Confederate intransigence
by David Atkins
As we neared impact on the fiscal cliff deal, I noted that even though we all would prefer the President to be a stronger negotiator, the fact that most Republican House members are so comfortably gerrymandered into conservative districts means that common public disfavor and the intimidation of bully pulpit won't much matter to them.
But it's important to note that the issue is a little more complicated than which Republican incumbents are safe and which ones are not. The difference between a pliable Republican and an intransigent one is also largely a function of region and culture:
At Daily Kos, Greg Dworkin noted the seeming contradiction between my statement that Republicans are not accountable to public opinion, and Chait's postulate that the President might have been able to count on public opinion to sway Republicans into passing stand-alone middle-class tax cuts.
The resolution lies in which Republicans are under discussion. The power base of the GOP lies in the South and plains states. That's where most of their representatives are located. It's entirely likely that a number of Republicans in blue states are amenable to some hard-nosed persuasion. But it's entirely unlikely that a majority of Republicans are so inclined.
And it's finally also unlikely that a House Republican majority would often break the Hastert Rule to pass progressive priorities just because 40 or so Republicans felt pressured into voting for them.
None of which means that Democrats shouldn't take harder negotiating stances and use the bully pulpit while pushing for significant rules changes to disempower the Confederate minority that artificially holds power in the House of Representatives. They should. It's the only option that doesn't involve shooting a sequential set of hostages taken by radical Republicans.
.