"U.S. Republican Party: 'It's Even Worse than It Looks' "

This is a relatively long extract from a much longer transcript of a worthwhile Berkeley initiative:

U.S. Republican Party: "It's Even Worse than It Looks": Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein at U.C. Berkeley on May 18, 2012, by Brad DeLong: Eric Schickler: Welcome everybody to the Institute of Governmental Studies. ... I want to note it’s a really special pleasure to have these two individuals here... Tom Mann and Norman Ornstein play a special role in Washington. They provide the kind of systematic careful analysis that political science prides itself on providing... They are here today to talk about their most recent book,... "It’s Even Worse than It Looks; How the American Constitutional System Collided with the Politics of Extremism."

I am now going to turn it over to Tom and Norman.

Tom Mann: ...We have a severe mismatch. On the one hand we have the political parties of today, which political scientists have studied and characterized as intensely polarized, vehemently oppositional, and—given their strategic focus—inclined to act like they would if in a parliamentary system. But alas, they are working under a separation of power system which over time has evolved in a way that has increased the number of veto points—in particular the routinization of the filibuster... It has changed its character, and made it especially difficult to govern. Our recent experience after the 2008 election shows what happens when you have a parliamentary-like minority, convinced that their only hope is to ensure that the president of the other party is unsuccessful, that he fails, occurring in a time of extraordinary economic crisis.

They planned it, they talked about it, they executed it.

It involves, obviously, opposition, delay, defeat if possible, discrediting if it manages to get through, and something we call a new nullification,: that even if the piece of legislation passes, you can deny its implementation not through legitimate means if you have the power to block appropriations, but to deny the conformation of executives to run the agency even if those nominees are fully qualified. It is as if we are in the pre-Civil War south, where they can choose which laws not to acknowledge as legitimate. ...

Now the GOP is distinctive. We have this mismatch in general, but the asymmetry between the two parties is what contributes overwhelmingly to our dysfunctional politics today.

Over to Norman.

Norman Ornstein: ...as you know, we have devoted a lot of our lives to both trying to explain to a larger public how the governing process is supposed to work, and how it does work. We try to say how to improve the machinery and the institutions so that they work relatively well, or at least better than they have been working. And we have written a lot about these different institutions, and been engaged very much in reform efforts.

This now is different for us. It is different because in those 22 1/2 years we simply haven’t seen it this dysfunctional. We have seen plenty of dysfunction. When you go through two impeachments, the trauma over the Vietnam War, a lot of other difficulties. ... But this is different. We are alarmed by it. We are alarmed by it in addition because the kinds of problems that we face now, both short and long term are extraordinarily challenging. ... You have a political party that has basically decided: “if you want to implement real revolution, you’ve got to spill a lot of blood along the way”. It’s troubling...

I think a good part of the problem is that one side is really trying to encourage that tribalism and make it and us versus them and make it an existential fight. ...

The system doesn’t operate if it doesn’t have vibrant parties that can compete with different world views and butting heads. But it cannot operate if you don’t have something the way the framers designed it, where you can deliberate and reach conclusions to make social change that almost inevitably means dislocation and change for people that will be accepted as legitimate. And that requires building bridges and finding common ground. And that’s not happening now. ...

In the Republican Party,... I do think there is simply a cultural difference. For Republicans, it’s almost more of a religion or a tribal identification than it is for Democrats. ... You look at misbehavior on the part of the leaders of that religion, and you are shocked and dismayed, but you are not leaving your religion. And you are still going to go to church: you just can’t give up something that you held in a lifelong way.

I think Democrats are just different in that front. They don’t have the same discipline. ...

Brad DeLong: But they were not organized enough to pass a carbon tax through reconciliation in February of 2009 and then bargain back in the Senate to cap-and-trade.

Norman Ornstein: Well, you know, let’s remember this is the Democratic Party. Will Rogers said: “I am not a member of any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.” So that’s built into the culture as well. But there is a difference here. I think it’s one of the things—part of our frustrations, I could easily pick out 30 Republicans in the House who are problem solvers, and who would love to be out there working with Democrats--and in some cases they do in committee and sub-committee. Then there are bills which they contributed to, and they have been compromised before they even get to the floor, and they all vote against him. And of course the other part of this is there is no Democratic Club for Growth that says: "We are waiting for you, and if you vote in way that we don’t like, there will be millions in to knock you off in the primary." It happens to Democrats, but nowhere near as significant and the threat is nowhere near as deep.

Brad DeLong: So is the problem that Daily Kos and Netroots Nation are not strong enough?

Norman Ornstein: No, we are not advocating having both parties have an ideological police. ...

Tom Mann: ...many of the groups that have pledges and keep score cards share a broad social, conservative agenda. They do coordinate. But the most consequential pledge by far is the "no new taxes" pledge. Nothing has done more to prevent collaboration on dealing with economic problems than that pledge. It’s not Grover Norquist's fault. He was innovative and creative enough to see an opening after Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 signed those tax increases. He wanted to hold on to the image of the early Reagan, and they worked it very well.

They coordinate very closely with the Club for Growth, and all of the economically-oriented groups on the outside that put enormous pressure on Republicans who are not naturally disposed to sign such a pledge to do so. And it hit a tipping point, where if you are not part of it you are out there alone. And it’s dangerous and it is uncomfortable being in the Republican Party. If I were a dictator and could change one thing, I would get rid of the pledge and any memory of it, and so to try to return people to a time when they could argue about taxes but ... it wasn’t a religion. ...

Brad DeLong: So why aren’t you advocating the rapid destruction of the Republican Party as fast as possible? Why aren’t you telling everyone go out and vote Democrat now, for this is your last chance?

Tom Mann: Anyone who reads the book, you know, well, might draw that influence in the short term. We talk about reining in the outlier party, and the only way the Republican Party will change is when they are embattled. When it looks as if what they were doing consigns them to permanent a minority party status...

Norman Ornstein: I am not with that. I mean this-- if we get identified as people whose goal is to elect democrats then this book goes right into the trash. I guess I wasn’t sort of clear about—what I am saying is one inference to draw from us in the last chapter is you look through this and look at the different dynamics of what could happen is if you agree with the Republicans sort of running of the tracks, then they are going to have to suffer defeat before they change. That’s not the same as going out and saying everyone vote democratic you know....

Tom Mann: ... One thing I want to tell you in response to the article ... is that we have had two very interesting categories of emails that have come in. One is from self-identified Republicans, who were part of the group Norm would like to see more dominant within the party, saying: “Thank God! Someone needs to say it!” But the others are from reporters and major news organizations saying: “You have given us a basis to raise these questions again in our news rooms with editors and producers”. The best of them are deeply frustrated by this. The object is to get the story right, to tell the truth. It’s not to make sure both sides have their voice, for all you have done then is to blur and dumb down the commentary and demobilize the public, because the pubic then has no basis on which to make an intelligent choice.

Norman Ornstein: ... For the mainstream press there is a particular sensitivity to charges of liberal bias. So they have not done their job. We do what we do just to hold them to account. I think you are absolutely right: electoral defeats may not work here. One of the things to keep in mind is if Mitt Romney loses—and he can go all the way over to the far end of the right end of the spectrum in almost everything that he does—the message and theme that will emerge from the right is: “See, we did it again, we picked another moderate ,and we can’t keep making that mistake”. So next time it’s going to be just off the charts. It’s not just need for a defeat. You have to bring back the concept of shame, and really force people into a position where they stop behaving badly. ...