In my last post, I described how the Republicans’ willingness to use the threat of debt default to force the U.S. into severe spending cuts that would hammer the economy and reverse the legislative choices made by previous elected officials should be viewed within the framework of a broader Republican insurrectionism. But putting aside for a moment this rhetorical tool and handy analytical perspective, how exactly should Democrats ensure that the Republicans aren’t successful in using their illicit leverage — and also don’t end up plunging the U.S. and the world into financial chaos with dire and unpredictable consequences?
Many who see the Republicans’ debt default terrorism for what it is have pointed to a basic starting point: no negotiations with the GOP over potential cuts or other measures that might gain their agreement to lift the debt limit. Indeed, this has been the Biden administration’s position. But this begs another question — how then to persuade the GOP to back down? This fight, if it is to be won, needs to start now.
Over at Crooked Media, Brian Beutler outlines a strategy the Democrats might adopt to win this battle. He does a great job reviewing the state of play (including things the Democrats should have done already but have ruled out), and notes the party’s not-unreasonable strategy of forcing the GOP to damage and otherwise punch itself in the face by proposing unpopular cost-cutting measures, like gutting Social Security or imposing a draconian national sales tax. Crucially, he points out how the Democrats’ strategy perhaps unavoidably hinders the Democrats from making a more full-throated case about the illegitimacy of the Republicans’ position to begin with — a threat to blow up the U.S. and world economy if they don’t get what they want. As he puts it, “I think it’s a mistake to try and shoehorn a policy contrast into what is, at bottom, a straight-up attempted mugging. A mugging doesn’t become any more or less acceptable when a lot of loot is at stake. It’s an egregious crime even if only a penny changes hands. And that’s the nerve Democrats should want to strike.”
Beutler’s prescription is for Democrats to stick to their no-negotiation baseline while essentially opening a can of rhetorical whup-ass on the GOP, in an effort not just to win over the public, but to sway media coverage and turn powerful business interests against the House Republicans’ position. He notes that “[t]he best way to herd everyone into consensus is to treat it as self-evident and appalling that Republicans have thrust yet another crisis on the country.” Yes indeed! And here we sort of circle back to the idea that I started with — the need to view, and talk about, current GOP behavior on a variety of fronts as displays of a de facto insurrectionism, as behavior far outside the bounds of legitimate American politics.
But whether you call it insurrectionism, authoritarianism, or something else, a basic conclusion should be staring the Democrats in the face: they should no longer be engaged in “normal” competitive politics vis-a-vis the GOP. Rather, their aim should be to discredit and delegitimize the Republican Party before the GOP is able to irreparable damage to American democracy and society.
As Beutler helpfully points out, there are many Democrats who really don’t want to be seen as big spenders (by raising the debt ceiling too eagerly), or who don’t want try to play hardball with the media the way the GOP constantly does. These hesitations are symptoms of a larger party failure — to grasp the true nature of the struggle and stakes of American politics, and to let go of masochistic dreams of bipartisanship that only provide cover for a GOP that has transformed into a vehicle for authoritarianism and minority rule.
The Democrats should view the fight to protect the full faith and credit of the United States as a vital front in their war to dismantle the threat posed by the GOP — as an opportunity to sway public opinion against a party grown apocalyptic and anti-democratic, not just a burdensome fight the GOP has forced them to engage in.
Finally, I think it’s worth listening to those who suggest that Democrats “should reject the debt limit itself as an unconstitutional use of congressional power,” in the words of Jamelle Bouie. Bouie points out that, “When Congress authorizes a budget, the president is obligated to fulfill the terms of that budget once he signs it into law.” From this perspective, it’s arguably unconstitutional for the president not to spend money Congress has already authorized, and by extension for the House to try to force the executive branch not to pay for expenses already authorized by Congress. Moreover, Bouie goes on to write, there is added support in the Constitution for treating the national debt as inviolable, as Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states that, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
What leapt out at me in this language, and in Bouie’s account, is how this clarification of the validity of the debt was inserted into the Constitution as a direct response to an earlier act of insurrection — the rebellion of the Southern states in the Civil War. Bouie summarizes the history behind the provision:
With the end of hostilities and the dissolution of the rebel army, the United States federal government repudiated Confederate debt, making it worthless to the creditors of the rebellion. But as former Confederates re-entered public life, there was real fear among Republican lawmakers that a future majority of Southern Democrats and their allies might invalidate Union war debt in retaliation. To prevent this and secure the nation’s public debt for the future, Republicans added the clause to their draft of the 14th Amendment.
In other words, 150-plus years ago, legislators amended the constitution to clarify that the nation was to always honor its debt in direct response to a potential threat posed by former insurrectionists. As our current debt and finances are now threatened by these insurrectionists’ inheritors, we’d do well to keep in mind — and broadcast — the link between insurrectionary sympathies and repudiation of the federal commitment to pay its bills.