Norman Ornstein makes a good observation: While the components of the Affordable Care Act were very popular, the act itself was not, and the opposite happened with the tax-cut deal President Obama struck with Republicans in December. The components (particularly extending tax cuts for the wealthy) were not popular, but the deal was. The reason, of course, is process: When the process looks smooth and cooperative, people think Washington is "getting things done," but when it's fractious and angry, it looks like Washington is bickering. The substance is almost irrelevant. Ornstein argues, therefore, that the Tea Partiers misunderstood their mandate:
Tea Party conservatives are convinced that the 2010 elections were a huge public mandate of support for a radical, cut-government and cut-taxes agenda. The mandate was far more one of trying to get mature individuals to come together and transcend their differences for the public good. That was certainly true of most Democrats and most independents, and a healthy swath of Republicans. But it was not true for the most active share of Republicans, those who dominate caucuses and primaries, and it is the latter group to whom Republican lawmakers are most sensitive.
I don't know whether I'd agree that voters were voting for cooperation; it seems to me that 2010 was more of a standard-issue, throw-the-bums-out-when-things-aren't-going-well election. But in any case, there's something else important at work. It's true that Tea Partiers think they have a mandate to slash government. But they also believe that this course will produce good outcomes in the end, and this will be far more important than people's disgust at the process. They genuinely believe that if we cut government in half and reduce taxes on rich people -- excuse me, "job creators" -- it will unleash a flood of entrepreneurialism and productivity, and the country will head toward economic nirvana. Even if there may be some short-term pain, everything will work out in the end, their economic ideas will be vindicated, and they'll continue to win at the ballot box. You and I may be quite certain that this is not just baseless but borderline insane, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it. From their perspective, refusing to raise the debt ceiling is good policy and good politics. Even if they're suffering politically in the short run, their political fortunes will turn around once all the benefits of government's near-destruction come to be realized.
Of course, liberals also believe that their preferred policies will produce better results. We may have more evidence on our side for that conclusion. But it's no use to say to a Tea Partier, "I know you don't like government, but don't you see how bad things are going to get if we follow the course you're advocating?" Because they answer is, no, they don't see. Quite the contrary.
