Consensus Governance vs Authoritarian Rule

Consensus governance is typically thought to be the result of a democratic process where governed citizens are able to participate in a fair electoral process to form and direct the execution of their government.  This fair electoral process is certainly an important element of consensus governance, but there is one other element that is essential for true consensus to form.  This other critical element is a willingness by all parties both majority and minority to come together in an open spirit of compromise. This willingness to compromise is what really distinguishes consensus governance from authoritative rule. 

Compromise does not mean that everyone gets everything they want.  Rather it means that everyone's stake in the governing process is reasonably considered in the laws and regulation that are legislated and that measures are taken in the system of government to ensure that everyone is equally protected from one-sided positions that exist in authoritarian rule.  The goal is majority opinion tempered with reasonable consideration of minority positions.

The ideologues who are executing the Republican agenda these days seem to have totally abandoned the concept of compromise by refusing to accept anything less that total implementation of their agenda with no modifications.  The are the party of 'No' when they are a minority, and their majority persona is a shameless display of self-indulgence as they tear through everything to get what they want.

The first major assaults on our spirit of compromise occurred in the mid-1990's budget battles where Republican heavy handedness in the budget process actually closed the Federal government for several weeks.  These Federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding in the 1996 federal budget.

The government shutdown resulted from Clinton's veto of the spending bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. This shutdown put government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services for a total of 27 days, and they were not popular with voters.  Republicans tended to avoid this tactic for years, but as recently as January 2018, the tactic resurfaced with another brief government shutdown that occurred after a budget bill failed to pass the Senate because the majority of Democrats voted against it.

Republicans have continued to show hostility to the principle of compromise even when they are in the minority.  The minority Republican caucus during the Obama administration made unprecedented use of the filibuster procedure to block virtually everything proposed by the president and the Democratic majority.  This overuse of the filibuster actually created an an embarrassing moment of filibuster self-abuse when Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filibustered a bill that he himself had introduced only hours earlier in the 2011 debt-ceiling standoff.

Another symptom of Republican contempt of compromise is the deliberate undoing of all the executive orders from the previous administration during the Trump administration.  Instead of working ahead to the future, all the  matters of the past had to be erase to start again in an uncompromising manner to get everything they want.

It is not uncommon for a new president to change things especially when succeeding someone from the other party. Trump openly took this change to a new level by not just steering the country in a different direction but by actively dismantle everything that was established by his predecessor.  He has been wholly committed to reversing the accomplishments of its predecessor.  

Instead of focusing on what he could build, Trump seem far more comfortable destroying Obama's policy legacy than in forward thinking to development of for what will follow.  Trump's penchant for destroying the past is not accompanied by progressive new ideas.  He appears to only be intent on tearing Obama's legacy down which may actually be right in line with his hard-line supporters agenda.

The full force of this assault on the spirit compromise is best illustrated by the Republican approach to the Federal Judicial Branch.  Federal and state government system in this country have a of checks and balances of the three branches of Executive to enforce the laws, Legislature to make the laws, and Judicial to interpret the laws.  Each branch has a role to ensure the integrity and fairness of government actions.  The executive and legislature are elected officials and the Judicial judges are appointed by a process of executive nomination followed by legislative confirmation.

Since Trump was elected, a long standing Senate procedural rule requiring a 60 super-majority for Supreme Court nominee confirmation has been changed to a simple majority.  With this new simple majority in place, they are confirming very young perhaps to point of being inexperience to create a long lasting partisan impression of the judicial system.  Their confirmation feeding frenzy has result in two Supreme Court appoints and a record number of other judges is a very short order of time that has limited candidate vetting.  Details of this feeding frenzy will be provided in a separate post.

The Republican agenda has abandoned the approach of consensus building compromise in favor of a more authoritarian approach of our way or the highway.  At every turn, they obstruct and bully to the point they are incapable of consensus governing.  To them, a will of the majority that is not inline with their strict agenda of the few is an obstacle that needs to be overcome.  Their extreme unwillingness to compromise has made the Federal government completely unable to operate effectively to the point that everybody can see it, but unfortunately, not everyone see the real cause.

The Republican agenda is to impose minority positions on the majority in an authoritarian manner that is not in the spirit of our consensus opinion democracy.  They hope to accomplish this goal with voter suppression, gerrymandering, and completely disregarding the will of the majority as they impose their authoritarian rule.

Surging Economy and Staggering Debt

In his characteristic egocentric fashion, Trump is quick to claim credit for the strong economy, that according to him, is a direct result of his insightful economy policies.  If this economy is so strong, why has the Dow Jones just experienced its third-biggest one-day drop in history of more than 800 points on Wednesday and more than 500 points on Thursday.  As with all other Trump claims, things actually look a little differently when not viewed with the Trump rose colored glasses.

Trump inherited from the previous Obama (a Democrat) administration a strong economy based on sound fundamentals.  Obama, in turn, had inherited the Great 2008 Recession from his previous Bush (a Republican)  administration.  The Bush administration had somehow taken the Clinton administration's strong fundamental economy with budget surpluses and in a mere 8 years, turned it into the Great 2008 Recession.  Does anybody see an emerging trend here?

