Ron Brownstein makes an interesting point:
But with Republicans operating as a parliamentary party of opposition, Democrats will have to pass health care reform virtually, if not entirely, alone. That leaves them with a binary choice: Democrats can either fragment into stalemate or function as a parliamentary majority party by unifying enough to advance their agenda. The choice would seem straightforward. If one side in a firefight is operating with military cohesion and the other devolves into ragged, undirected units, it’s not hard to predict which will suffer more casualties.
I don’t think this is necessarily bad news in this case. Democrats are likely to be mostly the majority party for the next generation. The extent to which they are able to get around the filibuster-fucking around ineffectuality of typical American governing coalitions and ram stuff through Congress will be the same extent to which they are able to make the United States into a normal first-world country.
ericblair
Well, yes. If you are going to have a “loyal opposition” you can pretty much give up on bipartisanship. In a parliamentary government, you can have coalitions, but they’re official coalitions in order to create a government and not part of the opposition. The ruling party or coalition doesn’t need to get the opposition on board for anything, and further, if the ruling party does lose a vote in many cases it automatically means a vote of non-confidence and the government can be dissolved for new elections.
The only thing you get with a party determined to be the “loyal opposition” and a demand for bipartisanship is that the minority party actually runs the show. Guess that’s handy if you’re the minority party, but kind of makes the election a pointless waste of time.
freelancer
I hope not. And this statement might haunt you.
Comrade Jake
The 60-vote Byrd rule in the Senate is enough to drive one up a wall though.
Davis X. Machina
The Senate is rapidly turning into a pre-1911 House of Lords, and the ‘parliamentary politics’ we see may well be that of the U.K. exactly a hundred years ago.
Zifnab25
*Ahem*. PERMANENT MAJORITY!
Because if the GOP managed it, there’s no way the Dems will lose it after another 6 years. :-p
Mike S
I seem to remember a prominant Republican saying that about the GOP once. When you start believeing that is when things start going wrong.
Justin
As a Canadian who spent six years in the U.S. and continues to observe both political systems relatively closely, I’ve come to see the Parliamentary system as better: You get better, more coherent legislation, without loopholes and poison pills, and without WTF? amendments.
When I got the U.S., I was at first impressed with what I perceived to be the real flavour of democracy in U.S. government. There’s real negotiating, real compromise, and real horse-trading that goes on to pass legislation. This seemed at the time to be more authentically democratic to me.
Then I saw how legislation that passes Congress and gets signed by the President is usually turned into a Frankenstein monster, with nonsensical bits attached. I also saw how the process of passing legislation is intensely politicized, with valuable bills shot down to gather support for a different bill on a different committee. John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it” is a perfect example of how irrational the process appears from the outside.
In Canada, I may disagree with the philosophical thrust of a piece of legislation, but I’m relatively confident that it will do what it says it’s supposed to do. No one inserted a loophole, or an amendment that eviscerates another law, into it. A crime bill is a crime bill, a tax bill is a tax bill. And as a bonus, when a majority party passes a bill, they own it 100%. There’s far less confusion over who did what.
So, you could do much worse that to start operating in a parliamentary fashion down there. The quality of the legislation is simply better.
The Simpsons had an awesome scene that really captures the flavour of American government: Springfield is going to be destroyed by a meteor; Congress meets to pass an emergency bill to fund Springfield’s evacuation; just as they’re about to vote, one congressman says “Ah, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to attach a rider that allocates $40 million for the perverted arts.” The bill is defeated because of the rider.
raholco
The sad thing is what may get rammed through-especially without a public option, will just be nothing more a great giveaway to PhRMA and the insurance lobby.
The Democrats have ideals-but the Republicans have discipline.
BDeevDad
Just imagining the Republicans trying to force a Question Time on Obama.
Justin
@ericblair:
In Canada, all bills to do with the budget are like this, but not others. Any budgetary legislation is simultaneously a vote of confidence.
DougJ
When you start believeing that is when things start going wrong.
If you look at demographics, I think it’s very likely. Republicans have about four cycles to turn it around with non-white voters. After that, they’re probably locked into getting under 30% of that vote for quite a while. Plus voters 18-30 voted for Obama at a higher rate than any age group has ever voted for any candidate since this data has been kept.
