A threat is an expression of intention to inflict harm on others unless the target of the threat agrees to do what the person making the threat demands. A threat uses coercion rather than persuasion to effect change. As a general rule, democratic governments do not negotiate with those who threaten their people with harm. The reason is simple: Democracies should not make public policy in response to threats, and those who threaten should not be rewarded for threatening harm to the nation.
This is the dilemma facing President Obama in the current debt ceiling crisis. The debt ceiling has never before been used as a leverage point for partisan political demands. As Mr. Obama observed in his address to the nation on July 25, presidents from Eisenhower to Bush II have regularly raised the debt ceiling without controversy and without facing anything like the current Republican intransigence.
But what makes that intransigence an immoral "threat" rather than an ordinary political disagreement? The answer is that the current controversy really has nothing to do with the debt ceiling. Rather, Republicans who do not have the votes to enact their preferred policies into law are threatening to throw the nation into economic chaos by refusing to increase the debt ceiling unless the President accedes to their demands. By threatening to wreak havoc with the national interest, they are attempting to coerce rather than persuade the nation into doing what they want.
The key point is that this controversy is not about the debt ceiling itself. All the issues about deficits and spending and taxes can be hashed out entirely apart from the debt ceiling issue. But the Republicans are exploiting the need to increase the debt limit in order to hold the nation itself hostage to their demands. It would be no different if the Republicans threatened not to raise the debt limit unless the President agreed to nominate Grover Norquist to the Supreme Court or to repeal of the Civil Rights Act or invade Pakistan or pull out of the United Nations. This is not democratic governance. This is not even political obstructionism. It is blackmail, plain and simple, where the threatened victim is the nation itself.
Of course, the President could temporarily avert disaster by giving in to those who are threatening to bring about chaos. But if he does so, he will invite similarly destructive conduct in the future. As the President warned in his speech to the nation, if he gives in to the Republican demands now, "in six months they'll do this again."
The Republicans have every right to try to get their preferred policies enacted into law and they have every right to refuse to raise the debt ceiling (though that would be calamitously stupid). But what they cannot morally do is to attempt to get their preferred policies enacted into law by threatening not to raise the debt ceiling. It is the connection between the two that makes their strategy immoral.
In this sense, their conduct is very much like blackmail. Suppose X says to Y, "If you don't give me $1,000 I will tell your boss that you voted for Obama." X has every right to tell the boss, but it is unlawful for him to threaten to tell the boss in order to coerce Y to give him the $1,000. That is what the Republicans are doing here.
By threatening to destroy the economy if they don't get their way, those Republicans who are pursuing this course may be honoring their pledge not to raise taxes, but they are also dishonoring the very spirit of their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this post used the word "terrorism" as metaphor, contrary to our policy of avoiding such characterizations. The author has therefore revised the post to read as it does now.
Barry Levinson: The Loyalty Oath Business
Dr. David P. Gushee: The Debt Crisis and Our National Character
Please Mr. President, stop trying to reason with fanatics, stop trying to appeal to the non-existent "higher angels" of reptilian brained ideologues, end the negotiations with the GOPTP holding the economy hostage. Instead, send in the SWAT team, so to speak.
That is, it's time to address the nation again: itemize every item the GOPTP refused to budge on (every insane tax loophole, every cut [make that "amputation'] that was squarely targeted to tuck it to the poor and dwindling middle class), express your moral outrage over the GOPTP (go full throttle and call them the 'agents of intolerance' that they are, as McCain did before the right wingers broke his spirit) ... and then put this to rest by invoking the 14th Amendment.
Yep, all you Progressives can make jokes about how 'this must be where all the intelligent people read articles' (this makes me break into laughter), but you know its true - the American people are turning on the Chosen One and his dream of turning the USA into New Europe.
Hey Harry Reid. . . . . . Pass A Plan!
If the ceiling has been raised on an average of every nine months, for the last 50 years why won't he sign a bill that would cause another vote on the ceiling next year?
The president wants to raise the ceiling another $2.4T. What happens when our national debt is $16.9T?
Doesn't raising the ceiling encourage additional spending? Isn't the spiraling debt the cause of devaluation of the dollar and possibly the reason other counties are try to remove the dollar as the worlds reserve currency?
Democrats. . . . . Pass your own bill if you don't like ours!
Btw, my 5 year-old nephew has a plan to rule the world. Doesn't mean it's a good plan, either.
All the dems have to do is agree to some cuts, pretty paltry cuts at that, and this would be over. Perhaps instead of bashing the Ryan plan this summer the dems should have offered their own.
"I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle." - Andrew Carnegie
What tripe. Let us name a few exceptions....1) SALT talks with USSR. 2) Talks between USA and Iraq Sunni tribes, 3) Treaties with Indian tribes, 4)Talks with N. Korea. 5) Hostage talks with Iran. The dispute in Washington is not between a democratic government and someone else. It involves two coequal branches of a single government. In times when the democrats controlled the House (e.g. during Watergate) they felt no compunction about using threats against the executive branch. In another episode, the democratic House used the threat of funding cuts to force a troop withdrawal from Vietnam. That was a case involving war where executive authority is maximum. In contrast the current fray boils down to an old fashion argument over money. It is concerned with how to spend our meager tax income and how we can afford to repay our debts. Legislative power is maximum in such cases. Both sides are perfectly within their rights and are using the legal means at their disposal to obtain their objectives. It is not prudent or wise for the executive to escalate such a prosaic matter into a constitutional crisis that could destroy our very democracy. I can guarantee that any such efforts would not be good for the unemployment statistics or for our bond ratings.
"It is not prudent or wise for the executive to escalate such a prosaic matter into a constitutiÂonal crisis that could destroy our very democracy."
Are you kidding? For the first time in the history of United States the House has decided to hold the government hostage and you want to blame the President? In every situation one COULD blame the person being extorted for the problem, after all they COULD capitulate to the threats.
It is about time, in my view, that our legislative branch stood up to our tyrannical executive and asserted the ancient power of the Magan Carta. This power seems new to you only because there was no noticeable national debt until the 1940'a and it never extended to more then 50% of GDP until 2008. Eventually a nation with growing debt becomes a slave to its bankers. That is the current sad dilemma of Obama and the democrats.
Is that the same "intransigence" that Mr.Obama exhibited when he, as a Senator, refused to vote for a debt-ceiling hike because having to raise the debt ceiling was evidence of "a lack of leadership"?
Surely, this isn't just political back-and-forth-ing, is it?