Nyet So Fast
Kevin Drum, someone I have always considered to be an exceptionally smart and sensible blogger (for Mother Jones!), criticizes my recent post on Waxman-Markey, saying that the reason the Democratic sponsors are being held hostage by their fellow party members representing midwestern and mountain states is that:
Republicans have cynically decided nearly en masse to blindly oppose any action on climate change whatsoever.
But why is this opposition “cynical” and “blind”? What if it’s “principled” and “informed”?
I’ve tried to lay out why I think there is a principled, informed case for opposing Waxman-Markey in some detail in a post that the one Drum references links to. Drum says that he takes “a more generous view of Waxman-Markey than Manzi”, but it seems to me that a whole lot turns on who is right on that question.
Jim, you tell us: does most of the anti-AGW stuff on The Corner, where you’ve posted more than once, come across as cynical and blind or principled and informed? How about the kind of stuff we see from James Inhofe?
— Chris · Jun 19, 05:49 AM · #
As all around the world ,we know Michael Jordan is the super star in NBA .His quotes is one of my favorite .
— jordan shoes · Jun 19, 08:16 AM · #
You really think Congressional Republicans are opposing this bill because they are principled and informed, Jim?
— Freddie · Jun 19, 08:49 AM · #
Freddie,
I’m not sure I would make that claim about any legislation ever opposed (or supported) in Congress. It’s politics; that’s how it works and it’s true for both parties. The interesting question here is whether Manzi or Drum is right; discussing the motives of various politicians is a sideshow.
— John Henry · Jun 19, 12:34 PM · #
Here, here John Henry! If someone wants to support something good or oppose something awful, I care little for their reasons. For instance, I am an opponent of the war in Iraq. Many house democrats opposed this war for seriously batty reasons, and spoke in terms of conspiracies and propaganda. And what can I do but love them for it? Many smarter, less nutty people took what I view to be the wrong side.
— brendan · Jun 19, 01:12 PM · #
For what it’s worth, Greenpeace and other organizations fighting for climate change legislation pretty much agree with Manzi, at least in terms of the value of Waxman-Markey: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-waxman-markey-clim
From their official press release:
“The response embodied in this bill is not only inadequate it is counterproductive.”
— Mark Thompson · Jun 19, 01:37 PM · #
The Greenpeace press release pretty much makes Drum’s point, not Manzi’s. The bill is severely weakened due to basic constituent politics on the Democratic side. That’s a function of Democracy and is to be expected. What is not to be expected, is a whole party deciding that because it is good for the Republican party to stop Obama from being successful, they will oppose Climate Change in all forms, thus leaving Waxman-Markey to the whims of Midwest Democrats. McCain has no excuse and neither do the Maine Senators or Florida Repbulicans or the multiple other Republicans who don’t have the constituent interest problem. I guess their real problem is the insane base of the Republican Party.
— KJ · Jun 19, 02:22 PM · #
It’s also worth pointing out that Drum’s statement that “Republicans have cynically decided nearly en masse to blindly oppose any action on climate change whatsoever” (which I believe to be true) is very different from opposing Waxman-Markey, so Jim’s response strikes me as a non sequitur. W-M is just one potential way to address climate change. You can oppose it and still favor action on climate change (many people do, but not the Republicans in congress). The entire political debate would be totally different if the Republicans had a serious, responsible position on climate change.
— Chris · Jun 19, 02:26 PM · #
KJ – I was emphasizing the value of the bill, not who is to blame for the bill’s awfulness, although I don’t think it supports Drum’s point that it’s the Republicans’ fault. Drum seems to be suggesting that, messed up as it is, it’s still worth passing; Greenpeace is saying that it’s actually counterproductive.
— Mark Thompson · Jun 19, 03:12 PM · #
What if my grandmother had wheels? Could I ride her to the grocery store?
— Chet · Jun 19, 03:36 PM · #
You wrote: “But why is this opposition “cynical” and “blind”? What if it’s “principled” and “informed”?”
