Republicans, Democrats Revert to Form, Part of the Static Face of Change in Washington

This being the year of Lincoln, ask yourself: How would today's congressional leaders have reacted to a nation on the brink of Civil War? Contemporary Republicans would argue that tax cuts would be the best chance to alleviate the stresses threatening to tear the nation apart and that above all we should avoid too much growth of the federal government. Today's Democrats would probably counter with a big package of assorted spending proposals (many of them laudable), some of which might be directly related to averting the crisis. Civil War could mean fewer jobs, they might say, so we'd better extend jobless benefits.

Washington sometimes reminds me of a Disney ride gone off its rails, with animatronic characters trotting out their same lines regardless of what is going on around them. We are by all accounts experiencing a historic financial collapse, and yet Washington and its characters trundle along their well-worn grooves, trotting out the same talking points and proposals to solve new problems. Take the GOP, whose rote reactions have become cut (taxes, regulations, spending) and, occasionally, invade.

Faced with a free-falling financial system, they dusted off various packages of tax cuts, publicly citing the party's favorite patron saint (Ronald Reagan) while privately looking to their enemy emeritus of choice (Bill Clinton). There are a couple of problems here:

First, when Reagan took office, the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. By the time he left office, it was 28 percent. It's now 35 percent. Even if you buy the supply-side argument, the current rate is hardly a confiscatory impediment to wealth seekers. But for conservatives, taxes are seemingly by definition too high merely by the fact of their existence. Their tax-cutting glee has become disconnected from economic realities.

Second, Bill Clinton in 1993 was a far different creature from Barack Obama: He won a much smaller percent of the popular vote and was addressing a smaller crisis. Clinton had managed 43 percent of the popular vote in 1992, and his approval ratings—excepting an initial bump after his healthcare speech to Congress—were mired in the mid 40s. The GOP decision to flatly oppose his initiatives was politically smart but not a great act of courage.

Finally, the GOP labors under the illusion that the public can be induced to forget the past eight years, and in particular the election results of last November. "With all due respect to the president of the United States, the ideas, the worn-out ideas that the American people are tired of, is runaway federal spending," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, the chair of the House Republican Conference. "I believe the American people rejected that under Republican control, and I believe that's the reason why support for this stimulus bill is collapsing by the hour."

The support collapsing is for the GOP: Recent polls give Obama approval ratings in the 60s and 70s while Republican congressional approval ratings linger in the 20s and 30s. Pence is correct that Republicans no longer have any credibility regarding fiscal responsibility, but it's a stretch to paint the 2008 election results as a ringing endorsement of small government or conservative principles. I've never understood: If conservative principles of fiscal austerity are so popular with the American people, why did Republicans deviate from them in the first place? One does not often find pols who do the wrong thing even though it's also the unpopular thing. But shut out from power, the GOP has rediscovered its lost principles and lauds them in much the same way that Alex Rodriguez pats himself on the back for his forthrightness regarding steroids. (Actual A-Rod quote: "I'm just proud that I'm here sharing my story." That being the story he shared only after Sports Illustrated broke it.)

Democrats have embraced power in a profoundly old-fashioned way. They managed to run the stimulus bill through the House in classic fashion, leavening it with long-denied pet projects—the much-publicized funds for sex education and so forth—or worthwhile but not stimulative social-safety-net strengthening. At a time when the president (and party leader) is declaring that a grave national emergency demands that Washington not operate in its regular way, one would think that congressional leaders might be able to play along a bit more. Many of these proposals are worthy and good policy, but when Democrats have a popular president and (relatively speaking) wide congressional majorities, they can probably afford to do stimulus this week and safety-net-expansion next, rather than trying to cram as much into the one bill as possible simply because it's going to pass.