Why Republicans Let Trump Tank The Economy
Thursday mailbag: Debt limit ... Van Hollen ... Raskin
Thanks again for your questions, readers. Please keep ‘em coming. And by all means feel free to ask about more than just politics and the news. Movies, books, travel, trivia, whatever. With a few days of lead time, I can even run down answers to questions that stump me. (Oh, and speaking of travel, I’ll be in Lisbon in late May, early June, and would appreciate your recommendations.)
Kathy Davis: Can you explain why GOP reps appear willing to let Trump tank the global economy? This is insane to me
I think it’s principally four things, the last three of which apply in some measure to Trump’s blindsided Wall Street/Silicon Valley/business lobby supporters, too:
Political fear. Most elected Republicans represent uncompetitive districts, which means keeping their sinecures is a simple matter of not getting on the wrong side of Republican primary voters (which is to say, Trump superfans). Even swing-district Republicans don’t feel free to challenge Trump, because Trump has proved willing to unseat frontline Republicans, even if MAGA primary winners in purple states and districts are likely to lose their general elections.
Physical fear. Same thing happened when they knew they should impeach and convict Trump after the January 6 insurrection. Some of them explained themselves by saying, in so many words, “I have kids,” or “I have a family to think of.” They know that opposing Trump frontally is an invitation to harassment, death threats, and perhaps even violence.
Owning the libs. Intervening to stop Trump means partnering with liberals, giving liberals a “scalp,” and effectively admitting that liberals were correct about something. It’s hard to overstate how unwilling most Republicans are to do this—the opinion makers that shape their culture have poisoned most Republicans against liberals and Democrats beyond any reason. They feel deep hatred and contempt for people to their left and would let the world burn rather than team up with the opposition to save it.
They want those tax cuts. They know Trump has fucked up real bad, that they made a bad bet, that he’s cost them more in lost wealth than they’ll recoup in tax cuts. But they still want those tax cuts! And they may be telling themselves that the tax cuts will outlast the downturn. It’s kind of interesting to think ahead to what happens once they pass (or fail to pass) their reconciliation bill, and the money-people feel they don’t need Trump anymore.
Bottom line is we need to make it clear to as much of the population as possible that while Trump started the world’s stupidest trade war, Republicans in Congress could’ve brought it to an end at any time, but have refused to. They’ll be on the ballot again, and well before the next presidential election.
Patt: Somehow, elected republicans need to be scared enough about their re-elections to break with trump. I don't know how they get to that place. Sen. Barry Goldwater and Rep. John Rhodes were the ones who talked Nixon into resigning rather than being impeached. This time there are no Republican heroes.
I don't know how all this will end, but I know that America cannot withstand this stress test for another 3 1/2 years.
Something I’ve been telling my (increasingly concerned) friends who aren’t political junkies is that the status quo of the past 100 days is not sustainable. Something will break one way or another. Either Trump will do so much damage that his administration will end unexpectedly early, or he’ll consolidate power and we’ll live in a dictatorship, or, humiliated, he’ll retreat tactically to a toxic but survivable equilibrium, like the one that marked most of his first term. In the past week or so I think we’ve seen evidence that outcomes one and three are more likely than two. His approval ratings are abysmal and falling. His top campaign donor has, through his alliance with MAGA, all but destroyed his main source of wealth. He’s beset by scandal and failure. He’s backing down on many fronts. Nodes of opposition are joining forces. It’s true that we see no evidence of a GOP rebellion, and that betting on rebellion has been a big loser for almost a decade now. But predictions are hard, especially about the future. Yes, Nixon eventually had to resign, but Republicans held out for two years. They’re much better equipped to weather a partisan storm today, but Trump has never had to survive politically when the public has finally recognized that he’s not some uniquely talented steward of the economy.
Colin Chaudhuri: I have to challenge you on the "debt limit". Just a no no no no on mucking with this. I said this under Obama, I said this under Trump I and I will say this under Trump II; the debt limit should be eliminated full stop. It's a complete anachronism that is the ultimate "chekov's gun" this side of nuclear weapons. Speaking of which, using the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool is not that far off of saying we should have a "WarGames" style nuclear crisis every 6 months as a way to get a few pretty minor concessions. I'm sorry, you don't want to keep playing games with the debt limit when the tail risk involves possible complete economic catastrophe. As much as I "trust" Democrats to never actually push us to the brink, as Congressional GOP gets more and more Trumpy as the few remaining "normal" Republicans get primaried, you really trust these psychos to not actually "hit the red button?" Even the normal ones are clearly having their brains fried by Fox News in Newsmax in to believing insane stuff about vaccines and trade (Seriously look at polling). You think these people really understand why going into default by accident would be a catastrophe?
My view for years and years, from 2011 through Donald Trump’s first presidency, was that Democrats should not hold the debt limit hostage, turnabout style, seeking partisan ransoms from Republican presidents, but that they should condition their votes on abolishing the debt limit (or raising it to Graham’s number or some such). The idea was: There can’t be two sets of rules, but at the same time the single rule can’t be that both parties extort each other when out of power, with the global economy hanging in the balance.
So: free the hostage permanently. And if that’s where we end up in a couple months, I’d have to make my peace with it.
But circumstances are different now:
Republicans have unlocked the reconciliation process. They can increase the debt limit on their own, no filibuster. If they can’t, then they’ll have to ask Democrats for help, and Democrats will be well positioned to make germane demands.
