the choice to reach a compromise with the Democrats isn’t a decision based only on the politics of the situation.

To take the other side first, a decision to put a budget or other fiscal legislation in front of the Senate and then the President that we are reasonably sure he’d veto is strictly one that’s made to set out our position, to force them/him to declare THEIR/HIS position, and to make the difference clear. Since the end result would be no enacted law but some contrasting positions revealed, the process would be completely political. It would strengthen the Republican position among many of its members, and it would appeal as well to independents who have a desire for fiscal responsibility “no matter what.” Others would disagree.

On the other hand, if Republicans decide to put forth a fiscal package they think is flawed but still better than no legislation at all, one which His Majesty would probably deign to accept, that would be BOTH a POLITICAL- and a Congressional RESPONSIBILITY-based decision. Politically, it would be seen as a responsible attempt to achieve comity, to make compromise possible, and to “keep the government open.” Those people, including some Republicans, who are afraid of the consequences of failing to raise the debt ceiling or of the “threat” of closing national parks would applaud such legislation, as would many independents (again) who favor government operations and subsidies more than a balanced budget. And of course, the independents who are farther to the left on the social scale would also approve on the face of it. (It’s unlikely these folks would ever provide ongoing support to Republican candidates or policies, but the idea is that they might stick with us for two years if we can show that it is Obama who is unreasonable.)

You may note the asymmetrical nature of the dilemma. There are two separate issues that promote the accommodative approach–the political appeal of cooperation, and the further appeal of our accepting Congressional responsibility to “behave like grownups”–while there is only the politics of the question that advises us to follow a confrontational approach.

While it’s nice to predict that His Highness will “fold like rice paper” if faced with a strong House and a tough decision, it also means that we are convinced that HE will regard it as a “tough decision,” and it further requires that we are, if not sanguine, at least willing to accept the consequences of his veto, both politically and as it affects the operations of government and the financial markets. Given his temperament and beliefs, he might feel the decision isn’t tough at all.

Finally, a really strong statement will never get past the current Senate. My opinion is we should therefore send a VERY strong statement to the Senate, one that will force them to explain themselves in rational terms as they reject it. We should NOT be timid. From there, we are better positioned to get every concession possible from the Senate, resulting in an package acceptable to most of us. Given a package that has made its way through a Democrat Senate, Obama is more than likely to sign it.

This strategy would require that it be applied to the 2012 budget, not to a CR or the debt ceiling. It wouldn’t work on a short-term time-limited issue.