I have one additional thought on the debt ceiling, which I meant to include in my previous post, but which probably deserves its own post, so here goes:
I think politicians on both sides of the aisle — and more broadly, partisans on both ends of the ideological spectrum — are vastly underestimating the political downside risk of a failure to raise the debt ceiling, and the resulting default or semi-default. The political consequences for the current powers that be, Republican and Democrat alike, are potentially catastrophic. I don’t just mean suffering dips in approval ratings, or losing the 2012 elections. That’s small potatoes. Worst-case scenario, this could go much deeper. With unfavorable ratings for both major parties already nearing record highs, and vulgar anti-Washington hashtags making waves on Twitter, things are already approaching a boiling point. As I tweeted a few days ago, in the spirit of Harry Potter, the politicians engaging in this debt-ceiling brinkmanship aren’t just playing with fire. They’re playing with Fiendfyre.
If a deal is reached, or if a short-term semi-default happens but is quickly remedied and the negative economic consequences are relatively tame (and/or indistinguishable from the already poor economic climate), the current bout of voter anger will largely fade into the background noise of standard-fare anti-Washington sentiment. But if there’s no deal, and default or semi-default happens, and there are severe (and easily identifiable) economic consequences — real-world economic pain hitting voters, and flowing directly from the total dysfunction of our federal government — there is almost no ceiling to the potential political fallout.
If such a thing were to happen, all the back-and-forth talking points of the present negotiations would appear totally childish and ridiculous in retrospect; the only salient fact would be that Washington’s inaction caused a recession or depression. Voters’ rage would be unmeasurable, and rightfully so. To quote from another fantasy movie, their wrath would be terrible, their retribution swift. At a minimum, I think you would see a credible, and maybe successful, third-party candidacy in 2012 — I’ve already predicted a third-party victory if unemployment exceeds 13% in the wake of a failure to raise the debt ceiling — but that could be just the beginning, if things get bad enough. If a severe second recession, or even a depression, can be traced to a specific, identifiable failure of both parties to govern the country in a defensible way, it could conceivably be the end of one or both of the major parties as we know them.
I recognize that pronouncements of “OMG THE DEATH OF THE MAJOR PARTIES!!1!” are a dime a dozen from squishy No Labels-ish centrists like me, folks with a history of political love affairs with Lieberman and Bloomberg and their ilk. But this is different, I think. I’m not talking about a third-party (and perhaps fourth- and fifth-party) movement led by coastal, technocratic centrist elites, self-styled Good Government Types who think There Must Be A Better Way. I’m talking about a broad-based rage against the current governing parties that would awaken the sleeping giants of American politics: the largely unengaged, uninformed, low-information voters who don’t really know or care much about politics, but who would easily understand and care about such a simple, basic — and, in this scenario, true — storyline as, “You personally have been directly f***ed over by an abject failure of your entire federal government. We are now in a recession/depression because they, all of them, didn’t do their damn jobs.”
If you think the Tea Party was an example of the grassroots waking up and rising up, just wait until you piss off the Great Middle in this fashion. The momentum of the awakening I’m describing would be unstoppable; all nuance would be lost; everyone would be blamed. Even if the actual proximate-cause equation were to become complicated — for instance, if the downturn following a default is worsened by unrelated factors like, say, a collapse of Italy next month or whatever — too bad. These voters, once roused to anger, won’t care about excuses like that. They’d be mad as hell, unwilling to take it anymore, and who knows what our politics would look like by the time they’re done?
Nobody does. And I’m not sure this is a risk that anyone in power — Obama or Boehner or McConnell or Reid or Pelosi or Cantor or anybody else inside the Beltway — really appreciates adequately. The scenario I’m describing is unlikely to come to pass, but I’d say it’s more plausible than at any previous time in my lifetime to date. And if it does happen? Hold onto your seats.
Brendan, I think your logic here is, unfortunately, quite sound.
The main thing this post does is show that you fail to understand the last two years. Your feared uprising has already started…and they called themselves the Tea Party movement.
The Tea Party is not part of the Republican party. They are just as opposed to establishment Republicans as they are to Democrats. The Tea Party movement targeted republicans first, before they went after Democrats. The reason the Tea Party works through the Republican party is that the Democrats don’t even pretend to be in favor of fiscal responsibility. There is a reason why the democratic attempts to create an astro turf lefty version of the Tea Party has failed are for two reasons. First most people don’t want trillions more in new debt and spending; and second, those who do want more and more spending and more and more borrowing know the democratic Party is already committed to them.