It doesn’t look good for Republicans in the long-term.
Fern
@Justin:
Which is why getting a budget passed in a minority government situation can be Very Interesting.
The Grand Panjandrum
Shorter Brownstein: The Blue Dogs are the real opposition.
And you are correct, because as long as the Democrats can find ways to advance its legislative agenda they will stay in the majority. The real advantage they have now is what remains of the GOP must heel when Beck, Rush or Hannity whistle. The birthers, baggers, secessionists and tenthers are the only ones being heard right now and they demand fealty to their ideological heros Beck, Rush and Hannity. Kiss the ring of the Conservatice Trinity, or kiss your election chances goodbye.
General Winfield Stuck
Looks good on paper dougj, but you need a larger majority of 1st world citizens before it can work. Otherwise, you will have to coup the whole shabbang and take it from there.
We have two countries IMO, and always have. And they are existing together only for reasons of shared wealth and defense, or potential for shared wealth. They are ideologically disparate and geographically divided which makes overt rebellion more possible.
I do believe the majority are 1st world citizens, but it is not a large majority, and there are enough who can be swayed by bullshit in any given election. It’s just a sense on my part, but I get the feeling that the bond to generate shared wealth is dissolving into concentrated ideology. I hope I”m wrong, but right now, doing away with the filibuster would go far in breaking the bond completely. Aggravating as it is.
And I think the founders knew this about the American condition from day one, and why they made the government we have, with shared powers, and means for the minority to participate in the debate and have some favors of their own, by codifying the debate as extended.
It is also why we only change when in genuine crisis, whatever the issue is that’s causing the emergency. No way to run a country, but it’s what we have.
Neurovore
Sigh. I know that I should stop caring since politics is always ugly and disappointing, but somehow I cannot turn away since I find myself so angry and disappointed by what my supposed “representatives” are doing in congress. The Democrats are acting like abused spouses who are constantly trying to fool themselves into thinking that they will be listened to if they submit to the bullying from the Republican party. As it is, Joe Wilson is practically a hero now for the Republican party. This commentary on The Young Turks is spot on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1NpOOOqHQY&feature=sub
There was no particular need to fold to the Republican party, yet the congressional Democrats kindly did anyway without the Republican party even having to ask them. Who said courtesy was dead in American politics?
Bill E Pilgrim
I think a lot of people understand that the extremist Republican party is not a viable party right now at least, and that the Democrats will really have to go it alone if they want anything done.
The few populations who still don’t seem to understand this include most of the corporate Villager media, and, even more unfortunately, the White House.
Justin
@Fern: That’s what we’ve had for all of Harper’s terms, and it has been interesting, but again I think that the virtues of a parliamentary system come through. In fact, there’s serious arguments that the best Parliamentary governments are minority governments: They’re prevented from making sweeping changes, they have to make a deal with someone to form a secure coalition, but there’s still not nearly the same amount of maneuvering to get a bill passed. In short, they govern less, and govern better.
smiley
Sorry to go OT but, you know, we do that around here sometimes. Florida struggled early but then went on to roll 56-6 against Troy. Tebow had 237 yards passing, 4 TDs and 71 yards rushing, 1 TD. #2 Texas is leading at the half 13-10 against – Wyoming. McCoy hasn’t looked good so far. I’m sure they’ll get it together in the second half. #5 OK St is losing to Huston 24-7 at the half. Maybe they’ll get it together too. Could this be an upset weekend? Is Tebow on his way to a second Heisman, barring injury? Man, I love this time of year.
Zifnab25
DougJ, keep in mind that Obama has been in office for 9 months. He may be the golden child today, but he’s got another 3 (likely 7) years to loose his luster.
I don’t see a resurrgent GOP in the future, but I do see a return to Gore Era “they’re all the same” voter apathy. And then we go back to the 50% + 1 playbook. The GOP just has to round up all the Christians and libertarians again.
Without a meaningful change in domestic policy, the GOP just has to bank on a nation’s short memory and lack of education. Again.
Zifnab25
Smiley: check the UH v OSU game. Absolutely insane. And yeah, UT is taking a little time to get in it’s groove. :-p
DougJ
I don’t see a resurrgent GOP in the future, but I do see a return to Gore Era “they’re all the same” voter apathy. And then we go back to the 50% + 1 playbook. The GOP just has to round up all the Christians and libertarians again.