Answer: Because some people in the reasonable right-of-center punditocracy have indeed expressed “principled” and “informed” views about some of the bill’s drawbacks. The problem is that Republican legislators are not operating based on any principles save a desire to see any climate change bill fail. Our current slate of GOP legislators, with only a few exceptions, would be saying nearly identical things in opposition to ANY climate change bill the Democrats propose. The debate in Congress from the Republican side is not honest, it is pro-energy company fear-mongering and demagoguery.
— Library Grape · Jun 19, 03:38 PM · #
Three cheers for John Henry’s “motives are a sideshow.” We should form a caucus!
— Blar · Jun 19, 03:39 PM · #
Leave aside the discussion of cynicism, where I’d say Drum goes too far, consider this simplified model of cap and trade legislation. There are three outcomes, a Clean bill, a Pork bill with allowances and spending benefit particular senators, and No bill whatsoever.
Now these are the imagine the prefernces of the senators, in decreasing order:
30 coastal senators: Clean, Pork, None.
30 midwest/mountain Democrat senators; Pork, None, Clean
40 honest Republican Senators: None, Clean, Pork
In these circumstances, it would make sense for these Republicans to favor the Clean bill. They could try making a deal with the midwest/mountain Senators for None, but this would fail—the coastal Senators would offer Pork as an option and Pork would win (as it very well may). So they’re stuck with a choice between sitting back and letting a Pork bill pass, or making their own deal with the coastal senators and getting a Clean bill. A Republican opponent of pork should say “I’m against cap and trade but if you’re gonna do it then do it right” and offer up his or her vote contingent on removal of pork.
Reality is far from this model, but I think it makes clear what Drum is trying to get at.
— Consumatopia · Jun 19, 05:01 PM · #
As a midwesterner with a Dem senator, I think that Consumatopia is misreading the ‘poker faces’ of our senators. Given his reading of the cards:
30 coastal- C P N
30 mid/mnt- P N C
40 honest- N C P
It would make sense for the 40 to ‘fold’ and go for a clean bill, however… my read on the hometown sentiment is that their hand is:
30 mid/mnt- N P C
In other words, they would rather that the bill just die. Given the sentiments of their constituents and the importance of coal here, that is a better outcome for them. If the party drags them to the table kicking and screaming, the pork will be their price. If I’m right, then the honest GOP senators should sit on their hands.
— ockraz · Jun 19, 05:22 PM · #
ockraz’s reasoning makes sense, and it’s not at all unlikely that he’s right.
But note that the difference between our positions is a falsifiable fact about the world—if the GOP sits on its hands, then we’ll find out which is true. If some kind of porky cap-and-trade passes, then I was right, if nothing passes, then ockraz was right.
Thus the honest GOP’s optimal position has nothing to do with whether the GOP would prefer N or C (a question to which Manzi’s principled, informed case would be relevant), and everything to do with whether the mid/mnt Dems would prefer N or P.
Note that this analysis applies to many bills—if Congress passes a lot of P bills, some responsibility for that is borne by opponents who had the option of compromising to pass a C bill instead. OTOH, if Congress just doesn’t pass many bills at all, then hand-sitting is vindicated as a strategy.
— Consumatopia · Jun 19, 06:01 PM · #
I like Consumatopia’s and ockraz’s discussion. If I may add a wrinkle: What if all the GOP senators are unprincipled, and just want to see the bill sink to do political damage to Obama and the majority as the critics say? Are they still N C P, because a bloated bill gives more away to the opposition than a clean one? Or are they as susceptible to pork as the moderate Dems?
— Blar · Jun 19, 06:29 PM · #
I’ll second Blar on the discussion. And very nice on the abstraction, Consumatopia. I’m going to stick with it for a sec.
From a political perspective, the Republicans might prefer P to C. If we get to the point where ‘either P, or C’ is a certainty, P gives the Republicans all kinds of ammunition for the next election that C does not, stuff that should be mightily effective vis-a-vis the swing voter, many of whom are against either the substance or the timing (during a really bad recession) of climate therapy legislation.
I think this is true even for the honest Republicans. If their opposition to the bill really is principled, and passage of a P or C bill is a fait accompli, then the best remaining option is to regain power and kill it.
— Sargent · Jun 19, 11:44 PM · #