In two years, this grassroots movement has elected a significant number of national politicians, and even more local politicians.
Gahrie, I already addressed your point. “If you think the Tea Party was an example of the grassroots waking up and rising up, just wait until you piss off the Great Middle in this fashion.”
What I’m talking about is like the Tea Party x100, in terms of impact. The Tea Party has had a tremendous influence on the Republican Party, no question about that — it has pulled the party far to the Right — and it has helped precipitate this current crisis by forcing party leaders to take inflexible stands, lest they suffer the fate of Mike Castle and his ilk. But ultimately, people who actually share the Tea Party’s core beliefs (as opposed to those who identify in some broad, squishy, non-specific fashion with the Tea Party’s broader role as the anti-establishment movement du jour, while at the same time insisting that the evil Democrats “keep their big-government hands off my Medicare” and such), and vote on that basis, remain a distinct minority of the electorate, and an even smaller minority of the voting-age population. I can’t prove this yet — beyond pointing at public opinion polls that you won’t believe, and cogent political analysis that you’ll dismiss as biased — because 2010 is the most recent election, and the Tea Party “won” that one (almost certainly its high-water mark in its current ideological incarnation). But I am 100% confident that history will bear me out on this. The Tea Party is a vocal, influential minority, but there’s no doubt that it’s a minority, and will never be more than a minority (unless it drastically changes its nature and morphs into something different, which is certainly possible in the scenario I’m describing).
The movement I’m describing would not only be much bigger, with much more epochal impacts, it would not be specifically conservative or liberal. Rather, it would start as a trans-ideological uprising against the abject failure of both parties to competently govern the nation, and more specifically against the economic crisis directly caused by that abject failure. (It would then eventually break down into splinter groups, largely along ideological lines. But the initial revolt would be very broad-based.) Say what you will about the Tea Party, but you cannot possibly deny that it is conservative. There are plenty of liberals disaffected with the government for a variety of reasons, but none of them remotely fit in with the Tea Party. The Tea Party may not be “part of the Republican party,” and it may be “just as opposed to establishment Republicans as…to Democrats,” but it is unquestionably conservative — indeed, to the extent the Tea Party opposes “establishment Republicans,” it’s for being insufficiently conservative! Which is why you now see the Republican establishment tilting heavily to the Right: to save their asses from Tea Party voters.
I won’t deny that there are a fair number of Tea Partiers who fit my description as “largely unengaged, uninformed, low-information voters who don’t really know or care much about politics” but became involved recently, out of rage. That’s not really something to be proud of, but it’s true. (I hasten to repeat: this is true of “a fair number of” Tea Partiers, not all.) However, their rage is directed at Democrats and at Republican establishment “sellouts” who are seen as being too friendly to Democrats. What I’m talking about would be different both quantitatively and qualitatively. It would make the Tea Party look like a walk in the park.
remain a distinct minority of the electorate, and an even smaller minority of the voting-age population. Beyond pointing at public opinion polls that you won’t believe and cogent political analysis that you’ll dismiss as biased, I can’t prove this yet, because 2010 is the most recent election,
You mean the 2010 election that was totally dominated by the Tea Party and completely changed the conversation in Washington D.C.?
Rather, it would start as a trans-ideological uprising against the abject failure of both parties to competently govern the nation, and more specifically against the economic crisis directly caused by that abject failure
You have pretty much described the Tea Party here.
Say what you will about the Tea Party, but you cannot possibly deny that it is conservative. There are plenty of liberals disaffected with the government for a variety of reasons, but none of them remotely fit in with the Tea Party.
What? You mean that conservatives want to cut spending and liberals want to increase it? Who knew? By the way, there are still some conservative democrats…at least there were….
Argh, your comments are too quick for me sometimes! Full disclosure, I just went back and modified the paragraph you quoted in your first paragraph, before seeing your comment. FWIW, you quoted it correctly in its original form.
Anyhow, yes, the Tea Party “won” the 2010 election (though it was not an unqualified success — see the Delaware, Nevada and Colorado Senate seats) and, yes, it completely changed the conversation. I explicitly acknowledged that. Not sure what point you’re trying to convey there. You’re certainly not rebutting anything I said.
