By Greg Sargent | Washington Post
With the government shutdown dragging into Week Two, and the debt limit deadline creeping closer, Republicans continue to insist the cause of our current governing crisis is that Obama and Democrats refuse to negotiate with them. On ABC News yesterday, John Boehner repeated this talking point again and again.
Yet in the process, Boehner revealed what this invitation to “negotiate” really means. He implicitly confirmed Republicans will only negotiate in a context in which Republicans can employ the looming threat of disaster for the country as a way to unilaterally increase their leverage, and will not negotiate without being granted this leverage. Here’s the key exchange, with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Democrats, including Senate Democrat Harry Reid, has said he’s more than willing to have a conference, more than willing to have a negotiation, but not under the threat of a government shutdown, not under the threat of a default.
BOEHNER: So it’s my way or the highway. That’s what he’s saying. Complete surrender and then we’ll talk to you.
This is an extremely important and revealing moment. Boehner is explicitly saying that the Democrats’ refusal to negotiate in a context where the threat of widespread harm to the country gives Republicans leverage – and their insistence on negotiating outside this context — represents a demand for ”complete surrender” by Republicans, and hence is a non-starter. But in this scenario, Republicans would not be giving up anything, other than the very leverage Republicans presume the threat of widespread harm to the country grants them. For Republicans, agreeing to negotiate without this unilateral leverage would itself be surrender!
Indeed, later in the interview, Boehner agreed not raising the debt limit would mean widespread economic damage:
STEPHANOPOULOS: The Treasury Department put out a report just the other day, where they said it would be unprecedented and catastrophic, that would be the impact of failing to pass a debt limit. They’re going to say, credit markets could freeze. The value of the dollar could plummet. U.S. interest rates could skyrocket. The negative spillovers could reverberate around the world, and there might be a financial crisis and recession that could echo the events of 2008 or worse. Do you agree with that assessment?
BOEHNER: I do.
Stephanopoulos also asked Boehner what concessions Republicans would be willing to make in this “negotiation” he’s requesting. Boehner couldn’t name any, and indeed, he even ruled out conceding anything on new revenues.
A lot of folks have been willing to accept Boehner’s demand for “negotiations” at face value. But let’s be clear on what he is really asking for here. Boehner is actually ruling out any negotiations in which Republicans don’t enjoy the leverage that the threat of a massive economic meltdown confers upon them. And he’s also saying Republicans will make no concessions of their own in them.
Some will argue that agreeing to raise the debt limit constitutes a “concession” on the part of at least some conservative Republicans. But why is it a concession if Boehner concedes it must happen to avert widespread disaster for the country? As Boehner himself admits, it is the giving up of presumed leverage itself that constitutes surrender for Republicans. He’s insisting on this leverage as a condition for any negotiations.
If this is an invitation to “negotiate,” the word has simply lost all meaning. Really, it shouldn’t be too much to ask for folks to reckon with the objective reality of the GOP position here.
The neocons and Tea Partiers are very easy to read. It’s all done with mirrors. Whatever they accuse others of doing is what they, themselves, are doing.