Did Biden out-negotiate McCarthy?
I’m still trying to get my head around what happened with the debt ceiling.
Is the proposed deal a win for Biden and the Democrats?
The conventional wisdom is that it was. Catherine Rampell argues that the Republicans achieved little in the way of policy that they could not have gotten through the regular budget process. They also failed to take away any of Biden’s signature policy victories.
There are some questions about whether the deal is really such a clear win for the Democrats and how it will interact with budgeting rules this coming fall, but let’s run with this story for a bit. Assume Biden won the negotiation with McCarthy.
This just raises more questions. How did Biden fight off Republican demands for spending cuts, especially given that he signaled uneasiness about using extraordinary measures and that his re-election prospects would probably be damaged if a default hurt the economy?
One possibility is that Biden just outfoxed McCarthy. Well, maybe. Negotiating skill counts for something. But mostly how well you do in a negotiation is determined by the strength of your negotiating position: it is usually better to play a strong hand with middling skill than to try bluffing your way to victory with bad cards. And Biden’s hand seemed weak, given that 1) he appeared reluctant to use unconventional tactics to avoid default, 2) he was running for re-election and his most likely opponent would not be blamed for a damaging default, and 3) he is not a sociopath who is indifferent to the suffering that a default might cause.
It is possible that Biden’s negotiating position was strengthened by the fact that McCarthy knew he would need Democratic votes to get any deal through the House, but this doesn’t obviously account for a deal that is not much better than Republicans could have achieved through the ordinary budget process (again, assuming this for the sake of argument).
Were Republicans just doing Kabuki theater?
Maybe Republicans were highly averse to triggering a default or never expected to gain much from the negotiations. In other words, the entire episode may have been an elaborate piece of political theater. Perhaps it was staged for the benefit of the most extreme House Republicans. Or perhaps it was a charade intended to protect most incumbent Republicans from primary challenges by putting on a show for base voters.
Kabuki and quiet diplomacy
President Biden has avoided publicly claiming victory in the debt negotiations:
“Look, one of the things that I hear some of you guys saying is, ‘Why doesn’t Biden say what a good deal it is?’” Biden said on the South Lawn of the White House. “Why would Biden say what a good deal it is before the vote? You think that’s going to help me get it passed? No. That’s why you guys don’t bargain very well.”
The benefits of public diffidence seem clear in the current situation. The House Republican leadership is whipping votes and needs to be able to claim a victory in private discussions and in the court of public opinion. Having Biden gloating in public would hardly be helpful.
This same logic may have applied during the negotiations themselves, especially if Biden knew or suspected that most Republicans wanted to find a face-saving way to back down. In this case the silent approach would have made sense, not because public appeals by the President never matter, but because keeping quiet made sense in this particular set of circumstances.
On the other hand, if the Republicans were serious about extracting substantive policy concessions from Biden, a more forceful communications strategy by Biden might have been helpful. The purpose would not have been to persuade voters to change their policy preferences, which is difficult to do, but to persuade voters that Biden was in fact supporting the solution that they favored – seeking a reasonable compromise and avoiding a default. Recall that Biden was very successful at getting Republicans to back away from Social Security and Medicare cuts.
Did Republicans establish the legitimacy of debt limit extortion?
Another idea floating around is that Republicans “won” because what they really wanted was to establish the legitimacy of debt limit extortion. I find this implausible. I do not believe that the legitimacy of using the debt limit for leverage can be established once and for all. Even if the circumstances this year would have allowed Biden to stick to his “no negotiation” position (which never seemed plausible to me), this would not establish a precedent that would bind future Presidents or increase their negotiating power when faced with another debt ceiling hostage situation. Today’s Republicans relish blowing up norms and precedents.
All of the above while none of the above plus some of the above is my take. The difference between Star Trek and politics is that in politics the players can survive their failures in the Kobayashi Maru scenario to play again some other day while claiming success to their constituents, as long as they do not claim success too loudly nor prior to the final vote. At Starfleet Academy, then cadets may literally survive in real life but not play the game again unless they fail to graduate and must repeat the class. The beauty of divided government is that no one wins, but everyone can rationalize victory. After all, the only really important win to politicians is the next election. Governing then becomes a perpetual Kobayashi Maru scenario with benefits.
Today my unabridged paperback edition of Gulliver’s Travels will be delivered. I have not reread it since high school (60 years ago). The timeless wisdom of Jonathon Swift is as applicable today as it was 300 years ago.
My PoV is also informed by both TS Eliot’s “Hollow Men” and Robert Frost’s “Fire and Ice”, albeit both subject to the rebuttal “All of the above.” The convergence of nihilism and dystopian exuberance can have vast consequences, albeit that each of the two extremely disparate intentions are entirely unintentional and fully lacking in self-awareness. The road to hell must get paved somehow.
Ron
I think you’re on to something. Keep all that petroleum in the ground where God put it.
Coberly,
As far as that petroleum goes, we may already be approaching the end of significant RoI on that one. There will remain a profitable niche going forwards, but the high volume gambit is nearing its end. The damage has unfortunately already been done, is largely irreversible and worse still will continue to be abetted by a great deal of coal. In the future, then ground rents may rely more on lithium deposits than oil. In any case, the de facto rights of Wall Street arose from the exorbitant privilege that emerged from the Bretton Woods Conference, then solidified into financialization by the capital gains preference for investment returns bolstered by the 1954 tax reform bill, and unleashed by Nixon’s end of currency convertibility. The rights of investment bankers to keep and bear economic rents shall not be infringed. Vehicle manufacturers and energy companies have already gotten the memo.
Ron
wow, you are cheerful this morning.
Yes sir, Coberly. There is so much to be cheerful about.
Ron
I am struggling a bit with cheer myself.
Yes sir, Coberly, but when all else fails as it usually does, then sarcasm is my perpetual source of cheerfulness.
Ron
since we are all going to die anyway, we might as well enjoy the fight.
Ron
yes re all and none and some.
i don’t know about Swift, but i am sure his wisdom is as applicable as it ever was.
worked for the Irish question.
14th Amendment Questions Linger Despite Debt Limit Deal
NY Times – May 31
… The Biden administration has been studying whether it could use the 14th Amendment to circumvent Congress on the basis that it would be a violation of the law for the federal government not to pay its bills on time.
When and how Mr. Biden might try to carry out that legal test could affect how his legislative agenda holds up in a potential second term and how future presidents navigate budget negotiations when a party in the minority appears willing to risk a default.
The Justice Department signaled this week that the Biden administration preferred to keep its legal thinking on the matter private. …
… A White House spokesman declined to comment on how Mr. Biden might test the 14th Amendment question in the aftermath of the debt limit fight. …
In other news…
Chris Christie is getting into the 2024 race (probably).
Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie planning to launch his GOP presidential campaign next week
AP – May 31
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to launch his second campaign for the Republican nomination for president next week in New Hampshire.
Christie is planning to make the announcement at a town hall Tuesday evening at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics, according to a person familiar with his thinking who spoke on condition of anonymity to confirm Christie’s plans.
The timing, which was first reported by Axios, comes after several longtime Christie advisers started a super political action committee to support his expected candidacy. …
… Christie, who is currently polling at the bottom of the pack, also sought the GOP nomination in 2016. Christie dropped out of that race a day after finishing sixth in New Hampshire’s primary.
(Summer & Fall is a good time to be wandering around – campaigning – Up Theah.
Not so much after that Howevah,)
best way to test the fouteenth is to keep it in your pocket until the next time they try it. then be ready to ignore the supreme court. the court we have today is not peole we want making decisions about debt ceiling blckmail.
Not much choice about that. The court won’t take a case unless there is some actual objective dispute that will benefit or damage someone or some entity. As things stand the argument is hypothetical unless the deal fails in Congress.
jackd
i assume that if some president asserts an impending default is unconstitutional and continues to pay the bills, the blackmailers will discover that someone is damaged. and the present supreme court would be likely to agree with them. so best not to let it happen if possible. but if it does, that president needs to be prepared to defy or ignore the court. not sure what happens next.
