Dawidziak: Deficit talks and past politics

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.

What's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? It sounds like the beginning of a riddle, but the answer is no joke. It's vitally important to our immediate economic outlook.

Our Washington leaders are locked in a titanic struggle over whether to raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes and slash spending. As President Barack Obama continues his negotiations with Speaker John Boehner and the House Republicans, the impact of this question looms larger and larger.

The answer to the riddle is: Democrats can count on their base not to abandon them, and Republicans can't. That's the huge stumbling block in coming to an agreement.

Most political observers believed these negotiations would be tough and that both sides would engage in the time-honored Beltway practice of brinkmanship -- but that a last-minute deal would be reached. It's entirely possible, however, that it won't turn out that way.

Any deal would have to be the kind of semantic compromise that would allow both sides to save face. It would have to allow the Republicans to say that they didn't raise taxes and the Democrats to say that they didn't slash social programs in deference to not taxing the rich. But Obama has now proposed that both sides take on the more extreme elements of their parties. At a press briefing on Monday he said, "It is possible for us to construct a package to involve both parties to take on their sacred cows," and, "I'm prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done. And I expect the other side should be willing to do the same thing, if they mean what they say that this is important."

The Republican response could very well be, "Easy for you to say!" It's been demonstrated irrefutably that no matter how badly their agenda is sold out, the liberal left will never defect and not vote for the Democrat. The same can't be said for the conservative right. These voters have demonstrated over time that they are perfectly willing to let Republican candidates lose if they don't agree with their core issues and values. Conservatives crucified President George H.W. Bush in 1992, over his willingness to compromise with Democrats and raise taxes. In two recent upstate congressional elections, the right abandoned the Republican candidate for not being conservative enough, leading to surprising Democratic victories in both races. The rise of the tea party has only intensified this dynamic.

This wasn't always the case. From 1968 until 1992, Democrats managed to win only one presidential election. A large part of the problem was that candidates felt they had to cater to the more liberal and splintered special-interest groups of the party. This left the Republicans poised to appeal to and win the middle. It took consultant Dick Morris and the Clinton advisers in 1992 to realize that the left wasn't going anywhere. They proved their point by moving Clinton to the right on issues like welfare reform, with no collateral damage from the left. In what proved to be the perfect storm of politics, at the same time, Pat Buchanan and the conservatives were proving that just the opposite had become true for the Republican Party -- and it's been true ever since.

It still seems likely that a compromise on the debt ceiling will be reached. The ramifications of America defaulting on its credit obligations are as frightening as they are unknown, and neither side wants to risk being blamed for them. The Republicans know that if they give in, they'll be punished for it. So look for the Democrats to give in more -- and to suffer little blowback at the polls next year.