Regardless, the notion that the Tea Party is a “trans-ideological uprising” is sheer, obvious nonsense. It’s a conservative uprising. That is simply beyond dispute. As I said, there are less-conservative people who “identify in some broad, squishy, non-specific fashion with the Tea Party’s broader role as the anti-establishment movement du jour, while at the same time insisting that the evil Democrats ‘keep their big-government hands off my Medicare’ and such.” But such people will be fair-weather friends to the Tea Party, and will surely abandon its core conservative principles in the tough deficit-related fights to come, NY-26 being only the first of many examples of this. If you truly think the 2010 elections represent a broad, lasting mandate for enacting hardline conservative fiscal and economic policies without electoral consequence, you have a very rude awakening coming very soon (much like those liberals who wrong-headedly thought the 2008 elections represented a similarly broad mandate for liberal policies).
Ultimately, the Tea Party is not a threat to the current two-party system because its goals are easily obtainable (at least politically; many of its policy goals are simply impossible) by putting pressure on one of the two parties. The facts bear this out. The Tea Party may not have started as “part of” the Republican Party, but it has certainly been largely co-opted. Or are there countless Democratic and Independent members of the Tea Party Caucus in Congress that I don’t know about? I’m not insulting the grassroots nature of the movement, but it is ultimately a movement to reform the Republican Party, and it has largely succeeded, for the moment. It really has nothing to say to Democrats and centrist independents, other than “they’re wrong and should lose.”
By contrast, I’m talking about a much broader revolt against the two parties themselves, triggered by a single policy failure that would send the nation into a severe recession or depression specifically triggered by that failure. Like most folks caught up in their ideologies, you aren’t getting it. The potential is there for a political tsunami much bigger than anything in the present landscape, of which the Tea Party is ultimately a fairly routine part.
because 2010 is the most recent election, and the Tea Party “won” that one (almost certainly its high-water mark in its current ideological incarnation). But I am 100% confident that history will bear me out on this.
OK…then why is the Left so worried about debating spending, the deficit and the debt during an election?
LOL! You are hilariously beholden to talking points, gahrie. Boehner’s spokesman puts out the notion that Obama’s sensible aversion to re-running this debt-ceiling charade during an election year reflects a desire to save his ass politically, and within 24 hours, you’re mimicking it. Heh.
The Left is not worried about debating spending, the deficit and the debt during an election. If anything, voices on Obama’s left desperately want him to avoid a compromise on Medicare, Social Security, etc., because they know those are winning electoral issues for the Democrats (for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate), and they don’t want to give Republicans political cover with a Grand Bargain. Obama, to his credit, has been willing to work toward some sort of bargain involving entitlements, despite those political risks. But the Republicans won’t accept anything short of a full Democratic capitulation, so here we are.
The concern about having another debt-ceiling debate during the heat of an election is not about politics, it’s about governance. I know you’ll find that impossible to believe. But Obama understands that it’s insane to believe we can have a reasonable chance of striking what must necessarily be a bipartisan deal — seeing as how we have divided government — in the midst of an intensely partisan election cycle. If you think it’s hard to reach compromise now, imagine trying to do it in six months. That’s the concern, and it’s a completely legitimate one.
But, in the same vein as your question, let me ask you this. If you’re so confident that the public agrees with you on these issues, “then why is the [Right] so worried about [delaying the next debt ceiling vote and the related debate around] spending, the deficit and the debt [until after the] election,” at which point voters will have rendered their verdict? If you’re so sure the voters will side with you, why not reconvene on this issue after they’ve done so, when you’ll have a much stronger hand — perhaps an unstoppably strong one? Why does the GOP feel so strongly that it must lock in its gains now, before the voters have a chance to have their say?
That’s not an entirely fair question, but it’s certainly fairer than yours.
Brendan, I would enjoy as much as anyone some credible third party options. And, when you look at the country in aggregate, as this post does, it’s easy to be optimistic about it. The problem is that the country is divided up into states, congressional districts, etc., many of which are fairly lopsided (either by chance or design). Even through a large majority of people dislike Congress in general, they tend to be much more favorable toward their own representatives.
Case in point: in 2010, the Republicans picked up a lot of votes by campaigning against Nancy Pelosi. But those votes weren’t in places where she was actually on the ballot. She wound up getting re-elected with more than 80% of the votes in her district. In fact, incumbents on the far right and the far left were pretty safe in 2010 (there’s lots of analysis on this on 538). The folks that lost their seats tended to be moderate democrats losing their seats to Republicans, and moderate Republicans losing their nominations to Tea Party challengers.
