A Tribute to Stephen Sondheim
Last year Stephen Sondheim died and has been hailed as “one of the most important figures in twentieth-century musical theater.” While he had no equal as a lyricist, his musical compositions, with one notable exception, were not particularly memorable. That exception was “Send in the Clowns” the centerpiece of his 1973 musical entitled “A Little Night Music.” In a few short verses the song summarizes the story of two aging thespian whose love for each other failed to reach fruition as they never seemed to be on the same page at the same time(“Me here at last on the ground, you in mid-air”). The standard remedy for a theatrical production in which the principal characters are not connecting and are losing the attention of their audience is to inject a moment of comic relief (i.e., “There ought to be clowns. Send in the clowns.”). This leads the plays protagonists to the painful conclusion that they are the source of their own unhappiness (“Don’t bother [with the clowns], they’re [already] here.”
This song could also describe the current state of the Republican Party which depends heavily on a series of distractions to maintain the interests of its constituents. Like the theatrical careers of Desiree and Fredrik depicted in A Little Night Music, the saga of the modern Republican Party stretches over several decades. As more fully described in Partisan Politics, that saga centers on the relationship between the Party and its wealthy donors whose economic interests have been the Party’s primary focus. Reducing business regulations and cutting the taxes of wealthy individuals; however, is of little interest to the vast majority of the Party’s supporters. To continue their support at the polls the Party has had to find ways to maintain their interests and keep them going to the polls. This has traditionally been accomplished with an assortment of symbolic messages conveying that it is the Republican Party that champions their causes and it is the Democratic Party that threatens their well-being.
While this strategy has worked reasonably well, it hasn’t completely arrested the slow stream of defections of many of the Party’s traditional voters whose economic interests have declined over the years. In response, the Party has both elevated the tenor of its rhetoric and enhanced its efforts to prevent Democrats from improving the lives of the Party’s supporters. These measures reached new heights with the election of Donald Trump who openly embraced the pent-up grievances and prejudices of traditional Republican voters and who vociferously attacked the Democratic Party and its leaders. In doing so he shattered political norms and undermined the very systems of government that had proven successful for over 200 years. Even Trump’s antics, however, did not prevent the loss of the 2020 Presidential election or the Republicans’ disappointing results in the 2022 elections.
This series of losses shattered the Party’s confidence in its leaders as well as its internal discipline. These repercussions were open display last week when House Republicans sought to select a member of their Party to serve as the House’s Speaker. Even though they ultimately succeeded after 15 ballots, in doing so they had to agree upon a panoply of unworkable rule changes and understandings (some of which are apparently so unsettling that they have yet to be disclosed). Now the Party is again doubling down on its distractive antics in an effort to maintain the loyalty and enthusiasm of those supporters who may have become disenchanted by their recent chaotic display .
Leading up to the 2022 elections House Republicans had set out a scorched-earth agenda vowing to impeach President Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and to hold hearings into Anthony Fauci’s perceived role in the creation of the Covid-19 virus. Also in their investigative cross-hairs was Hunter Biden whose laptop had fallen into the hands Republican operatives. There is, of course, little expectation that any of these undertakings will actually succeed in removing anyone from office or even lead to the enactment of any remedial legislation. Nevertheless, they will surely unearth information that will embarrass Democrats and energize Republican voters which will be broadcast repeatedly on Fox News and other right-wing media outlets. Equally important, it will provide Republican legislators with multiple opportunities to appear on those broadcasts.
Also high on the agenda of House Republicans were efforts to reduce the federal budgetary deficits and pare back spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Indeed, for the preceding 100 years Republicans had been demonizing the Democratic Party as the party of “tax and spend.” It’s therefore somewhat embarrassing for them that, among the four Presidents who were largest contributors to our nation’s current $31.4 trillion fiscal deficit, three were Republicans (Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump). It isn’t that these Presidents were such big spenders (although they each pushed our nation’s defense expenditures to new heights); it’s just that they each pushed the Congress to enact large tax cuts. Their actions, however, were not motivated by fiscal conservatism. Rather they were seeking to benefit businesses and business owners who funded the political campaigns of Republican office holders and who could provide those individuals with employment opportunities after they left government service.