In short, what you are saying is that whatever the court does will be politically motivated. Likely, but not necessarily true. The court could decide to apply standing rules to deny relief and avoid being held responsible for the economic consequences of a default, for example. Or, it could simply decide to apply the rules because that is the law. The court is clearly concerned about its credibility these days. Ultimately, no-one knows what might happen with the court so a President would have to gird his/her loins, as you state, to ignore a bad result from the court.
Jackd
i am not saying whatever the court does will be politically motivated. i am just saying that given the present Court we can’t count on them not agreeing with the Pressure that default is unconstitutional.
for what it’s worth, I watched Alito give a speech once and concuded he has a personality disorder, which means we can’t count on him to prevent disaster if it conflicts with his strange view of moral reality. i don’t know if that counts as “politically motivated.”
to be honest i don’t know if “personality disorder” means to mental health professionals what i think it means, but from my experience with people in general i’d say that anything i think of as rational thought is fairly uncommon.
” Or, it could simply decide to apply the rules because that is the law. “
i simply do not know what this means. Is it “the law” if it’s unconstitutional? what rules are you talking about?
“avoid being held responsible” is not the job description of the Supreme Court.
i suppose “being concerned about its credibility” is the last real check and balance we have on the supreme court, but that isn’t supposed to be their job either.
Eric:
I believe Kabuki theater is an apt discription of how Repubs have played this . . . “political discourse describing an event characterized more by showmanship than content. McCarthy played the role well in delivery even though he appeared to know the consequences of his actions. He appeared sincere in his approach and demands. I thinl he achieved what he wanted to achieve. We tried, achieved something, and were unable take nore from the tale without hurting ourselves.
The most extreme of Republicans will argue differently, Those Repubs who true to being such are more than likely wiping their brow of the sweat of a collaped economy laid at their feet.
Run
my idea of “seems sincere” requires more than being able to lie with a straight face
Coberly,
By “the law”, I meant the fairly clear precedents on “standing” that the court itself has recently issued. Of course, as the reversal of Roe v. Wade demonstrates, precedents ain’t all they were cracked up to be. The court does seem to have some concern about being “held responsible” even it that’s not its “job”. As Mr. Dooley remarked, “Th’ Supreme Court follows th’ illiction returns.” Recall FDR’s effort to pack the court and the court’s reversal of its rulings against the New Deal. What the court is supposed to be and what it is are not necessarily the same.
Jackd
My comment about the court being held responsible was meant to suggest that the opinion of their peers and respect of the Court was always meant to be the check on their power…even if the Framers didn’t quite realize that’s what they were creating.
I read an essay by Richard Striner in which he quoted Madison as acknowledging that “necessity” could, would, and should (my language) overrule the Supreme Court. Madison was a very smart and learned man, but I have no idea how he expected that to come about, or if he did. Lincoln and Roosevelt had some ideas about that…both of them led to a revolution that they had the political talent to hold in check. Hate to think Trump and the new daze Republicans are showing us another way.
Sometimes Presidents have just ignored the court: Andy Jackson and the trail of tears, Lincoln and Habeas Corpus, and Lincoln in debate with Douglas over whether or not to obey the Dred Scott decision.
“Standing” resulted from Chief Justice Marshall’s early ruling that the court could not give advisory opinions and had to be dealing with an actual dispute in which the plaintiff could show harm or a property interest. The words of the constitution itself do not require this. Of course Marshall also created the court’s power to rule on constitutionality. The constitution itself does not provide this. So, it’s not just a simple matter of interpreting words in a document.
Much of “common law” relating to contracts, torts (liability for injury or property damage), and real estate, among other things is created by courts over time without necessarily involving legislation although legislation can affect it.
So, applying “the law” is often not a simple matter of parsing words of a document.
Jackd
yes, i think i know about all this, so i don’t think we are arguing about anything, except perhaps what we think some third party might think we mean.
Jackson v Court (not a case) was not about trail of tears but about Georgia law prohibiting anyone from being on tribal land without a permit from the state..or something like that.
I assumed [above] that if Pres defied debt ceiling there would be an “actual case”.
The case is Worcester v. Georgia. It had to do with Cherokee tribal rights v. the State of Georgia and definitely lead to the trail of tears. Jackson refused to enforce the court’s order against the state. It’s a complex bit of history, but that’s the gist in my opinion.
close enough for government work.