When there’s so much blame on both sides to go around, the natural reaction of voters in both parties is to get more upset at the opposite party, whom they weren’t going to vote for anyway. And so, even if they’re dissatisfied with their own party, they’re still going to want to vote against the opposite party. With the current voting system, the most effective way (by a factor of two) to vote against the candidate you dislike is to vote for his or her major-party opponent. [insert hackneyed discussion about American voting system and entrenchment of two-party system]
It’s not enough for people to dislike what the current political landscape. There has to be something else to replace it. If you’re seeing some evidence that there’s a credible third party (centrist?) movement actually picking up momentum, please write about that.
@gahrie #2: The reason there isn’t a liberal counterpart to the Tea Party is that it already happened, in the 1960s. The things it could achieve (such as civil rights and Medicare/Medicaid), it did. The things it couldn’t (solving poverty, ending war), it either gave up on or returned to the back-burner.
Mike, I agree with your analysis insofar as it applies to pretty much all political circumstances and third-party efforts within the range of normal experience. That’s part of the reason I said, “If a deal is reached, or if a short-term semi-default happens but is quickly remedied and the negative economic consequences are relatively tame (and/or indistinguishable from the already poor economic climate), the current bout of voter anger will largely fade into the background noise of standard-fare anti-Washington sentiment.” People have been pretty consistently angry at Washington since at least Watergate, and we haven’t seen a successful third party emerge yet. I’m well aware of the structural and psychological barriers.
However, if the nation defaults, and the default is seen as directly triggering a severe recession or depression, that would be an entirely unprecedented circumstance and would, I think, create a total paradigm shift in American politics. All of the ideological debates we’re presently having about taxes, spending, etc., would come to appear totally minuscule in significance compared to the crisis caused by Washington’s inaction. The present debate would, in retrospect, appear childish and absurd to all but the most committed partisans. The only salient fact would be that our government failed to pay its bills, and a severe downtown resulted. In that circumstance, and assuming the resulting downturn is prolonged, throw all the normal rules about voter behavior out the window.
I don’t pretend to know precisely how the referenced “revolt” would play out; hopefully it would be purely political, though I would say that violence of some sort is not out of the question. But I could easily imagine some combination of the following events: a chaotic three- or four- or five-way race for president in 2012 (perhaps ending with the House picking the president, a very problematic circumstance if a non-major-party candidate has won a plurality of the popular vote, yet major parties still dominated Congress); many representatives and senators on both sides being successfully primaried by a diverse array of candidates, some ideological extremists, others centrists, still others revealing little about their ideology and appealing primarily to issues of competence and national duty; a few others (albeit a limited number) losing to third-party congressional candidates; and a number of independents winning state governorships. And after that, who knows? The more successful minor parties from 2012 organize, perhaps form alliances with one another, and maybe by 2014 you start to see significant fracturing in Congress. By the time 2016 rolls around, it might not be clear anymore which ones are the “major” parties. Again, this is assuming a very prolonged downturn — hence why I keep saying “severe recession or depression.”
Given enough time, the new order would settle into something resembling the old order — that’s why I said “it could conceivably be the end of one or both of the major parties as we know them” rather than “it could conceivably be the end of the two-party system.” Long-term, the two-party system is here to stay, barring structural changes to our electoral and legislative processes. But although it hasn’t happened since the Civil War, it’s not inconceivable, in the dire circumstances I’m discussing, that a “minor” party could ultimately replace one or both of the current major parties. By, say, 2024, assuming the country survives the upheaval (I’m not getting that apocalyptic), we’d certainly have two major parties again….but which ones?
P.S. Also, our actual long-term deficit and debt problems (as distinct from the current short-term manufactured debt-ceiling crisis) have to be taken into account here. What impact would the scenario I’m describing have on when and how the fiscal s**t hits the fan? And what impact would that fan-s**t collision have on the political paradigm at the heart of my scenario? I don’t pretend to have any insight into that, except that the possibilities are rather scary.
Brendan – your #3 describes the Tea party quite verbosely … (I was going to say “succinctly”, but you had waxed brendanian, and succinct, that ain’t !) …
Yes, the Tea Party movement is a conservative movement – and it is made up of conservative folk from both major parties … where do you think the ‘conservative democrat’ went ?
