The game is the same, but many of the players have changed. Congress and the president are facing off in another supreme spending showdown. If they don't agree on a funding bill by the end of September 30, much of government will shutdown. This last happened in 2011, when Congress avoided a shutdown by passing a spending measure shortly after the midnight deadline hit. Who controls what happens this time? Take a look at the key players who will determine how this fight ends:
-- From CNN Capitol Hill Reporter Lisa Desjardins. CNN's Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.
Editor's note: Benjamin Radcliff is a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. He is author of the book "The Political Economy of Human Happiness."
(CNN) -- The battle in Washington over the budget is not mere partisan squabbling. What we are debating is the perennial argument between right and left: Do we as a society prefer to leave the well-being of our people to the indifference of the market economy, or do we believe that government also has an important role to play?
We are accustomed to thinking of the argument between left and right as an ideological or philosophical debate, so it has no "correct" answer. But there is an answer: We are entirely capable of knowing what policies best contribute to people leading positive and rewarding lives.
In recent decades, social scientists have been studying human happiness in the same way we study any other human attribute. Vast new multidisciplinary research has emerged around the proposition that it is possible to empirically measure the extent to which people view their lives as satisfying.
Can it be stopped? 8 answers on Obamacare and the shutdown
So what conditions best promote more rewarding lives?
The answer is simple and unequivocal: Happier people live in countries with a generous social safety net, or, more generally, countries whose governments "tax and spend" at higher rates, reflecting the greater range of services and protections offered by the state. (These findings come from analysis of data from the World Values Surveys for the 21 Western industrial democracies from 1981 to 2007 for my book "The Political Economy of Human Happiness." Similar findings have been reported in peer-reviewed journals like "Social Research" and the "Social Indicators Research.")
The relationship could not be stronger or clearer: However much it may pain conservatives to hear it, the "nanny state," as they disparagingly call it, works. Across the Western world, the quality of human life increases as the size of the state increases. It turns out that having a "nanny" makes life better for people. This is borne out by the U.N. 2013 "World Happiness Report," which found Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden the top five happiest nations.
Conservatives may be equally troubled to learn that labor unions have a similar effect. Not only are workers who belong to unions happier, but the overall rate of happiness for everyone -- members and nonmembers -- increases dramatically as the percentage of workers who belong to unions grows, reflecting the louder political voice that organization gives to ordinary citizens.
All this remains true when controlling for the many other things that might also affect quality of life, such as income, age, gender, marital status, or their country's culture, history, or level of economic development. Critically, "big government" and labor unions also promote happiness not merely for those toward the bottom or middle of the income distribution, but for everyone, rich and poor, men and women, conservatives and liberals.
Government's latest shutdown showdown
Sen. Ted Cruz's war on Obamacare
Rick Santorum: 'I would be with Ted Cruz'
The same pattern emerges when looking at our states. People who live in states with higher welfare spending, more organized labor, more liberal state governments, more regulation of business, and a greater recent history of control by the Democratic Party, are all more satisfied with their lives, regardless of income, and again when controlling for other factors that are likely to affect well-being.
Zelizer: GOP strategy on shutdown courts doom
The reasons the progressive agenda promotes happiness are complex, but stated simply, the more we supplement the cold efficiency of the market with interventions that reduce poverty, insecurity, and inequality, the more we improve quality of life for everyone.
As poet and novelist Wendell Berry observed, "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." It takes no great insight to see that a world with less insecurity and less poverty, which is to say, a world more governed by justice and mercy, is one that people of all social classes will find more satisfying.
Many benefit directly from social programs or the representation of their interests by unions; others worry less than they otherwise might because they know these institutions exist when needed; and everyone benefits indirectly by living in a society which is relatively free of social pathologies, such as the higher rates of violent crime, that come with the poverty, inequality and insecurity that liberal policies help ameliorate.
The data demonstrate that this is not merely softhearted wishful thinking. Whatever else unions and liberal public policies might do, they help make the world a better place to the extent that we believe human happiness is the appropriate metric to measure such judgments.
That in turn suggests the most intellectually compelling strategy available to progressives in the battle for public opinion: Traditional New Deal policies are precisely those that best allow citizens to pursue the happiness that the founders of our republic so famously argued to be the final justification for the American experiment.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Benjamin Radcliff.
Loading weather data ...
© 2013 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina -- The architect. During Congress' August recess, the tea party-backed freshman wrote to Republican leaders suggesting that they tie dismantling Obamacare to the funding bill. Though initially rejected by GOP leadership, 79 of Meadows' House colleagues signed on to the letter, which quoted James Madison writing in the Federalist Papers, "the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon ... for obtaining a redress of every grievance."