While most Republican voters are fiscal conservatives and abhor deficit spending, many of them also rely heavily upon Medicare and Social Security and other social welfare programs. Indeed, an overwhelming number of elderly Republican voterswould not be able to survive were it not for these programs. To sell this bitter pill to their supporters, Republican politicians regularly demonize social welfare programs as wasteful and plagued by fraud and imply that any cuts in those programs will not impact law-abiding citizens. in addition, they characterize these programs as a pathway to “socialism.”
Republicans also vowed to pass federal legislation limiting access to abortions. Of course, no one actually believes that any such bills will be passed in the Senate. More likely, they won’t even be scheduled for a vote and there’s no way that President Biden will sign them even if the Senate did pass them. These efforts were simply intended to reassure evangelical voters that it is Republican, and not Democratic, legislators that have their backs. Still, some might question why Republicans politicians would even want to raise the abortion issue. The polls show that almost two-thirds of American voters have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade and most political pundits credit that decision with having caused the Republicans’ disappointing results in the 2022 elections. This sop to evangelical voters, however, was obviously calculated to divert their attention away from the fiscal issues (discussed below) for which House Republicans were reserving their only form of political leverage.
But even before those elected to serve in the 118th Congress began their efforts to select a Speaker of the House, it was clear that little would be accomplished with a House of Representatives controlled by the Republicans. That was not simply because the Senate and the White House were going to remain in the control of the Democrats or even because the Republicans’ majority in the House was quite small. Rather it was because the Republican Party had become addicted to political theatre and had seemingly lost its will (and/or the ability) to actually address the nation’s problems and govern its resources.
The first act of the Republican House caucus was to adopt a new set of rules governing the actions of the House during the 118th Congress. These rules, which pose a number of obstacles to actually passing legislation. They include among other things:
• No debt ceiling raises can be approved without corresponding cuts in mandatory expenses (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security);
• Tax increases require supermajority (60%) votes;
• Spending bills are subject to unlimited amendments;
• No omnibus bills will be allowed and all bills are to be limited to a single subject;
• The Gephardt Rule (which provides for automatic debt ceiling increases when appropriations were approved) will be rescinded; and
• The Holman Rule (which makes it easier to cut federal agency staffing) will be reinstated.
To render the legislative process even more fraught with obstacles, Speaker McCarthy was forced to allocate three of his Party’s nine members on the powerful Rules Committee to members of the House Freedom (Chaos) Caucus. This is significant because the Rules Committee controls the timing and procedures for the passage of all bills. To ensure that House Speaker McCarthy abides by all of the various rule changes he was forced to accept a further rule was adopted providing that motions to remove the Speaker can be initiated by a single House member.
Of course, few Republican members of the House are actually concerned with passing legislation; they see their role more in terms of blocking legislation advanced by Senate Democrats. The one exception to that is the possibility of attaching amendments to “must pass” bills approved by the Senate Democrats, including bills to raise the debt ceiling and annual appropriation bills. This is where House Republicans are expected to exercise their legislative might. The focus of their efforts will be on their usual targets; i.e., reducing social welfare expenditures and cutting taxes on their donors. These legislative skirmishes are likely to begin soon as Treasury Secretary Yellen has already announced that the nation will reach its debt ceiling this week and that even resorting to extraordinary measures the government can only continue to operate for a few months thereafter without defaulting on its indebtedness.
This is not be the first time that House Republicans have threatened to cause the federal government to default on its obligations in order to secure legislative concessions. They did this three times during the Obama administration and even caused a 16-day shut-down of the government before a fiscal crisis was finally averted. All responsible economists agree that a default on the nation’s debt would be catastrophic, causing the economy to go into a deep recession with massive losses in jobs and devastation in the nation’s financial markets. The problem is that House Speaker McCarthy has essentially abdicated control over his caucus in favor of the Freedom Caucus, a group that is decidedly more interested in wielding power than governing the nation. This means that they are dangerous people to invite to join a weekly poker game, much less to participate in serious fiscal discussions.