It is also a fiscally conservative movement – and mostly is socially apolitical … the closest it comes to being socially conservative is in its opposition to expensive social programs of dubious effectiveness … scratch a Tea Party voter and the chances are you will make a recovering conservative democrat voter bleed … the Tea Party is getting its adherents from the middle class and the rest of us working folk who would like to be working – and who do *NOT* like the current administration’s determination to act to keep unemployment high … (even while our duly-elected Petulant-in-Chief keeps trying to tell us it is Someone Else’s fault …) …
As for your prediction of a Squishy Party revolt taking over … It ain’t gonna happen, Brenny … there is more chance of an Anarchist Party government being formed with a majority of their party in House and Senate …
Brendan – your #3 describes the Tea party quite verbosely … (I was going to say “succinctly”, but you had waxed brendanian, and succinct, that ain’t !) …
Yes, the Tea Party movement is a conservative movement – and it is made up of conservative folk from both major parties … where do you think the ‘conservative democrat’ went ?
It is also a fiscally conservative movement – and mostly is socially apolitical … the closest it comes to being socially conservative is in its opposition to expensive social programs of dubious effectiveness … scratch a Tea Party voter and the chances are you will make a recovering conservative democrat voter bleed … the Tea Party is getting its adherents from the middle class and the rest of us working folk who would like to be working – and who do *NOT* like the current administration’s determination to act to keep unemployment high … (even while our duly-elected Petulant-in-Chief keeps trying to tell us it is Someone Else’s fault …) …
As for your prediction of a Squishy Party revolt taking over … It ain’t gonna happen, Brenny … there is more chance of an Anarchist Party government being formed with a majority of their party in House and Senate …
Hmmm .. is our blog-host turning into Chicken Loytle ???
My succinct response to this excessively long post’s point about the possibility of the squishy center rising up in revolt: Not. Gonna. Happen.
Don’t get me wrong — I think America as a whole would be better off blowing up the two major parties and starting from scratch. But the likelihood of anything like this happening are so remote, it’s not even worth discussing why it’s far-fetched. We’re about as likely to be taken over by Zimbabwe. Case closed, end rant, move on.
then why is the [Right] so worried about [delaying the next debt ceiling vote and the related debate around] spending, the deficit and the debt [until after the] election
Because they were elected in the last election to do something about the spending, the deficit and the debt now.
AMLTrojan #14 – is not the “squishy center” not exemplified by our very own blog-host ?
Hence his interest in and fascination with it, neh ?
My succinct response to this excessively long post’s point about the possibility of the squishy center rising up in revolt: Not. Gonna. Happen.
Okay, but don’t you basically believe that the severe recession/depression scenario I’m painting is itself Not. Gonna. Happen.? If that doesn’t happen, then obviously, neither will the “revolt.” By contrast, if you take seriously the possibility of a severe recession/depression directly attributable to Washington inaction, the equation changes. I think you’re rejecting the possibility mostly because you reject the premise.
By the way, you and Alasdair have quite clearly misunderstood who I am suggesting would revolt, if you think I’m referring to a “squishy center” that’s akin to myself in some way. Again:
In other words, me. 🙂 Rather…
In other words, not me.
Maybe my scenario is unrealistic (I concede it’s highly unlikely), but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the Loyesque “squishy center.”
Let’s break it down:
a. Debt ceiling deadline passed with no agreement: 2:1;
b. Default or semi-default: 10:1;
c. Massive economic panic or depression, clearly linked to a. and b. vs. just a continuation of existing trends: 25:1;
d. An “awakening” or “revolt” of “largely unengaged, uninformed, low-information voters who don’t really know or care much about politics…” 100:1 (they have other interests and are not much touched by the federal government);
e. Significant change to two-party system: By any stretch or path, ridiculously unlikely (i.e. 1,000:1), but for the purposes of this analysis, (2 x 10 x 25 x 100 x 1,000) 50,000,000:1.
Q.E.D.
Brendan #18 – isn’t that what I said ?
“is not the “squishy center” not exemplified by our very own blog-host ?” ? (grin)
Condescending, much ? “the sleeping giants of American politics: the largely unengaged, uninformed, low-information voters who don’t really know or care much about politics”
I think you need to break out your plausible path to a Civil War, Brandon. 😉
We’re f*cked. Listening to the President speak. Never point your negotiating partner in a position where he can’t cut a deal with his own folks. After that “2 plans” talk, John Boehner can’t walk back into the GOP cloak room without the Freshmen chanting “B*tch! B*tch! B*tch! B*tch!” *face palm*
For all the clamor on the left to bring back the Clinton-era top tax rates, there are few, if any, politicians in Washington talking about bringing back the Clinton-era spending levels.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/25/five-facts-about-the-debt
James Young #22 … “Monku Monku Monku” ???
