Mitch McConnell: The Hell With The Economy
Over at Political Wire, Taegan Goddard has this truly extraordinary...and scary as hell...quote from an interview with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell(KY) by National Journal. NJ asked McConnell about his goal for Republicans retaking the Senate:
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
This is either one of the most off-message quotes in U.S. political history or one of the most important indications of what's really ahead over the next two years. My guess is that it's the latter. McConnell is saying that it's not the economy, jobs, lowering the deficit, or any of the other issues on which the GOP has been campaigning: it's winning at the next election. Admittedly I'm reading into this, but it seems as if McConnell is saying that if the GOP can prevent anything from being accomplished over the next two year, if he can keep economy in the doldrums, and if he can blame the White House for it all, he will have succeeded.
Silly me: I thought you want to get elected to office because you want to govern.
Repeat after me: gridlock, stalemate, shutdowns; gridlock, stalemate, shutdowns; gridlock, stalemate...
Where I come from, that's "To
Where I come from, that's "To hell with..." Either way, I get the feeling we are all in that there hand-basket now.
Congress has heard for years
Congress has heard for years that management of the economy is best left up to the Fed. Ideologues take this to heart and truly believe in their hearts that fiscal policy can do nothing to help the economy or create jobs.
We hear that all the time in their rhetoric. People who should know better will often dismiss it and figure, that they don't really mean it. They do really mean it. They do really believe it. They do really believe that Austerity is the way forward. Rational arguments will not work because it is a belief, not a point of discussion.
You Shouldn't Have to Guess
"This is either one of the most off-message quotes in U.S. political history or one of the most important indications of what's really ahead over the next two years. My guess is that it's the latter."
No guessing required: for the past two years, Republican policies have been pushed (RomneyCare, "stimulus" that was largely retroactive tax breaks). And no one from the McConnell side has come on board.
Your final scenario is the optimistic version. Find the things that Pete Davis and I both agree are Bad Ideas--e.g., "Dividend Repatriation"--and expect them to pass.
While credit gets tighter and opportunities dim. Though the meth labs that are a major source of KY's cashflow will probably grow.
I don't think that you're
I don't think that you're reading too much into McConnell's statement, but that you're reading into it from the wrong direction. Sometimes I think that we don't give politicians credit (or, depending on your view, fault them) for what could be thought of as honest self-righteousness and sanctimony. If I honestly believe that a) I, and ONLY I (or my party), have a slate of policies that will improve the lives of a given constituency and b) that in order to enact those polices that I/my party have to hold certain offices, why wouldn't you expect my number one priority to be winning those offices that I need in order to put my policies into place? Viewed in this light, McConnell appears more politically chauvinistic than callous and malicious.
It's important to keep in mind that for many partisans these days, everything they need to know about any policy proposal can be determined from the party affiliation of the person who makes the proposal. Even if this strikes you as moronically prejudicial, that doesn't make it any less real.
McConnell's (likely sincere, even if likely misguided) conviction that only Republican policies can save the United States will drive him to do whatever is necessary to put people in place who will enact those policies. And in the meantime, he will marshal all of the opposition he can to Democratic policies, which he understands to be harmful, or at least woefully ineffective) due to the simple fact that they are advanced and supported by Democrats.
Expect more of the same when Republicans run the show.
I don't think you're going
I don't think you're going far enough because you're not adequately distinguishing between politics and policy. Congress is a marketing-driven operation.
No one in Congress has been legitimately interested in *policy* for a decade or more, they simply respond to polling data to develop simple, coherent language and "product" positioning that will curry favor with the electorate while they, as part of a separate process, craft legislation to curry favor with donors.
As for the Republican party as a whole, their goal is to utterly destroy the Democratic party through whatever means necessary, whether it's by using policy tools to cut off their funding sources, demonizing them with propaganda, fracturing their voter/interest group coalitions by siphoning off key constituencies, etc.
It's a war that the Democrats will never win, because their leaders are mostly clumsy academics with no experience running businesses, developing and executing strategies, running marketing campaigns, or enforcing discipline and accountability in hierarchical, top down organizations.
You are too cynical
The Republicans can't talk seriously about policy because their policies are designed to benefit the wealthiest Americans, which excludes most voters. So look at a Democrat like Rush Holt, Is science education the sort of hot-button issue that a political consultant would tell you you need to talk about to win voters? I don't think so. As a rough proxy, 2 out of 13 Representatives from New Jersey co-sponsored the 2010 reauthorization of the America COMPETES act. Rush Holt's campaign includes Holt's support of science education as one of th reasons to support Rush Holt, so it seems safe to say that he expects to get a few votes from the issue. But surely there are other many other issues that would work as well or better for getting votes. It seems to me that the most reasonable interpretation is that Rush Holt supports science education because he thinks that that is good policy.
It is really silly to be
It is really silly to be elected as a member of congress only to keep all the time criticizing the government of Obama, when the economic crisis the country is enduring was originated in the wild capitalistic policies of George W.Bush.If a people`s representative were to fulfill his obligations,he(she) should be giving support to the proposals that are convenient for the country, and would oppose with right arguments those that were against the interest of the majority of the population in the country.However, the way the republicans are behaving these days, is as if they were the enemies of the majority and the defenders of the Multinationals and the rich people that have everything they need and they want.So the people should punish such a behaviour.
Is this politics or football?
Is this politics or football?
McConnell would just say that
McConnell would just say that keeping Obama a one-term president MEANS higher job growth, lower deficits, etc. Winning the 2012 election is the way that happens.
How does that sound?
You presume too much
How do you know that Mitch McConnell doesn't think that the *best* way to improve the US job market, economy and deficits is to get Obama out of office?
In fact, that's almost certainly what he does think.
You don't seem to have any problem with Obama saying nearly every day that the Republicans are solely to blame for the US economy and unemployment, which "forced" him to spend so much, but when Republicans merely *imply* the same, you have a fit.
Double standards, anyone?
Perhaps, but what about the next two years?
Perhaps McConnell believes that, but what does the 2012 election have to do with the NEXT TWO YEARS? He's clearly indicating that he sees two more years of economic decline as his party's best chance of success. In other words, for McConnell to win, THE REST OF US HAVE TO LOSE. He's not offering any substantive policy proposals, just promising to make sure that anything that *might* help the economy and the American people will be 100% opposed by him and his party.
Why does Mitch McConnell hate America?
Where have you been for the
Where have you been for the last few years?
Politics is not about governing; it is about securing your own personal future as a politician. You do that, very simply, by voting in the correct way to get "contributions"* so you can buy your re-elections.
*known as 'bribes' in the rest of the world.
Shutdowns and aggregate demand
Just finished going through the annual review cycle. Many of my federal staffers are expecting a shutdown. Most are getting even tighter with their purse strings. Although one sold his house and then--bought a move up house!!!!!
So much for federal pay being a counter-cyclical source of demand.
But Mitch McConnell does care
But Mitch McConnell does care about his constituents: The top 0.5% of the country's population. Of course, none of them actually live in Kentucky, so he's free to say whatever he pleases. When you view his actions through the sociopathic lens of "Caring for the super-wealthy," everything he does makes total sense.
His statements and policies directly push the majority of this country towards living off cat food, but at least there won't be gays in the military.