It's Deja Vu All Over Again

Government Shut-down Dangerous for Republicans

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”  – George Santayana, 1863-1952.

The mantra that smaller government is better government resonates among a certain percentage of the population, and it has been repeated as gospel since Saint Ronald Reagan’s successful campaign for the presidency. (The people who do so ignore the fact that Reagan did nothing to reduce the size of the federal government.)

Support for reducing the size of the government evaporates when that government is shut down. We saw that happen in 1995, when an impasse between the two political parties in Congress resulted in such a shut-down. It wasn’t that long ago, but many seem to have forgotten it. Republicans forget it at their peril, and I’m delighted.

Bill Clinton had been elected president in 1992 by a healthy margin over incumbent President George H.W. Bush and independent spoiler Ross Perot. The Democratic Senate majority was increased by one to 57; the Democratic majority in the House was reduced by nine members, but was still a healthy 258 to 176.

The pendulum swung the other way in the 1994 mid-term elections. The Democrats lost a net nine seats in the Senate and the Republicans took over with a slim 52 to 48 majority. The House did even better, with the GOP getting a 230 to 204 majority.

Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who became the new speaker of the House, and several of his colleagues had captured the votes of a significant portion of the electorate by offering a “Contract with America” in which they promised to make several changes in the way Congress conducted its business. (If you’ve forgotten what those changes were, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America.)

Despite their fragile majorities, the Republicans arrived in Washington in January, 1995, ready to “kick butt and take names.” Does this sound familiar? It should. They were still full of vim and vinegar in November, when a continuing resolution to increase the federal deficit was about to expire, demanding that President Clinton agree to certain budget cuts or face a shut-down in non-essential government operations. It was widely described as a game of “Chicken.”

Neither side blinked, the government went into shut-down, and most voters blamed the Republicans. They didn’t like the results, temporary as they were. Their neighbors who worked for the government were furloughed without pay. It was always hard to reach the Social Security Administration, but now it was impossible. National parks were locked up. Passport and visa applications weren’t processed. Veterans’ health services were stopped. Even when the impasse ended, there were long-term residual effects. The economy suffered, and lots of people were mad. And they weren’t mad at the Democrats.

As I have been writing this I have been listening to the last day of debate about the current budget in the U.S. Senate. There seems to be agreement about numbers, but the big issue remaining is whether to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. Republican senators keep saying it’s about spending, but apparently it’s more about the usual partisan social issues. We’ll have to see whether the majority of voters will appreciate this recalcitrance. Remember that this is only about spending for the rest of the current fiscal year, which ends September 30th. The real fight is about next year’s budget, and that has yet to commence.

The founders of this country put together a remarkable combination of institutions to share political power. We tend to think of those founders as wise and detached, but the Constitution they created was the result of knock-down, drag-out battles with strong emotions on all sides. The document they drafted insured that such infighting would continue forever.

The House of Representatives is the institution that most closely reflects the whims of the electorate. It’s where the newest fashions are tried on, and we all know how permanent fashions tend to be. House members may all be sporting top hats or kaftans or bola ties or bare midriffs, but Senators stick with their dark suits and wide ties. Only if the new fashion displays some permanence will they gradually follow suit. (No apologies for the pun.)

Will bare midriffs still be fashionable in 2012? We will soon know. Will voters fondly remember the federal shut-down of April, 2011? We’ll know that, too.

As I write this, only a few hours remain before this shut-down occurs or is prevented. I don’t think the Republican Party will gain in either case.