Freedom from the Caucus?
By Jason Grumet | President, Bipartisan Policy Center
With the demise of his pledge to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, President Donald Trump finds himself in good company. He was crushed by the same political dynamic that made former President Barack Obama seem naïve, former House Speaker John Boehner look soft, and current Speaker Paul Ryan appear inexperienced: the unfathomable rigidity of the Republicans known as the House Freedom Caucus, a group so recalcitrant that one former member once quipped they “would vote against the Ten Commandments.”
Like his predecessors, President Trump is clearly wounded and angered by the Freedom Caucus’ recalcitrance. Unlike his predecessors, however, President Trump has options. Trump ran as a different kind of Republican. His campaign challenged GOP orthodoxy on trade, highlighted the plight of unemployed workers, called for a stimulus-like federal commitment to repair the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, embraced new federal investments to pay for family medical leave, and described the Bush-led 2003 invasion of Iraq as a mistake that should never be repeated. Many Democrats in key swing states were attracted to Trump’s message and helped propel him to victory. The vision laid out in his maiden speech to Congress in late February also contained several proposals that kept conservative Republicans firmly in their chairs.
While it is still early in his administration, the president is faced with a decision that will dictate the success of his policy ambitions. He can either hope to find common cause with the Freedom Caucus on tax and infrastructure that eluded him on healthcare or he can declare that he is his own man — beholden only to the voters — and declare independence from the Freedom Caucus. On this score, the president’s March 30 tweet is encouraging. He wrote: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” A return to coherent partisanship where a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans fight to win the favor of a majority of Americans would be a welcome return to the core principles of American democracy.
With his appointment of a deeply conservative cabinet and his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Trump has ample political latitude to reach across the aisle to advance the national interest and save his presidency from irrevocable gridlock. Even the credible threat of seeking Democratic votes would give him much needed leverage within the Republican caucus. Just think what might be possible if Trump and Ryan made it clear that party unity was extremely important, but not absolute. On tax reform, think of the running room the president would create if he expressed a desire to work through the actual legislative process in Congress with committee hearings and real debate.
Instead of generating headlines about drastic cuts to the Meals on Wheels program and life-saving medical research, consider the response if the president had proposed a budget reflecting a broader, more inclusive set of interests rather than fixating on the fraction of federal spending reflected in the non-defense discretionary budget.
On financial regulatory reform, consider what would happen if the president turned down the rhetoric on Dodd-Frank repeal and reached out to the many Democrats who share his concern about the unintended consequences on small business lending that restrain entrepreneurship and economic growth.
And there surely is a deal to be had on infrastructure, if the president is willing to combine promised incentives for private investment with some increase in federal spending.
One of the dangers facing the president is that the Democrats will learn the wrong lesson from the “repeal-and-replace” debacle and fall into a posture of permanent opposition, embracing the same obstructionist tactics of the far right. While there is allure in retribution, it pales against the instinct for self-preservation. While there are only a few “Blue Dogs” left in the House, there is a block of ten Democratic senators running for reelection in 2018 in states carried by President Trump. Given the opportunity to play a serious role crafting an infrastructure bill or tax reform, the desires to govern and get reelected suggest that Democrats will engage if invited to legislate.
Even on health care, the president has recently signaled a rather dramatic course correction in his political approach, stating, “I know that we’re all going to make a deal on health care — that’s a very easy one. We are going to be doing a great job. Hopefully it will start being bipartisan.” Here’s a concrete idea to start being bipartisan: Mr. President, please spend a weekend at Camp David with congressional leaders from both parties. Once establishing some basis for cooperation, include the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees, who must build the substantive and political foundation for effective tax reform and infrastructure investment.
The idea of greater collaboration will not be universally well received. The small number of members and outside groups that have effectively seized control of our shrunken democracy will not go down without a fight. But after the last two weeks of legislative humiliation, I respectfully reprise a theme from the Trump campaign: what do you have to lose?
