The public no longer sees government shutdown as a train wreck

Sometimes you get an idea of the way opinion is headed by thephrases you dont hear. Case in point: In all the discussion anddebate these past weeks about a possible government shutdown ifCongress and President Obama fail to agree on funding bills, I dontrecall having heard the phrase train wreck.

I think thats significant, because back in the 1990s, when then-House Speaker Newt Gingrichs Republicans and President Clintonfailed to reach agreement and the government actually did shut down,train wreck was a common term.

And of course a derogatory one. The implication was that agovernment shutdown was a horrifying mess. In fact, the countryweathered the 1990s shutdowns pretty well. And so did GingrichsHouse Republicans, who lost only nine seats in the next election alot fewer than the 63 seats Nancy Pelosis Democrats lost lastNovember.

Which is not to say that voters view a shutdown as an unalloyedpositive. But youre not hearing it described as a train wreck,either.

House Republicans passed a stopgap funding bill Tuesday that willkeep the government open after a Friday deadline, a measure thatObama and Senate Democrats have signaled they will embrace. But thatwould just postpone the prospect of a shutdown for two weeks. If thegovernment is shuttered then, who would the public blame?

Both sides equally, say pollsters in surveys taken over the pasttwo weeks.

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, says 41 percent wouldblame Republicans and 39 percent would blame Obama.

Gallup says that 42 percent say Republicans are doing a betterjob of reaching a budget agreement while 39 percent say Democratsare.

The Hill says 29 percent would blame Democrats for a shutdown and23 percent would blame Republicans.

The Washington Post says 36 percent would blame Republicans and35 percent would blame the Obama administration.

Its a general rule that people have more favorable feelingstoward individuals than they do to groups; thats why the president,any president, almost always has better ratings than the Congress.You might want to keep that in mind in interpreting polls pittingthe individual Obama against the group congressional Republicans.

Also keep in mind that opinion is not where it was during theClinton-Gingrich struggle 16 years ago. The Washington Posthelpfully notes that its polling then showed 46 percent blamingGingrich and the Republicans for the shutdown and only 27 percentblaming Clinton.

Were in a different political environment now in two importantrespects. The first is the media. There was no Internet orblogosphere in 1995; Fox News Channel did not start until October1996; talk radio was in its infancy, with Rush Limbaugh already animportant national voice but with few other conservative hosts onthe air.

In that environment, liberal-inclined media were able to tell thestory and frame the issue the way they liked without much dissent.ABCs Peter Jennings could compare voters who supported GingrichRepublicans to infants having a tantrum. Such voices dont have amonopoly today.

The second significant difference is that in the mid-1990s theeconomy was growing and it was not clear why we needed to limitgovernment spending. We could afford more for this, that and theother thing.

Now were in straitened circumstances, just out of a severerecession (though many voters dont think its over just yet) and in avery restrained and anemic recovery. Weve seen that a substantialincrease in government spending from 21 percent to 25 percent ofgross domestic product hasnt done much to stimulate economicgrowth. And weve seen that government kept growing even as theprivate sector suffered.

In that setting, pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 58 percentof likely voters would rather have a government shutdown until bothparties can agree on spending cuts, while only 33 percent wouldprefer spending at the same levels as last year.

Liberal poll critics may say, correctly, that the question framesthe issue the way Republican politicians would like. But thats thepoint. Republican politicians today have a much better chance topersuade voters to view issues the way they do than they did in theClinton-Gingrich days.

All of which explains why Obama and congressional Democrats seemmore willing to make concessions than Clinton was. And why were nothearing the phrase train wreck much anymore.