SChip, Republicans, and the Iron Law Of Institutions

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Oct 18, 2007 at 15:35


Despite our success flipping the votes of four of the six ultimate Bush Dogs, Pressure against Republicans on the extremely popular SChip completely failed. Not a single Republican switched his or her vote from the first SChip vote to this vote. Zip, zilch, zero, nada. Why is this? How could 154 Republicans ignore the will of 80% of the electorate? Once again, I turn to the Iron Law Of Institutions for the answer (emphasis in original):

What he's overlooking is that the Democrats operate according to the Iron Law of Institutions. The Iron Law of Institutions is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.

This is true for all human institutions, from elementary schools up to the United States of America. If history shows anything, it's that this cannot be changed. What can be done, sometimes, is to force the people running institutions to align their own interests with those of the institution itself and its members.

House Republicans don't care what the public thinks about anything. We have seen in on Iraq, on the minimum wage, on SChip, and on and on and on. For most of them, losing power within Republican congressional and conservative movement institutions is far more of a threat than actually losing their seats in Congress. Even in the worst case electoral scenario for House Republicans, only about 15% of the 185 or so of them who are running for re-election in 2008 will lose. By way of contrast, spurning the movement institutions, bucking the party line, and angering corporate PACs has about a 100% chance of resulting in less power within the congressional caucus and conservative politics in general. Voting in favor of something like SChip means that people can lose committee seats, face primary challenges, draw the ire of conservative media, and generally fall out of favor within the institutions of the conservative movement and Republican Congressional minority. That threat is far, far more real than anything the electorate can offer, including defeat in the general election.

Unless you have power within the Republican congressional caucus or conservative movement institutions, there just isn't anyway to pressure Republicans to change their minds on anything. No matter what Barack Obama thinks, there is no way to meaningfully "reach out" anymore. The only solutions are to remove as many Republicans from federal office as possible, and to lessen the power of conservative movement institutions themselves. Anything else is either irrelevant, futile, or both. They just don't care what the public thinks, because the public is not who they answer to. And don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Chris Bowers :: SChip, Republicans, and the Iron Law Of Institutions

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Geographic fault lines (0.00 / 0)
What comes glaring out from the vote lists is that there are splits on a geographic basis among Republicans.  With two not voting, around 22% of Republican House members voted to override.  OTOH, 14 out of 24 Northeastern Republicans voted to override.  Last year, 11 of them went down.  In another bad year, half of them could easily lose.  But while 14 Northeastern Republicans and 13 Great L:akes Republicans voted to override, only 1 of 19 California GOPers and no Texas Republicans voted to override.

The institutional will goes only so far.  Republican attempts to instill discipline by punishing Northeastern Republicans has only made them more marginal and threatened.

Incidentally, the nine Northeastern Republicans who voted to override were Frelinghuysen, Saxton, and Garrett from New Jersey; Kuhl and Reynolds from New York; Bartlett from Maryland; and Peterson, Sjuster, and Pitts from Pennsylvania.  Peter King from Long Island did not vote.  Saxton and Kuhl in particular are taking a big risk to support an extremely lame duck President.


CA Republicans face no challenge (4.00 / 1)
Our Democrats in the legislature cut a deal in the last reapportionment that basically guaranteed both Republicans and Democrats that there would be no turnover in the state's delegation. It took all the horror of Richard Pombo and vast grassroots energy to remove one corrupt GOP member last round. We may get one or two more in 2008, but it remains tough because the districts were all drawn NOT to be vulnerable to a change in party -- drawn by a Dem legislature and a Dem governor who aimed to protect themselves. Sure supports Chris'  post, doesn't it?

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
A lesson for progressives (0.00 / 0)
I'm not quite suggesting we imitate Republicans, but ...

Look at Republican behavior in a different light -- that they are more committed to their principles (notwithstanding that their principles are to further the will of Satan in every way possible) than to the polls.  And yes, I'm giving them way too much, but bear with me.

See, I hold healthcare to be a basic human right.  Not that I'm not impacted by practical considerations, but I consider it a basic human right even if I'm the only person in the world that thinks so.  Given a chance to vote for it, I will.  Is that arrogant, or is that principled?  I thought the U.S. had no right to be invading Iraq, even when the polls favored it.  The spectrum has moved since the invasion, partly due to events, of course, but also in large part because some people were able to stick to their principles.  Without those lucky few, people would have been too intimidated to voice opposition, and the Democrats would have had no mandate to piss away.

So we can make hay out of the Republicans flaunting public opinion.  But our position is stronger if it is held, and articulated, as a matter of principle.  That's why it's usually a bad idea to insult some stranger's mother in a bar.

Look at our own message.  We support such and such a position.  This bill is good, that one is better, what can we pass?  But despite what we may articulate in the margins, we are not ARGUING that healthcare is a basic human right.  The principle.  Itself.  We may assume it among ourselves, but that isn't good enough.  And thus we are weak.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...


There IS leverage over Republicans... it's just illegal to use it as such. (0.00 / 0)
You're right that as long as a Congressman stays loyal to the conservative movement, he can never really be "defeated."  Even if he loses reelection he just moves seamlessly into the K Street world and makes millions of dollars a year lobbying his buddies, on the very floor of the House if he wants to.  The life he lives post-Congress is sweeter than the life he lives in Congress, even if it is technically less powerful.  And he remains part of the club and gets even more perks than before.

The only way someone outside the conservative movement can get someone inside the conservative movement thrown out of it, is to expose his corruption to such a degree that he must be cast out.  Note that Jerry Lewis is still a congressman in good standing, and if he were to retire he'd probably be a highly paid lobbyist like Duncan Hunter will be.  Cunningham, on the other hand, is renounced and in jail.  Bob Packwood though was a highly paid lobbyist for years after his expulsion from the Senate, and the Idaho Statesman thinks that is what Larry Craig is angling for too.

Anyway, it is possible to get someone thrown out, but you can't just demonstrate a hint of corruption, you have to prove a whole boatload (yachtload?) of it.  And of course you can't explicitly use that for leverage either, because that's blackmail and then you go to jail as well.  So it's an exception so small as to be functionally meaningless in this instance.  But it's still interesting to see that this is literally the only way (other than apostasy) to lose membership in the lucrative Movement Club.  No wonder they don't lose people very often... the carrots they have to offer are simply enormous.

(The other question is what kind of sticks are they using, in secret?  I don't know but I imagine that they are beyond imagining.  Curt Weldon might be an instructive case.  Gus Boulanis may or may not be an instructive case.)


the problem, of course (0.00 / 0)
is that these lines:

They just don't care what the public thinks, because the public is not who they answer to. And don't expect that to change anytime soon.

could just as easily be describing the Democrats in Congress. (cf Feinstein, Dianne)

i suppose the difference is that in theory we could have some kind of influence within the institutions they do answer to? because we sure don't seem to have much now.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Ranking By Vulnerability (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the list of NE reps who did not vote for the override.  But beyond them, if you can show a ranking by partisan index, it would help.

Some of these people fell on their sword today.  I'd really like to know who they were, the better to start finishing them off.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search