Kevin McCarthy is trying to negotiate with terrorists
Shutdowns are rarely actually about spending
America Explained is a newsletter about American politics, foreign policy and history - and how they all tie together. Subscribing helps to make America Explained possible.
I’ve been a busy bee the last week, writing a piece about the role of climate change and the green transition in U.S.-China competition for World Politics Review and another on democracy in Wisconsin for The Guardian. Check them out if you’re interested!
The big political news this week is that Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy has announced that the House will begin an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. On the one hand this is part of the right’s continuing attempts to find a link between Hunter Biden’s troubled antics and President Biden, an attempt which so far has come up with zilch. But more specifically, it’s an exercise in caucus management by McCarthy - the right-wing Freedom Caucus wants the impeachment inquiry, so McCarthy gave it to them. And the reason he chose to do it now is because of a broader struggle that is going on within Congress over government funding.
Yes, folks, it’s probably time for another government shutdown. On September 30th the U.S. government will cease to be funded unless Congress passes an appropriations bill, with the result that federal workers and soldiers will not be paid, government offices will shut down, and intrepid historical researchers will be unable to access U.S. government archives (yes, I’m still sore about this happening to me in 2013).1 Such shutdowns reverberate throughout the American and even the global economy. A cynic might even say that for an opposition party heading into an election in which the president will be judged on the strength of the economy, causing economic pain is part of the point.
The need for new government funding presents a particular problem for Kevin McCarthy, who faces two equally unpalatable options. On the one hand, he could give in to the demands of his right flank, who want spending cuts and a bunch of other conservative policies enacted (more on that in a minute). If he does this, he’ll have to put forward a bill which might not even pass the House, definitely won’t pass the Senate, and would be vetoed by Biden even if it did. On the other hand, he can try to forge a compromise in a backroom - perhaps relying on Democratic votes, as he did with the debt ceiling earlier this year - and then, if the threats of the right are to be believed, be summarily booted from the Speakership.
Eventually the government is going to have to be funded, and there’s just no way that happens on the terms that the Freedom Caucus are demanding. Knowing this, McCarthy is trying to lay the groundwork for eventually disappointing them by buttering them up on other issues - hence the impeachment inquiry. I think the fact that McCarthy felt the need to make such a major concession now, rather than making it part of a last-minute deal at midnight on September 30th, is a sign of just how weak his position is. He’s holding on by the skin of his teeth, and this concession is likely to only embolden the Freedom Caucus, who will ask for much much more.
Of course, there’s always a chance that the Freedom Caucus are bluffing. But I was left quite surprised by how easily they backed down and moved on when they got completely outmanoeuvred over the debt ceiling earlier this year. It was frankly humiliating. I’d be surprised anew if they are willing to endure it again.
What shutdowns are really about
Because what’s at issue in government shutdowns is whether the government will have money to spend, there’s a popular misconception that they’re mainly about spending levels. That hasn’t really been true for a long time - you probably have to go back to the 1990s to see shutdowns that were primarily driven by differences over spending, with one side wanting austerity and the other to splash the cash.
The shutdowns of the 2010s were usually about major policy controversies, with spending an ancillary issue. The shutdown of 2013 - the one that kept me out of the archive - was about Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare. Meanwhile, the two Trump shutdowns were mostly about immigration: firstly the fate of the Dreamers in January 2018, and then the border wall in December 2018 - January 2019. Obamacare, the Dreamers, and the border wall were all things that involve spending money, but the main controversy was over the policy, not the money.
Similarly, this time, the Freedom Caucus has a bunch of demands that are only tangentially related to the spending of money. One of their key demands is to defund the police - the FBI and the Justice Department specifically - because they object to Donald Trump being held accountable for his alleged crimes. Another is to stop “woke”-ness at the Pentagon, which they have defined variously as referring to abortion, diversity and climate change policies. They also want to pass funding for - you guessed it - a border wall.
It’s these specific policy asks that make any deal based on the demands of the Freedom Caucus so difficult to imagine. Money can be haggled over much more easily than principles. Biden has at times been open to practicing the politics of fiscal responsibility - he likes to boast that his main legislative achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, cut the deficit. But while a compromise on spending might appeal to him, one on abortion, a border wall, or defunding the FBI will not.
Of course, eventually the government will be funded again. It’s what happens in the meantime that’s the problem. So buckle up - and expect an update from America Explained when and if the dynamics change.
It wasn’t all bad though. Unable to get into the archive, I had more time to see a young lady I’d recently met. We got married in San Diego three years later.