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- The coach. He'll make the key play call. The top Republican leader in the land may be the most important player in the days immediately before a possible shutdown. Boehner could decide whether to push through the Senate's version of a spending bill and keep government running, or he could float a third version with some other Republican wish list items in it. If he takes the second option, Boehner could risk a shutdown but could also force the Senate into a tough position: give House Republicans something or send federal workers home. Timing on all this will be critical.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas -- The revolutionary or rabble rouser, depending on your viewpoint. The tea party firebrand could lead a long filibuster on the Senate floor, delaying passage of a spending bill until just one day before the deadline on Monday, September 30. Cruz has stoked the anti-Obamacare flames all summer, but recently angered fellow Republicans by openly saying that the Senate does not have the votes to repeal the health care law.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida -- Senator to watch. The potential presidential candidate has been one of three senators (Cruz and Mike Lee, R-Utah, being the others) pushing to use the government shutdown debate as a way to repeal or defund Obamacare. But watch his actions and language as a shutdown nears to see if he digs in or if downshifts at all.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada -- The man steering the ship in the Senate. Master at using Senate procedure to his advantage, Reid is the main force in controlling the voting process in the chamber and ensuring that an attempted filibuster by tea party-types fails. The majority leader will be a primary negotiator if we reach phase three, if the House does not accept the Senate spending bill.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky -- If Reid steers the ship, McConnell controls the headwinds. Which is good news for Reid, at least initially. The Republican leader and several of his members say they will vote against Cruz's filibuster and in favor of a spending bill with no limits on Obamacare. Meaning, in favor of a bill that just funds government. McConnell generally has been leery of running into a shutdown or default. In fact, one legislative method for avoiding default is named after him.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington -- The consigliore. Murray, center, does not seek the outside limelight, but the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman is a major fiscal force behind the scenes on Capitol Hill. Known by fellow Democrats as a straight shooter, she is also an experienced negotiator, having co-chaired the laborious, somewhat torturous and unsuccessful Super Committee.
Rep. Tom Graves, R-Georgia -- The new militia leader. The freshman congressman from Georgia, second from right, is one reason the debate has reached this point. Graves led the charge that blocked the original proposal by House Republican leaders. That would have kept government funded and had a detachable portion on Obamacare. Instead Graves and other conservatives forced their leaders to pass a spending bill with a mandatory defunding of Obamacare.
Rep. Peter King, R-New York -- The blunt statesman. King is outspoken against many tea party tactics, calling the move to tie Obamacare to the must-pass spending bill essentially a suicide mission and Cruz "a fraud." He is pushing for Republicans to accept a more "clean" spending bill that can pass the Senate and avoid a shutdown.
Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- The heavy. Donohue is known for his deep connections and his aggressive lobbying on behalf of business. He and the Chamber are urging Republican lawmakers to avoid a shutdown. The Chamber is an important political backer for conservatives, but has had mixed success with the current Congress, locking in firm anti-tax positions but unable to push through immigration reform so far.
Michael Needham, president of Heritage Action -- The driving force. Needham runs the political offshoot of the conservative Heritage Foundation and has been unrelenting in urging lawmakers to repeal Obamacare. He has told Republicans not to fear a potential shutdown, saying they would suffer more politically from allowing Obamacare to continue.
President Barack Obama -- The campaigner and CEO. Expect the president to use his podium more as a shutdown nears, aiming at public opinion as Democrats in Congress position themselves. If House Republicans send back a new proposal close to the September 30 deadline, the president and Democrats will have to decide what move to make next.
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia -- The powerful lieutenant. Cantor, the House Republican No. 2, is much more closely allied with conservatives and tea party members in the House than is Speaker Boehner. The two have not always agreed on every strategy during potential shutdown debates, but have been in public lockstep during the current go-around.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland -- Players on deck. The top two House Democrats are mostly watching and waiting. But they will play a critical role once Boehner decides his next move. They could either bring Democratic votes on board a deal or be the loudest voices against a new Republican alternative. Hoyer will be interesting to watch; he has strongly opposed both the House and Senate plans as cutting too much in spending.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California -- The numbers guy. McCarthy, the House whip, has the tricky job of assessing exactly where Republican members stand and getting the 217 votes it takes to pass a bill in the chamber. He is known for his outreach to and connection with many of the freshmen House members who align with the tea party.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin -- Member to watch. The vote of the House budget chairman and former vice presidential nominee is an important signal both within Republican ranks and to the public at large. Ryan has voted against some funding measures in the past, including the emergency aid for Superstorm Sandy recovery. But he was a "yes" on the last extension of the debt ceiling.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida -- Another member to watch. A former committee chairwoman (Republican rules have term limits for committee chairs), Ros-Lehtinen knows House politics and procedure inside out. Depending on the issue, she has been described as a conservative or moderate, and occasionally as a libertarian.
|