Trump is governing in completely lawless ways, outside the Constitution. He needs to be reined in. Maybe that means no debt limit votes unless/until Republicans vote up or down on Trump’s DOGE impoundments, and Trump undoes any cuts and firings that Congress doesn’t codify.
Alternatively Democrats can offer to suspend the debt limit for brief intervals, to keep Trump on a short leash. Not to be too dramatic about it, and not that I take for granted that Trump will ever consolidate unchecked power, but we shouldn’t lie to ourselves about the fact that a fully fascist America would be one of the most dangerous states to ever menace the Earth. At that point, we’d have to shift our strategic and moral efforts away from resisting Trump per se, toward efforts to weaken or collapse the U.S. government. (Sorry to be a downer!) For that reason alone I’d rather play hardball with the debt limit now than give Trump yet another enabling blank check and hope he self-destructs.
Joseph Kay: The GOP is pitching this as Democrats caring more about some violent illegal alien gang member than about issues facing Americans. Newsom is buying it, and as usual Democratic messaging pushback is almost not to be seen. I'm agnostic about who Abrego Garcia is as a person. This isn't about Abrego Garcia, it's about whether we want a government that can pull anyone's dad or kid off the street into an unmarked van and disappear them. If the Democrats can't work with this material, good lord are we sunk. Yes, the GOP will make your food & clothes cost more, and yes the GOP wants a police state where they can erase your loved ones from the earth on a whim. What, is that TOO strong of a critique?
And much respect for Van Hollen for doing what he did, but: "... anyone who can’t stand up for the Constitution and the right of due process doesn’t deserve to lead."??? This is the ringing message for the people? How about, say, "This is a test by the GOP. If they can disappear Abrego Garcia without rule of law, they can disappear anyone who criticizes their regime, honest, hardworking citizen or not." Or certainly something better than that. Why do Democrats suck so bad at messaging?
I actually think the Democrats who have chosen to stand up to Trump have messaged pretty well. Van Hollen’s pushback was fine, and that’s not the only thing he’s said about the issue. There’s a book-length answer to the question, “why do Democrats suck so bad at messaging?” but the mailbag-length answer is that too many of them (including the leaders) are poll-driven rather than poll-informed. If you’re poll driven, then you ignore visceral outrages—unless polling happens to be on your side. You’re basically chickenshit. You dismiss all controversies as distractions and pivot to kitchen-table issues, which always poll well, because nobody feels weird telling pollsters or focus group leaders that they care about high-minded, antiseptic things. If you’re poll-informed, by contrast, you can follow your righteous passion, and use polls as guardrails. I suspect polls would say Dems are better off at this juncture attacking Republicans for burning our rights to the ground and using the Constitution as toilet paper than they would be reciting Emma Lazarus. And if that’s the case, they should stick with the former for now. But in either case they’d be speaking from the heart about a morally compelling issue, and getting attention for it.
David Cohen: Would love to hear your thoughts on the notion that Democrats need to start talking about holding people responsible for illegal actions when they regain power.
Don’t think I’ve heard this from a single Dem leader, let alone rank and file members.
It seems to me that there’s a fever of inevitabilitly around Trump becoming a totalitarian autocrat. Being clear about future accountability would remind elected Republicans, civil servants, and civil society that they are part of a system with swings in power, and they cannot disregard the possibility of being held accountable at some point.
So glad you asked. I obviously would love to see more Dems push back in this way, but for now at least, most of the pushback will come from outside the party: protesters, activists, civil society.
I see my old boss
is actively working to create what he calls DOJ In Exile, which, if it gets off the ground, will be a well-financed, independent organization comprising former prosecutors and other lawyers amassing public evidence of the sort that, in an uncorrupted DOJ, would serve as predicate to open real criminal investigations. They would work these “cases” until such time as DOJ is revived as a blind law-enforcement entity, under a Dem-appointed attorney general, at which point they could just hand over their files, giving the reconstituted DOJ a head start. I see it as a testament to how dire the crisis is, and how out to sea Democratic officialdom is, that Josh has taken this upon himself. Suffice it to say, TPM editors didn’t take on projects like this when I worked there, but I’m glad he’s doing it.To succeed in the long-run, I think DOJ in Exile should operate in parallel with two other unrealized projects. First, a standing advocacy campaign to amend the pardon power. I don’t suspect that we’re months or even years away from amending the constitution (though, see above about predictions being hard) but it’s plainly the case that all or nearly all of DOJ in Exile’s hard work can be rendered obsolete at 11:59 a.m. on January 20, 2029 if Trump issues enough pardons. There’s so much lawbreaking going on that I don’t think he’d be able to cover everything—he probably doesn’t know everything. And some of that investigative work might turn out to be of use to state prosecutors. But the most flagrant and corrosive federal crimes will be pardoned, unless he’s stripped of the power, or unless there’s a huge public uprising against the very idea that he’d pardon these offenses.
Second, we need a pressure group to ensure that Democrats in Congress don’t once again abdicate their oversight powers if they win the midterms, and that the next Democratic president doesn’t repeat the Obama mistake of refusing to look backward, or the Biden mistake of appointing a squishy attorney general. Kind of like a Grover Norquist outfit, but for committing Dems to oversight, rather than committing Republicans to tax cuts. Make candidates and members sign a pledge. Make Jason Crow, who’s leading candidate recruitment for House Dems, hum a different tune about oversight.
Elected Dems aren’t sitting this out entirely. Jamie Raskin in particular has flexed his muscle at both Nayib Bukele and the law firms that capitulated to Trump. But as you suggest, they aren’t exactly salivating for an accountability fight with Trump just yet, and that has to change.