story this week from that old familiar department of 'Well duh' is Republicans' knuckledragging realization that the White House not only demands more revenue but actually welcomes entitlement reforms. (GOP cloakroom: "OK, which of you clowns knew we'd already won and didn't bother telling the rest of us? What do you boys think this budget war is--the Battle of New Orleans?") 

And whoever believes Republicans won't enthusiastically re-rally around the debt limit this summer so as to nail down, if needed, entitlement cuts, as well as to further weigh down Obama's second term with mindless spats and unconscionable blow-ups, well ...

Look, it's who they are. It's why they are. I don't care what McConnell or Boehner says about a deal. They're gonna kill Pop, that's it. That's the key for them.

Dionne et al are excessively bullish on good governance if they really believe congressional Republicans are--courtesy exhaustion--rehabilitating themselves. That sensible path, it seems to me, still awaits; for if nothing else, congressional Republicans still have the 2014 primary gauntlets to run.

Comments

[Peter G]

If you are right about this and Dionne is not, then I'm going to suggest that these primaries are going to be a real humdinger. For nothing breeds "success" like success. By which I mean, obviously, success in achieving your goals and not advancing potentially successful policies as far as governance goes. So I'm guessing what passes for a moderate Republican these days is going to have much to worry about from those farther to the right and poor Mr Rove is going to have a helluva challenge restraining the nuttier impulses on his side of the political spectrum.

[Peter G]

Having now read Dionne's piece I'm going to say that I find it quite persuasive. Sequester cuts affect all districts and all states and the Republicans have just as much to fear from electorate displeasure as the Democrats. But only if they have any sense which pretty much eliminates the tea party crowd. The deal that Obama is offering, which allows the Republicans to touch the progressive's pee pee to their eternal outrage is pretty good bait in my opinion. Why the same people who will argue that deficit reduction in the near term is a foolish policy but will be necessary in the future (every economist worth their salt) will also argue that a technically better inflation index which will make no difference whatsoever in the near term and can easily be changed later, spells doom, I don't know. But it is damn useful in ratcheting up the angst on the left giving cover to the Republicans to make a deal precisely because they get to touch the left's pee pee. This ought to be interesting.

[Robert Lipscomb]

I remain convinced that we are waiting for a pending teutonic plate shift in the electorate. There is no continuim between the two competing political philosophies.

In the short term, the GOP has the easier task - prevent change. That is also the most difficult strategy in the long term because societies evolve and progress.

I have just finished Steven Brill's excellent article about healthcare costs, "Bitte Pill". The single most indisputable fact is that the pre-ObamaCare system was unsustainable. Neither will be the post-ObamaCare system. If true, the most infdefensible strategy is "Do-Nothing".

If conservatives were truly smart instead of simply being clever, they would embrace inevitable change as an opportunity to imbue the change with as much conservatism as possible. Regardless of what position they take, change will come.

It is beyond my abilities to sort out the short-term polictics of balancing the budget. What is clear is that no one wants to tax enough to cover the deficit, and no one wants to cut enough to cover the deficit. That means Obama's position of tax-and-cut is the most likely outcome.

But it might come during Hillary's first term.