#19:
(2 x 10 x 25 x 100 x 1,000) 50,000,000:1
This would be the Anti-Arithmetic Right that Brendan is complaining about. If you don’t know how probability works, just ask a friend.
Seriously, through, I think that anyone who would stop supporting Obama in the event of a default-induced economic catastrophe, has probably already made up their mind. At worst, he drops down to about 40% of the popular vote.
Somewhat more likely, but still at long odds, in the event of an economic catastrophe, you might get a split between:
The Boehner end of the Republican party – establishment Republicans, with a candidate like Mitt Romney, who think that ideologues overplayed their hand, and would have preferred some compromise.
The Cantor end of the Republican party – the Tea Party favorites, with a candidate like Michelle Bachmann, who think they were right to stand firm.
Alasdair and many others like to characterize the Tea Party as “socially apolitical,” and it is indeed more libertarian than the Republican Party. However, the majority of people who describe themselves as being part of the Tea Party movement support many of the socially-conservative and tough-on-crime policies of the Republican Party in areas like equal rights for the LGBT community, abortion, drugs, immigration policies, and the relationship between church and state. This is reflected in most of the politicians that get their support (with notable exceptions): folks like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Jim DeMint, Herman Cain, Christine O’Donnell, and Sharron Angle. It’s great to point to Ron Paul, but there’s a reason that he feels the need to personally run for President every time.
If you look at the history of political re-alignments in America, we haven’t had one in a relative while, so we might be due for one. However, I don’t think it will happen in 2012, even if there is a default-induced economic catastrophe. I suspect it will involve a decoupling of economic policies from social policies – of the type where the Tea Party movement talks the talk, but doesn’t really walk the walk. If a voter wants the government to stay out of both their wallet and their bedroom, right now they need to choose which is more important when it comes time to actually elect a candidate. Looking at the demographics in America, with social conservatives getting older and younger age cohorts continuing to hold socially progressive views as they age, that’s my guess.
One thing that I would also throw out there is the possibility of not only a third party in such a circumstance, but a really scary one. If our economy continues down the depression route, and a lot of young people continue to be out of work, that’s a combination that can lead to honest to goodness facism. And that isn’t good for anyone. There were fascism movements in America during the Great Depression, and if this current depression drags on and on, we could see that happen again. And this time, we may not avoid these groups like we did before. After all, fairly advanced countries like Germany and Italy didn’t.
#PANIC
Mike, you seem to have misunderstood my math logic, which isn’t surprising because I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. My point was that the probability of A happening on its own is X, and the probability of B happening on its own is Y, etc. However, when I got to D, I pointed out that, on its own, the probability was 1,000:1, but under Brendan’s hypothesized sequence of events (i.e., if A happens, what’s the probability of B happening, and if B happens as a result, what’s the probability of C, etc.), then the true probability was more like 50,000,000:1. IOW, the probability of a third-party revolt is still 1,000:1 (i.e. quite remote), but for that to come about by way of Brendan’s specific scenario, the odds are even more ridiculously unlikely.
Oh, Jon Stewart noticed that somehow, both sides have pretty much switched, and nobody agreed:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-debt-crisis-update-both-sides-switched-everybody-caved-and-no-one-agreed/
Egad. Partisanship FTL.
#27 This post makes me more confident that I did understand your math logic. I think that your estimates on a, b, c, and d individually are not unreasonable.
But, as for e (the probability of a significant change to the 2-party system, due to any cause): We’ve had 112 federal elections in this country (possibly give or take a few if I’m forgetting some unusual situation). In that time, the party system has been disrupted (not just a shift or swing) several times: The split of the D-Rs into the Democrats and Whigs and end of the Federalist Party; the rise of the Republican party in Lincoln’s era; and TR’s Progressive Party. Obviously each eventually led back to a 2-party equilibrium, but in the moment, these situations looked like the scenario that Brendan described. So, even in a random federal election, I would put these odds at around 40:1.
