The "They're All Bums" Reaction To The Shut Down Is Off-Base

A few days ago, when Blue America set up an ActBlue page for endangered progressive incumbents in the House, we only found two worthy of endorsing, at least so far. One is our old friend, Carol Shea-Porter, a principled grassroots activist in New Hampshire's swing district. NH-01 has a PVI of R+1 and Shea-Porter has stuck to her guns and voted in accord with her promises to New Hampshire voters when she ran for election. The other New Hampshire district, NH-02, is a blue district (PVI is D+2) represented by New Dem Anne Kuster, who has voted frequently with the Republicans against the principles and values she espoused when she ran.

This weekend, Congresswoman Shea-Porter, shared an editorial in USAToday with her constituents.

As the government shutdown loomed, many Americans did what comes naturally in matters regarding Washington: They ignored it.



Now that the shutdown has happened, many people are inclined toward a second default position: Blame everyone.



Both positions fit the dismally low view that Americans have of government in general, and Congress in particular.



In this case, however, the "they're all bums" reaction is off-base. This shutdown, the first in 17 years, isn't the result of two parties acting equally irresponsibly. It is the product of an increasingly radicalized Republican Party, controlled by a disaffected base that demands legislative hostage-taking in an effort to get what it has not been able to attain by the usual means: winning elections.



Call it the Tea Party shutdown. The group will wear the badge proudly.



Pressed by this uncompromising fringe, Republicans leaders in the House are making demands that are both preposterous and largely unrelated to budgetary matters in return for keeping government running. Most absurdly, they want President Obama to undermine the health care law that he ran on in 2008 and 2012, and now considers his signature domestic accomplishment.





No president of either party could accept that kind of badgering. No president should.



House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, knows this. He's ordinarily a pragmatist. He knows that Republicans, controlling only one chamber of Congress, have no mandate. He also saw what happened to his party the last time it forced a shutdown, in the mid-1990s, when Newt Gingrich was speaker. The public rebelled, and Gingrich backed down. But the Tea Party's tactics have traction, and now Boehner is trapped.



With outside interest groups threatening primary challenges to lawmakers deemed insufficiently conservative, he'll be punished for compromising. But if the shutdown lasts long enough to slow the economy or, worse, if it is prelude to the country defaulting on its debt-- the next threat on the GOP agenda-- the party is likely to pay dearly because the public will pay dearly.



The question for the GOP now is how its more mainstream elements can regain control. Somehow, the party needs to get back to the model of Ronald Reagan, who was plenty conservative but understood that leadership is less about issuing ultimatums than about offering a compelling vision and working patiently to achieve it.



More immediately, the party needs to get out of the hole it is digging for itself and the nation. That will require Boehner to allow the House to vote on a bill to fund the government without any Obamacare amendments. Such a measure would likely pass with votes from Democrats and pragmatic Republicans, ending the shutdown and leaving Obamacare to succeed or fail on its own.



Yes, that would be a tough call for Boehner, but he has allowed several measures to pass without backing from a majority of Republicans, including last year's "fiscal cliff" deal and aid for Hurricane Sandy victims.



Whether and when Boehner will permit such a vote remains to be seen, but as the shutdown drags on and the toll on the economy mounts, the public will have little trouble seeing where the blame is properly laid.

Which brings to mind the obvious conclusion: should Boehner be replaced by a Republican who can play a constructive role in governance?