The question is who will blink first in this high stakes game of “Chicken.” Will it be the Biden administration whose reputation and existence is contingent upon guiding the nation safely through all crises? Will it be the members of the Freedom Caucus who essentially have little to lose (as they represent safe Congressional Districts) and much to be gained? Or will it be the Republican House members elected in competitive districts who may be rewarded by their constituents for their political courage should they join with House Democrats to pass a “clean” debt-ceiling bill. More likely than not, they will sit tight and not risk being trashed by their Party a la Liz Cheney. This means that the Biden administration will be forced to make some painful concessions with the only question being how high a price will it be willing to pay while keeping in mind that any significant concession will only invite more such hostage-taking.
As noted above, House Republicans will be primarily focused on a multitude of diversionary investigations into a wide variety of subjects. Taking center stage in this political circus will be a new subcommittee within the House Judiciary Committee that will investigate House Republicans’ assertion that the Democrats have “weaponized” the federal government. This subcommittee will be chaired by Representative Jim Jordan and will include eight Republicans, all of whom are to be hand-picked by Jordan. As a part of its work, the subcommittee will be requesting documents and testimony from agencies and individuals within the Biden administration. Owing to the questionable motives of the subcommittee, it is entirely possible that the recipients of these requests may be no more forthcoming than Representative Jordan was in responding to similar requests made to him by the now-disbanded House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack on the Capitol -- which is not at all.
Two important features of this subcommittee stand out. First, it will have a very large budget at its disposal-- one reportedly commensurate with that of the January 6 Select Committee. Second, it will have open-ended jurisdiction to scrutinize any issue related to civil liberties as well as how agencies of the federal government collect, analyze and use information about Americans. In doing it will be empowered to seek access to highly classified information provided by intelligence agencies. Among the particular governmental agencies to be targeted will be the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and (yes) the January 6th Select Committee. This subcommittee will also be authorized to investigate on-going cases such as those involving former President Trump as well potential cases involving some lawmakers who are currently under investigation by the Justice Department. Not surprisingly, some of the individuals who sought pardons from President Trump for their roles in helping him overturn the results of the 2020 election, have asked to serve on this subcommittee. Admittedly, not having a sense of shame is not a disqualification for being elected to the U.S. Congress or for being selected to serve on this subcommittee..
An absence of shame bring us to the curious case of George Santos who has admitted that he “might have embellished” his resume’ when he embarked upon his successful campaign to become a member of the House. Indeed, most of his purported background has been found to be total fabrications. It is not even clear that George Santos is his actual name as he has used several other names including: Anthony Devolder, George Devolder and George Anthony Devolder Santos. In addition, it now seems clear that he may have also committed a number of campaign finance violations making him a veritable walking/talking voter fraud. Despite all of these revelations (not to mention the resignation demands of six Republican members of House), Santos has refused to step down. That decision, however, may not be solely in his control. There are already announced state and federal criminal investigations as well a recently revived criminal proceeding against him in Brazil for writing checks on a stolen checkbook.
Even though Santos’ actions would seemingly warrant a hasty referral to the House Ethics Committee, there is some doubt as to whether the Republicans will even be keeping that committee in operation. This past week House Republicans voted to limit the operations of that committee, a move applauded by Santos. I suppose that in the U.S. Congress (as well as the Supreme Court) ethics has become passe’. In reality, however, referring the matter to the Ethics Committee would be a good way to sidetrack the issue and prolong Santos’ tenure in the House.
For his part, House Speaker McCarthy has stated that he’s not inclined to take action against Santos which he characterized would effectively overrule the decision of the voters in Santos’ district. That would be an understandable position if the decision of the voters had not been tainted by Santos’ own fraud, something that Republican voters and politicians purport to take very seriously. The simple fact is that McCarthy has a very slim margin of control in the House and Santos is a vote he can depend upon making it unlikely that he will take any meaningful action against Santos unless his own caucus forces him to do so.
No. A gaggle of investigations will not help solve the problems which currently beset the Republican Party. Rather, a simple self-examination would be a better prescription. As Sondheim’s song concludes, “Well, maybe next year.”