On Republican votes against Trump's "national emergency"

I think I have to admit error here.

I was rather adamant that Trump's "national emergency" declaration was the inevitable outcome of the government shutdown over border wall funding that, oh right, Mexico was originally going to fund.  Yeah, right.  Anyway, I will proudly proclaim that I got that right long before the rest of the commentariat, but in order to claim the credit for that, I have to admit when I am wrong.  And... I was wrong.

Throughout the lead-up to the "national emergency" declaration, I told you, over and over again, that the entire GOP would line up behind Trump, regardless of whatever supposed reservations they had about the concept of declaring a national emergency to get around the fact that the power of the purse is an Article I power, not an Article II power.  I don't think this was a completely unjustified prediction, but... it was wrong, and I think I was wrong on multiple levels, which is a little disturbing.  Still, time to 'fess up.

First, the House and Senate voted, and there were more defections on the GOP side than I thought there would be.  There weren't enough that Congress can override a veto, and this will be determined by the courts, but there were more defections than I expected.  Plain and simple.  I got that wrong.  Thom Tillis claimed that he was going to vote to block the declaration, and then flipped.  I expected more Thom Tillises, and fewer Marco Rubios.  Yup, I was wrong.

So, this got me thinking in terms of my new book.  I promise, this isn't just a shameless plug.  Instead, I started thinking about how to reconcile what happened with the arguments in my new book.  Could the model in my book explain this?  And then, the more I think about it, the more I worry... maybe not.  And that's the other level I might have been wrong.  Which... sucks.

So, here's the plug.  Incremental Polarization: A Unified Spatial Theory of Legislative Elections, Parties and Roll Call Voting.  That's either a mouthful, or a lot-o-tapping.  Anyway, one of the key points to the jargon and math in that snoozefest (I'm really makin' the sale here, ain't I?) is that legislators act differently when they are casting "pivotal" roll call votes.  When you are the one determining the outcome, you focus on your personal policy preferences because you are selecting the outcome.  When you aren't pivotal, your policy preferences don't matter because you aren't really choosing an outcome.  You're just sending a signal to voters.  So, cast an electorally optimal vote, unless constrained by parties.

That's the very short version.  When a party isn't absolutely nutso, the electorally optimal roll call vote is the more centrist vote.  The thing about the GOP these days is that... um... like Detective Fusco liked to call Root, they're Cocoa Puffs, as in, coo-coo for.  If you are more afraid of a primary challenge than a general election challenge, the electorally optimal roll call vote is not the centrist vote.  You vote the hardline vote.  That's been the GOP for a while.  Unjustifiably so, as I argue in the book, but from the perspective of trying to explain roll call votes, it's the mentality that matters.  People who are afraid of primaries will think that the hardline vote is the electorally optimal vote, and only cast more "centrist" votes if a) that's their sincere preference, and b) they think they're pivotal.

So, what happened on that "national emergency" override vote?  Basically, my argument doesn't do so well.  Maybe...  Neither the House nor the Senate is close to the veto override point.  Trump will veto the measure, so the "national emergency," which doesn't exist, will remain declared, leading to a court fight.  Hence, nobody was pivotal.  Their policy preferences shouldn't have mattered.  All of those Republicans who understood how damaging Trump's actions were to the constitutional order?  Their understanding of that shouldn't have mattered because they weren't in a position to do anything about it.  Too many Republicans in the House and Senate have been compromised by the tides of authoritarianism and anti-constitutionalism.

Shiva, Destroyer of Constitutional Governance.  He is become death.  Destroyer of democracy.

So, if you are "Little Marco," or one of the other Republicans whose asshat is currently worn at such a level that you can still see what's going on below the brim, what do you do?  The rational vote is to vote against the measure, and for Trump, presuming you still think that your biggest electoral worry is a primary.  That's why Thom Tillis flipped.

What's going on with "Little Marco" and the rest of the GOP defectors?  It doesn't make sense...

Unless we accept the premise that they actually have some belief that they need to signal opposition to Trump.  They cast a futile vote against a very vindictive President.  Now, empirically, there actually is evidence that sticking too close to a president, particularly an unpopular president can be damaging in the general election.  Really, if I'm just going by the empirics of existing political science, this shouldn't be all that weird.

It shouldn't be.  Brady, et al. (1996)  "The Perils of Presidential Support."  That's just off the top of my head on a Saturday morning, but there are tons more.  In any normal era, legislators signaling opposition to an unpopular president when they aren't pivotal shouldn't be surprising.  And that's kind of the weird thing here.  I shouldn't be puzzling over this.  I should be looking at this and saying, "well, duh!"

But, I'm not, because for years now, the GOP has been tripping all over themselves doing the more-conservative-than-thou dance because of an irrational and overstated fear of primaries.

So, why this?  Why now?

I... don't know.  I don't have an answer in my math or my models, and I got it wrong.  All I can do is point out how odd it is from the perspective of recent history.

What it does show, I suppose, is just how strongly some in the GOP responded with revulsion at the "national emergency" declaration.  When everything was pushing them to support Trump, to have this much opposition, even just symbolically, that says something.  Will they do anything?  No.  It does tell you, though, that they understand the level of authoritarian insanity that Trump is pushing.

When I write about the end of constitutional governance in the US, I'm not kidding.  Congressional Republicans will block any and all investigations into Trump and his campaign because they think they can ride out whatever personally corrupt acts he commits, and yes, most of them know how corrupt he is.  However, checks and balances?  Once you break those down, a lot of them really do understand how bad that can get for their side if they accept the premise of what Trump is doing.  They are scared.  They get it.  They get how bad it is when a president tries to do an end-run around basic separation of powers.

Some of them, anyway.  Enough to do anything?  No.  They made a devil's bargain, and it's too late.  Now it's up to John Roberts.

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: