The Unnecessary Battle

This week, Paul Ryan unveiled a historic budget proposal that cuts federal spending by trillions of dollars, reforms Medicare and Medicaid, and appears to shift the trajectory of federal spending away from insolvency. The budget--whether or not you agree with all its provisions--represents real fiscal reform.

Yet Ryan’s 2012 fiscal year budget did not steal the headlines or command the undivided attention of conservative activists and party operatives. That is because another, more immediate fiscal matter, remains unresolved and is still being fiercely debated on Capitol Hill and across the political spectrum: the stalemate over the 2011 fiscal year budget.

The outcome of this battle is less important than the fact that Republicans are waging the battle in the first place. Bolstered by the conservative grassroots, the GOP leadership is fighting tooth and nail over whether to cut roughly $30 billion or $60 billion from the current fiscal year budget. In other words, the GOP is spending political capitol in hopes of reducing the current fiscal deficit by approximately two tenths of one percent as opposed to four tenths of one percent.

The difference is a rounding error, and more critically, the battle’s outcome does nothing to advance the far-reaching objectives set forth in Ryan’s budget. It is for all intensive purpose a dangerous distraction. Dangerous, because it diverts political resources from the real war over the size and scope of government to be waged during the 2012 budget debate and the 2012 election.

I am sympathetic in theory to grassroots conservatives who are pressuring elected Republicans to obtain maximum cuts and to not compromise with a Democratic leadership that has demonstrated an utter inability and unwillingness to reign in out-of-control spending. I get it: the current spending levels are unsustainable and we need to cut now and cut everywhere.

But this is short-term thinking and can have negative long-term implications. The Republicans may indeed get all the cuts they seek, but at what cost?

This fight has already undermined if not overshadowed the historic rollout of Ryan’s budget. Instead of concentrating all available political and media resources on winning the support of the American people for the ambitious agenda laid out in Ryan’s plan, Republicans are haggling with Democrats over trivial spending cuts, which have little or no long-term budgetary implications. Moreover, the left-wing media happily touts the fact that Republicans are recalcitrant and unwilling to “meet the Democrats half way.” Whether this is fair criticism--and it probably isn’t--it is one more talking point, email blast, press conference, or facebook post that is not focused on the 2012 budget.

Skillful political leaders understand the folly of fighting every political or policy battle. The art of political strategy is knowing when to fight, when to retreat, and when to negotiate a cease fire. The prudent strategist resists the temptation to fight and win every battle, only fighting battles that move him towards his ultimate goal. Fighting trivial battles depletes and dilutes resources, energizes opponents, and distracts from the big picture. The Republicans should ask themselves if getting an additional $30 billion in cuts for this fiscal year is worth jeopardizing the outcome of the 2012 budget war.

I suspect Speaker Boehner understands the risk of digging in his heels over a rounding error. He is, however, in the difficult position of pursuing big ticket items, while having to simultaneously placate the tea party base, which made him Speaker in the first place. This is a difficult dilemma, but if Boehner caves in to every demand made by the citizenry--no matter how short-sighted these demands are--he may derail the prospect of enacting significant long-term reforms.

It would serve the tea party well to take note of the big picture, because at times, this great and powerful American grassroots movement has shown a lack of long-term strategic savvy. It has demonstrated a tendency to fight every battle and not focus on long-tem goals--a potentially catastrophic shortcoming in any competitive environment.

This might be expected from a genuinely organic, spontaneous, grassroots organization. The tea party is leaderless, and as such, it does not have a built-in unity of command or the structural discipline to design and implement strategies that advance key objectives, while not getting bogged down in essentially irrelevant skirmishes.

Instead, all too often, the tea party fights pointless battles without regard as to how this might impact long-term success. Such a haphazard approach to strategy jeopardizes the outcome of the war. In many ways, it is refreshing that the tea party is “leaderless,” but if it chooses to throw itself headlong into every policy battle, it inevitably disrupts the long-term planning of elected representatives, who should have their eyes on much grander objectives.

The tea party is more effective and influential in its role as an ideological bulwark, not a policy micromanager.