Right now we are seeing an eerie parallel between the looming shutdown of the federal government and the ongoing impasse between Gov. Brown and Republican legislators in resolving California’s budget situation. If we look closely at the events unfolding in both D.C. and Sacramento, we see quite a few similarities...
1) In both the federal budget battle and the California budget battle, Democrats have already agreed to significant cuts that they would generally prefer not to support. At the federal level, Democrats have agreed to cut about $30 billion from the budget, while at the state level Gov. Brown already signed about $10 billion of cuts that were passed by legislative Democrats.
2) Also, in both cases, negotiations lasted right up until previously set deadlines… and then continued beyond them. Here in California, Gov. Brown’s original deadline of March 10th (which was 60 days after his State of the Union speech) passed with only a hint of optimism before negotiations between the two sides ended altogether a few weeks later. Meanwhile, the federal government has been operating via “continuing resolutions” – there have been more than six already, with the current one set to expire tomorrow, April 8th.
3) In both D.C. and Sacramento, Republicans are hesitant to pull the trigger on any deal that includes revenue increases or insufficient cuts, for fear of angering their base – especially the Tea Party members – who could defeat them in a Republican primary election if they are perceived as not being committed to fiscally conservative principles.
When you consider the first point (that Democrats are already making cuts) and the last point (that Republicans have been unwilling to compromise at all so far), it brings home just how far the current political environment has tilted toward the right. Democrats are not afraid of being punished by their base for making what are in many cases very unpleasant decisions, yet Republicans are so terrified that they cannot make even minor concessions.
In a nutshell, the Tea Party is seen as a credible threat. And the progressive left is not.
Anyone can make a threat (i.e. “We won’t vote for you unless you adhere to our agenda”) but it’s only effective in achieving desired outcomes if it is perceived as being credible. Those on the left who are frustrated with their elected representatives for not standing up to Republicans and for compromising too much are basically taken for granted by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. The Democratic politicians are not afraid of their base in the same way Republican politicians are today.
The 2010 election cycle saw so many Tea Party challenges to sitting Republican incumbents and establishment candidates that it has made them very sensitive to the demands of the Tea Party.
It’s also true that voters on the left are more open to compromise than those on the right. Ezra Klein wrote today about an NBC/WSJ poll showing this distinction. In the poll, which asked voters about the federal budget impasse, Democratic voters and Independent voters overwhelmingly said that leaders from both sides should compromise on the budget. However, Republican voters said that Republican leaders should not compromise.
When that is the direction of sentiment within your own party’s base, it is hard to bite the bullet and make a deal.
In this way, the Tea Party actually benefits from being viewed as extreme and a little bit crazy. By appearing to have no concern for a government shutdown, and by rabidly demanding cuts that seem radical if not completely insane (ex: one Tea Party-backed Senate candidate proposed eliminating the Department of Education), the Tea Party has made everyone believe that they will not accept compromise. Their threats are credible because they themselves appear incapable of considering nuanced arguments or normal negotiations.
This is more or less the same dynamic that is playing out in California. The extremists within the California Republican Party have made it clear that any Republican politician who offers support for even the simple idea of putting tax extensions on the ballot will be punished.
Perhaps the only difference is that Democratic politicians in California are a lot less likely to ignore the concerns of their base voters than their Washington, D.C., counterparts – because, unlike at the national level, state-level Democrats received a broad mandate for their agenda in 2010.
If Democratic constituencies here in the Golden State can capitalize on that, they may be able to match the Tea Party in influencing the resolution of our state’s budget mess.
One thing is for sure… the ones who prevail will probably be those who pose a credible threat.
~ Crossposted at www.CapInsider.com ~