Mugwumpism, 2011-style

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, in a statement:

It is clear that because Senator Reid refuses to make any spending cuts, he instead plans to force a massive future tax hike on families and small business people. In the scope of our debt crisis, if Senator Reid and Sen. Schumer force the government to partially shut down over these sensible spending cuts, Americans will hold them accountable.

In that one sentence I count seven factual errors. That, however, is the least of Cantor's problems. Because an eighth and far more serious error lies in the intro: Mr. Cantor is no longer the House majority leader, he's merely a leader (along with Speaker Boehner) of one ultraconservative faction. His may be the majority faction of the Republican caucus, but the House Republican Party itself is now but an internally warring hybrid, or fragile coalition, of the GOP and, distinctly, the Tea Party.

Sen. Chuck Schumer smartly sees the wedge:

The problem is a large percentage of those in his party think compromise is a dirty word. So the Speaker’s going to have to make a choice. He can cater to the Tea Party element ... that will inevitably cause a shutdown on April 8. Or he can abandon the Tea Party and these negotiations and forge a consensus among more moderate Republicans and a group of Democrats.

Forget the old divisions between social conservatives and (socially liberal) neoconservatives, or earlier, Republican isolationists versus Republican internationalists. This is instead the stuff of good old 19th-century Mugwumpism (the act of reformist GOPers aligning with Democrat Grover Cleveland), except in this go-around, the Mugwumps -- roughly, the comparative moderates -- won't be bolting their party, just solidifying it by either jettisoning the tea partiers or watching the tea partiers self-jettison into the obscurity of third-party status.

That, anyway, is the transcendent hope.

Comments

[majii]

I don't think that either Boehner or Cantor has the political will to oppose the tea partiers inside, or outside, of Congress. If they alienate the tea partiers, they know they could be reducing their chances to take control of both houses of Congress in 2012. This is a result of the republicans' own actions in pandering to them in order to gain control of Congress in the midterms. They're not behaving as seasoned politicians who know what has/needs to be done. With this statement Cantor seems to be abdicating his and Boehner's leadership roles in the House and blaming their inability to corral the members of their own caucus on the democrats. Senator Schumer has correctly identified Boehner and Cantor's problem. Steve Benen puts the possibility of a government shutdown at 85%, and I tend to agree with him.

[Billy B]

In the scope of our debt crisis

Pray tell, who caused this debt crisis, Eric?

[Robert Lipscomb]

One of the most difficult things in life is changing paradigms. The Tea Party is working under the paradigm that the 2010 elections gave Republicans control over all governments and the Tea Party control over the Republicans. neither is true.

This is similar to 2008, when many of us progressives and ultra-liberals thought the same thing. Finding out the difference was painful to many. The Tea Party showed up angry and ready for war. My guess is that will have their war.

I am not sure on whose side Boehner and company will fight. They will try to get the Democrats and Tea Partiers to fight each other, while they sit on the side.

Obama will not let them.

[Marc McKenzie]

@Robert:

"Obama will not let them."

One can hope, Robert. One can hope.

Personally, I'm just glad we have a President who understands pragmatism and nuance and isn't interested in trying to show the world how big his johnson is.

[Robert Lipscomb]

@Marc:

During his first two years, Obama was not in nearly as strong of a position to promote a "pure" progressive agenda as many progressives believed. Conversely, Obama is in an exceptionally strong position for conducting a defensive action. He has a veto and a Democrat senate to stop anything akin to a Tea Party agenda.

There is one aspect of the current Republican strategy that remains unremarked. The Republicans have changed the subject from jobs to the deficit. Jobs is the real Achilles heal for Obama. The deficit boxes the Republicans into either a do-nothing position or making very unpopular recomendations (slashing services or increasing taxes). Oddly, the do-nothing position works for Obama who can rightly respond, "You brought it up. What is your idea?"

This seems to be a supremely stupid strategic blunder by the Republicans.

[janicket]

Ah, Robert, but with the employment picture brightening recently, the jobs attack is losing steam. If the economy continues its unhappily slow but nevertheless steady recovery (always an "if" subject to events, alas) it will be nearly fangless by Election Day.

Then too, since the entirety of the Republican agenda seems devoted to policies that will cripple or even kill recovery and job creation, we (or I at least) appear to be left with two possibilities: (1) They don't actually have any ideas for creating jobs beyond their cut-taxes shibboleth; or (2) they actually want the economy to stagger and lurch and crush job creation so as to keep the populace angry, afraid, and looking for BiGOP Daddy to save them.