Whatever the separate probabilities are, the vastly more important problem is that you’re assuming that the events are uncorrelated, which is just not right. Looking at just the last step (because it’s the most obvious), you’re not just saying that P(e)=1000:1, but by simply multiplying the numbers together, you’re assuming that P(e|a∧b∧c∧d)=1000:1. In other words, you’re saying that, even in the situation where the government fails to raise the debt ceiling AND defaults on the debt AND a massive economic panic/catastrophe results AND voters revolt against incumbents, there would STILL be only a 0.1% chance of a change in the party system significant enough to produce a credible 3rd party presidential candidate. I guess they must not make voter revolts like they used to.
If you’re still not convinced, consider the absurdity of your conclusion: that the probability of all these happening is only one in 50 million. In other words, if you ran a simulation of the time from now until the 2012 election 50 million times, at least one of a, b, c, d, or e would fail to occur in all but one of those simulations. Which implies that, even in the event of a meteor impact wiping out all human life on the North American continent, there would still be a double-digit probability of one of the following occurring: Congress, having been all killed by the meteor, nevertheless going on to reach a compromise on the debt ceiling that lasts past the election; the federal government maintaining the full faith and credit without even a “semi-default” lapse; the economy continuing on without any panic or downturn; Americans continuing to be indifferent to politics (apparently since everyone’s USD-denominated currency and other assets maintained value despite the destruction of the United States); or enough voters remaining satisfied with the current two major parties in their current form and relationship that a disruption in the political status quo would be avoided. Surely, this is not a reasonable conclusion.
Mike, you’re again misreading my math (on purpose this time?).
I am saying this:
a. On its own, we fail to raise the debt ceiling by 8/2/11 is at 2:1.
b. On its own, given current financial circumstances, the US defaults or semi-defaults on its debt, 10:1.
c. On its own, given current economic trends and variables, we enter a massive depression / economic tailspin (you mean this hasn’t happened already?), 25:1.
d. On its own, in modern America, the ignorant and unpoliticked masses awake, arise, and overthrow the two-party system as it exists today, 1,000:1.
Now, what are the odds that Brendan’s scenario comes to pass: no debt ceiling compromise is reached; as a result, we default (causation from A, not correlation with A); as a result, economic calamity (causation from B, not correlation with B); as a result, the two-party system is fundamentally altered (causation from C, not correlation with C).
The reality is, I was purposely engaging in hyperbole. The reality is more nuanced: B is probably more likely (e.g.. 5:1 not 10:1 if A happens), and C is more likely if B happens (let’s say, again, 5:1 instead of 25:1). I still say that, should all this come to pass, D is very unlikely should C come to pass (I’ll be generous and say 40:1, using your proposed number, instead of 1,000:1). So, the combined likelihood of A causing B causing C causing D is probably more like 2,000:1, not 50,000,000:1, because all scenarios are not equally plausible.
This is an incumbent president trying to set himself up for a re-election campaign that will have to be run against Washington—against his own record, and his own party.
Meanwhile, the under-reported quandaries of the Senate Democrats have told a similar story. For all the tales of House Republican intransigence, the real question throughout this debate has been (and still is) whether anything could pass the Senate. House Republicans have passed a long term debt-ceiling increase (“long term” now means past the next election, which certainly can’t come soon enough), and now seem poised (one hopes) to pass a short-term one too. They have also passed a budget for next year and are well along on the accompanying appropriations bills. Senate Democrats have done none of this—no budget, no appropriations for next year (except for the Veterans’ Affairs bill, on which the House and Senate agreed), no debt-ceiling increase. It is very far from clear if Obama’s “balanced” approach would have passed the Senate in any form. While John Boehner was willing to consider a version of that approach at one point, Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats killed it. Vulnerable Democratic Senators, who are after all running for office in the same country that elected the Republican House last year, don’t want to raise taxes (as Obama does) or to reform entitlement spending (as Republicans do), so they have always much preferred the “small bill” approach that Obama ridiculed last night. And rather than take a stand on budget issues, they have left it to House Republicans to make concrete proposals while they snipe and fail to act. They can’t run on a liberal platform, so they have chosen to have no platform and no agenda at all in the hope of just running against Republican Medicare reforms next year. Their main objection to the Boehner bill is that it would force them to debate debt issues again before the election.
In both cases, you see a Democratic Party incapable of openly offering a liberal agenda to voters, and compelled to pretend it has not pursued a liberal agenda these past three years. Not exactly a sign of confidence in their electoral prospects next year.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272764/democrats-dilemma-yuval-levin