The Inside-Outer

I'm liking Chris Christie better and better these days. First, it was reaching across the isle with Obama during "Superstorm" Sandy. Now he's chewing out his own national party leadership. Soon he'll be forming his exploratory committee...

It's an interesting thought, Christie running for President. He's brash, loud, straightforward (seemingly) - things people tend to like about "Washington outsiders." Perhaps his best characteristic, however, is his willingness to call out his own party when it's appropriate - as I believe it was when he called Boehner out on not bringing the relief vote to the floor.

The question, however, is whether this is posturing or if it's genuine. If it's posturing, not an unreasonable thought when it comes to politicians considering national office, it's interesting to consider how he would act once he can no longer be the "outsider." If it's not, his personality seems like it might be abrasive enough to hurt him in an actual run for President - not to mention the establishment might not be willing to go out on a limb for someone who consistently defies them.

In any event, I'm predicting a run for office in 2016. He's got pretty good conservative credentials and can position himself as a maverick, a la McCain, only with the added benefit of not being inside the beltway (recently, anyway). He'll not have my vote, but if he's not just full of hot air, he might be good for the Republican party by making the recognize that governing is still - despite their best effort - the responsibility of the government.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

IT'S FISCAL CLIFFSANITY!!

Really, no. It's not. Insanity, by definition, doesn't make sense.

Our situation, on the other hand, makes perfect sense given some things that have changed over the course of the past 10 years (and before) in Washington. Not only is brinksmanship now rewarded, but there is also good reason to believe that the power of the President in terms of effecting public opinion is waning. This, coupled with the fact that districts are becoming more and more "safe" for their (increasingly radical) representatives in the House, means that we should expect many more "fiscal cliffs." In total there are 4 reasons why we should expect an increasing number of games of Russian roulette with the American economy: Decreasing presidential power, "safe" redistricting, the utility of futility, and a the burden of language.

The first reason is explained very well in a recent article by Ezra Klein in the New Yorker. Essentially, the idea is that, while we've historically overestimated the importance of presidential rhetoric, it has become even less effective in recent years. In fact, it appears as if a good presidential speech can negatively affect the outcome the President is looking for by clarifying the issue for the opposition. This, to me anyway, is doubly interesting because it's supported indirectly by some of my own research (though some of my other research seems to disagree.) In any event, it does make sense that in an increasingly polarized electorate - or an electorate that at least feels more strongly about the issues on which they disagree - would incite politicians to fever pitch anytime someone says something that they can actively disagree with, thus potentially negating the positive effect of the rhetoric used to promote the issue. The President, being the most visible politician, is perhaps more subject to this effect than others and he has very little control over what people view as the most important problem facing the nation, the economy to begin with (though the fiscal cliff might be an exception to this rule).

The second reason "fiscal cliffs" will likely become regular occurrences is because of the safety of house districts combined with the increased polarization mentioned above. After all, if I know I'm safe, and in fact it will upset a significant portion of my (now very important) base if I vote with the other party, there is little or no incentive to compromise - at least until there is no other plausible alternative. This, by itself, would indicate that my best position is continuous opposition to the other party, but given that people are more upset than ever, it seems that compromise would be even less likely than ever. Perhaps that's why this is the worst congress ever.

If that wasn't enough, there's also something a little more subtle going on. A great article from Politico points out that because of the increasing lack of down-time between campaigns, and the desire of politicians to be re-elected, there is actually an incentive to do nothing until the last possible moment. If I make a statement - or worse still, cast a vote - that goes against the perceived interests of my constituency which is now, as mentioned above, defined primarily as against my opposition, then that statement will almost certainly be used by someone against me during my next campaign. And, because of the increasing loss of swing-districts, the person who runs against me is likely to run from my right if I'm conservative or from my left if I'm liberal. There is almost no room for moderates left in politics, and in particular the House of Representatives because of the safe-districts problem.

Finally, the last reason is because of the weird power of language in D.C. The best example of this is the perception that it is easier for Republicans to vote yes after going over the cliff because then they would be voting for a tax-cut, rather than an increase in taxes. Think about what this is actually saying. We will potentially screw up the economy (see the Debt Ceiling Debacle for another example of this behavior), lose increasingly scarce trust of the American people, and potentially do things like further hurt unemployment because we're afraid of our base ousting us for someone more radical. And keep in mind, nothing changed when we went over the cliff - not really. But Republicans (this time - it could be Dems another time) couldn't vote for a good bill, even if there was one on the table, because they're afraid of the word tax-increase.

In short, these four issues are why we'll continue to see crazy brinksmanship in Congress over the foreseeable future. The theory will be put to the test pretty soon, too, with the debt ceiling talks and sequestration looming. In any case, it seems likely that this will get worse before it gets better.