The two most spectacular political phenomena of recent years are Barack Obama and the Tea Party movement. Yet each managed the fight over raising the national debt limit in ways that left their reputations tarnished. Who came out worse in the eyes of the voters remains to be seen. President Obama, whose political instincts seemed unerring in 2008, appeared to miss the significance of the 2010 election upheaval and started the year as if nothing had changed by pushing for ever more spending. When the debt ceiling issue first came up, he called for a “clean” extension of the limit, meaning no spending restraint.
He came around to spending cuts only when it became apparent that the Tea Party crowd in the House, elected by voter outrage over Obama’s and the Democrats’ spendthrift habits, was serious about changing the Washington culture of spend, raise the debt limit and spend some more. House Speaker John Boehner succinctly summed up that culture in a televised address to the taxpayers: “We spend more, you pay more.”
Boehner tried to engage Obama in negotiations for a “grand bargain” to cut $4 trillion over a decade. But they broke down over Obama’s upping the ante with more tax-increase demands. Boehner went back to Congress to negotiate a deal, leaving the president of the United States on the sidelines.
Obama attempted to recoup by playing what had been his strong suite, oratory in speeches and press conferences. He tried to position himself as the adult in the room. But his words didn’t put him above the fray. He denounced Republicans in a way that came across as peevish, counter to his grand campaign promise to rise above petty partisanship. He continued to hold out for a tax hike even after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had abandoned it in the Democrats’ response to Boehner’s debt ceiling legislation. Leading from behind had finally caught up with Obama.
For their part, the Tea Party House members overplayed their hand, playing into the hands of their critics who want to paint them as unfit to govern. They had achieved a major accomplishment, forcing Washington to confront its fiscally profligate ways and start doing some about them. But they couldn’t accept victory and pushed for more to the point of nearly torpedoing Boehner’s leadership. Enough of them finally signed on to his plan after it was amended to include a meaningless vote on a balanced budget constitutional amendment.
A number of Tea Party members balked at the $2.4 trillion compromise reached this weekend. But in the final vote, Boehner got strong enough Republican support to rebut claims that the Tea Party risked endangering GOP governing credentials.
How did the two most successful political forces of the decade end up like this? Perhaps it goes to traits Obama and the Tea Party members share. Both came to Washington with little experience. Obama had been a community organizer and academic who spent a few years in the Legislature where he voted “present” a lot. He then vaulted to the U.S. Senate only to immediately begin running for president. He campaigned on charisma, “hope” and little in the way of a record.
Most of the Tea Party victors in 2010 also had little in the way of government and political experience. It showed in their no-compromise, ideological purity, rejecting, as some still do, all compromise, the very basis of American government.
Republicans would do well to remember this as they choose a candidate to face Obama next year. Politicians like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry are experienced governors. That means they’ve made mistakes, but it also means they’ve learned from those mistakes. That’s what prepares a politician for the awesome job in the White House.
That job, of course, is on the line next year. More bruising battles are to come in Washington over spending and taxes before the voters render their judgment in this epic contest over the size, shape and direction of government.
