Lame-Duck-Itis? Or Something More?

Ron Brownstein's at it again this morning, with yet another analysis of moderate politics [see here and here for previous posts on the subject]. In today's LA Times, Brownstein reports/opines that "conflicts are multiplying between congressional Republican moderates and the White House as President Bush pursues his aggresively conservative second-term agenda." Brownstein cites the recent holdup of John Bolton's confirmation as "the latest, and potentially most intense, clash," but adds that "battles over Social Security, Bush's budget proposal and ending the filibuster for judicial nominations also are raising tensions inside the party."

Brownstein says that so far in this Congress, Republican moderates seem "more willing to challenge the administration than during Bush's first term, which was characterized by historic levels of party unity." "During the president's first term," Brownstein says, "the moderates often seemed to speak loudly and carry a small stick, voting for key administration proposals, such as tax cuts, after raising early objections."

I respectfully dissent from Brownstein's assessment of the moderates' role in the first term, at least when it comes to the Senate. Moderate Republicans there even in just the last year and a half or so were responsible for including "pay-as-you-go" provisions in the budget bill [forcing the leadership to make an end run around the budget process so they could continue spending like drunken sailors], keeping ANWR closed to oil drilling, and reaching a compromise that resulted in passage of the 9/11 Commission's reform package.

On what Brownstein calls "key administration proposals" (by which he apparently means the tax cuts) he is correct about their passage, but wrong on the GOP moderates: the 2003 tax cut package for $350 billion passed in the Senate with Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaking vote, and it was only because several Democrats supported the measure that it was a tie at all (Republicans McCain, Snowe and Chafee voted against it). On an earlier tax cut package, Brownstein is correct: the 2001 plan passed 58-33 with only McCain and Chafee voting no on the Republican side (but again, without Democratic support that legislation wouldn't have passed either).

Pardon my quibbling, but I think it's important when looking at Brownstein's overall conclusion, that moderates are speaking up more in this session of Congress than last - it seems to me more that they're just speaking more publicly this session than in recent years. But, if we work with Brownstein's theory, he offers some reasons for what he sees as increased activity recently. Marshall Wittman, aka the Bull Moose, told Brownstein "A lot of the moderates were willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt prior to the election, but now that he's no longer going to be on the ballot, they are putting their own interest somewhat before the White House's." Brownstein also obtained a quote from "a senior White House official," who said "I wouldn't look at it as 'It's every man for himself' because the president has just been reelected. I just think it's a different issue environment and these are tougher issues. It's not hard for a Republican to support a tax cut. But we are getting into issues that are tougher."

I'm not sure it's just "lame-duck-itis," as Wittman put it, but I'm also not convinced it's only the "tougher issues" thing either. I think it's a little bit of both. The issues environment (nuclear option, Bolton, Social Security, etc.) is a much nastier one - foreign policy, tradition and social issues have long been more divisive issues within the GOP than fiscal policy (although that needs to change, and fast, lest we continue ignoring the mounting deficits) - but at the same time, reelection concerns are sure to be a factor for moderates like Chafee, and of course there are the potential presidential aspirations of McCain and Hagel to think about.

Again, though, much of it has to do with the fact that that these more recent challenges are taking place over more hotly-discussed issues than the tax bills were, combined with united Democratic opposition (which Brownstein notes) that was not present during Bush's first term. I suspect this more united front from the minority plays a larger role than Brownstein gives it credit for, even with a larger Republican majority now than during the last few years.

More often this time around I suspect we'll be seeing votes where the minority is united and joined by a few moderate Republicans than the kind of votes like the 2003 tax package, where some from each side split away. This model allows the moderates to function much more effectively and makes compromises likely on issues where the majority doesn't want to lose completely. [Look for this on the big questions of Social Security, hopefully judicial filibusters, and in other areas within the next six months or so, before we get into campaign mode again].

Much of the announced second-term Bush agenda is uncomfortable (to say the least) for the Republican moderates (and judging from the new WP/ABC poll, most of the country as well), and I think Brownstein is correct in his overall assertion that we're going to be hearing much more from them now and on into the future. And if that's the case, this RINO has zero doubt that we'll all end up the better for it.