After less than two years, Trump is on the very same track that Bush followed.  The Republican controlled congress did everything possible to suppress Obama's attempts to resuscitate the economy during his administration.  They failed to completely smother it, but they did manage to keep it somewhat flat.  In the first year of the Trump administration, this same Republican controlled congress  took specific action to surge the economy with tax cuts (which mainly benefited the very wealthy) and 1.3 trillion of spending in the Trump first FY budget.  

Cutting taxes and increasing spending was the necessary fuel thrown on the Obama sound fundamental economy fire to give the economy traction.  Of course it took off, but there is a time-bomb ticking off the days to the next Republican inspired recession.  It took off like a rocket, but the fundamentals don't look good now.  The biggest indicator of a problem is the accelerated increase in debt.  The recent Dow Jones drops are a harbinger of this and other festering economic problems.

This course of action is exactly the same as the Bush administration on their eight year rush to recession.  The historical basis of this trend goes all the way back to the Reagan administration with the only difference being that Reagan inherited a very weak economy that was blamed on the one term Democratic Carter presidency which followed eight years of Republican's Nixon and Ford.

Reagan in the early years of his administration executed a healthy tax cut that benefited all but mostly the very rich, and radically increased defense spending.  He did not make these changes on a sound analysis of the facts.  It was more a knee-jerk by Reagan blindly implementing the extreme conservative agenda in the hopes that it would work without any fundamental knowledge.

Reagan's economic 'policies' did not go good well from early in his first term.  Some of this chaos was inherited by Reagan from previous administrations, but the sky-rocketing national debt was all caused by Reagan policies.  In this early time, his economic policy was being seriously questioned.  The resulting outcry had his own VP George H W Bush calling the Reagan cobbled together economic strategy 'Voodoo Economics' referring to the fact that it was not based on any study or good precedent. 

Just before the end of his first term his nearly $1 trillion increase in defense spending started to kick in and stimulate the economy.  Key among this increase in defense spending included loser projects like reviving funding to the over-budget, technically flawed B-1 bomber that the Air Force didn't even want and the great 'Star Wars' debacle.  Maybe nothing worth having was done, but the $1 trillion dollars did set the economy on fire.

After this perceived economic turnaround, Voodoo Economics began to be hailed as economic genius.  It was taken up by some economist under the new name of Trickle-down economic, but in the nearly four decades of its deployment, it has repeatedly demonstrated failure at both the national level and for several states who tried it (e.g. Kansas, Arizona, Kentucky, and West Virginia).  The end of Reagan's second term saw the onset of a recession that extended into the one-term presidency of his VP H W Bush's.  

This recession dogged H W Bush until he was defeat by Democrat Clinton in 1992.  Clinton raised taxes to get the debt under control, and the economy surged through the late 1990's.  At the end of Clinton's second term, the Federal budget was actually showing a budget surplus.  W Bush lost the popular vote, but was maneuvered into office by political cronies and the Supreme Court.  Shortly after W Bush took office, the Republican congress cut taxes and started a massive spending agenda.  The Clinton surpluses were followed after two W Bush terms deficit debt and the Great Recession of 2008. 

It took two terms of Obama to reverse this recession and return a robust economy.  Part of Obama's difficulties were the result of a Republican controlled congress that was installed in 2010.  This congress denied him any support in his recovery efforts by being the congress of 'no', but he still managed get the economy back on track.

The history of Trickle-down economics on nation debt can easily be seen in this CBO plot of debt percentage of GBP from 1940 projected out to 2020 illustrated in the figure below.  The highest percentage of debt occurred at the end of World War II in 1946.  It reach an all-time low in 1981 which was the last budget year for the Carter administration.  

It steadily increased through 1980 years of the Republican presidents Reagan and H W Bush with the introduction of Trickle-down policies.  Clinton was able to reverse the debt trend with budget surplus by the end of his second term. The W Bush presidency took those Clinton surplus and restarted the debt ascension.  Obama  inherited 2008 Recession debt growth.  He slowed it and started its decline in 2016 when Trump was inaugurated.  Trump with his tax cut and budget spending restarted the ascension.
















One lesson is very clear from this chart.  A clear trend of debt increase is observed with the implementation of the Republican Trickle-down economics.  Trickle-down implementation has repeatedly failed across this country resulting in massive debt and diminished or eliminated public services such as education.

We know from experience that a flat economy with a good foundation can be stimulated with tax cuts and increase government spending.  It will takeoff like a rocket.  The Republicans have learned that lesson quite well.  

The other economy lesson has proved to be a little bit more difficult for Republicans to learn.  This other lesson involves the effect of increase spending and a large tax cut.  This combination inevitably creates deficit debt that is detrimental to long-term economic stability, and nothing ever really trickles down.  Perhaps Republicans have failed to notice this inevitable consequence, but more likely, they just don't care as they pursue any avenue to win.

Whether these recent Dow Jones losses are the immediate precursor of the coming Republican recession  remains to be seen.  But one thing remains certain, the inevitable Republican recession is definitely coming.