The demographics have changed. I’m not saying Dems will win every election, but I think they have a big advantage for the foreseeable future.
General Winfield Stuck
I agree with this. But it will not kick in until after several more cycles. Meantime, anything can happen, and likely will.
ericblair
@Justin: In fact, there’s serious arguments that the best Parliamentary governments are minority governments: They’re prevented from making sweeping changes, they have to make a deal with someone to form a secure coalition, but there’s still not nearly the same amount of maneuvering to get a bill passed. In short, they govern less, and govern better.
I suppose it depends on who the possible coalition partners are. Israel seems to have gotten itself into a position where the only viable coalition partners for the permanent minority election winners are the various Cuckoo Whacko parties, which means you’re held hostage to the most unreasonable members of the legislature.
Davis X. Machina
The Republicans will go back to the 50% + 1 playbook, and win with it. The “they’re all the same” business, every time I’ve heard it, has been offered as a reason to stop voting for Democrats.
burnspbesq
I’m throwing a flag. Fifteen-yard penalty for false equivalency.
Democrats monolithically opposed Bush’s privatization of social security because it was a horrible idea.
Republicans monolithically oppose health care reform because it is a good idea.
Not equivalent at all.
jimBOB
But it will not kick in until after several more cycles.
It’s already kicked in, and it’s just going to get stronger. The last time the GOP had a convincing presidential victory (i.e. over 300 electoral votes) was 1988. Since then they’ve lost the popular vote all but once, and in that case only barely managed to squeak out a majority despite having incumbency, an ongoing national security situation, and a passive challenger. Dems have won over 300 electoral votes 3 out of 5 times since 1988.
Without Monica Gore would have made it in without trouble.
WRT congress, things have settled into a pretty stable configuration; the GOP has a regional base in the south and some of the less populous western states, and the dems have structural majorities elsewhere. Whatever happens in 2010, we’re not going to see a big turnover a la 1994.
Roger Moore
@The Grand Panjandrum:
I don’t think that’s quite right. The Blue Dogs are effectively a third party that both the Democrats and Republicans are trying to court. They’re nominally a coalition partner of the Democrats, and they’re following the traditional course of junior coalition partners threatening the senior partner’s legislative goals unless they get their own narrow ideological interests looked after. In practice, that “ideology” appears to be more about looking fiscally prudent and centrist than any serious governing philosophy.
Napoleon
@DougJ:
You are exactly right on that. I happen to think it already is too late for them.
Calouste
It is hard to make that comparison, because in a parliamentary system, the party leadership has far more control over it’s parliamentarians than the President in the US has over the Congresspeople, especially Senators.
In the UK, the party leadership has a lot of influence on which MPs or prospective MPs get the “safe seats” at the next elections, and which ones have to contest a difficult constituency. Similarly, in the proportional representation systems, the party convention, influenced by the leadership, decides the order in which MPs are listed on the ballots. In the US, the party hardly has any control over that.
In the US, being an influential Senator is considered as good, if not better than being a cabinet minister. In Europe, the Senate in most countries is far less influential and is seen as a place for semi-retired politicians. The real politics happen in the House, and the real price there is, as most if not all cabinet ministers are parliamentarians, a seat in the cabinet.
Bootlegger
@BDeevDad: Fabulous!! I’d love to see him poke the wingnuts in the eye with a sharp stick.
Bootlegger
@General Winfield Stuck: Sir, general sir! It’s called pluralism, sir! And yes, it’s more fun than wife-swapping with the neighbors.
Bootlegger
@Roger Moore: You have a point here Mr. Bond. With only two parties one party must swallow the Middle to become the majority. It then has to get their coalition to work together or the Middle will run the other way.
Frankly, if the Dems can’t get it together, i.e. pass their platform, then why would the voters support them?
bago
When I was young and dumb and 18 I once voted for the GOP. I had not been successfully de-doctrinated from the steady diet of Rush Limbaugh my parents fed me, that and as a software engineer the libertarian aspects appealed to me. The next three years learned me real good. I will never vote for another person who tarnishes their name with the word “Republican” for the rest of my life. Between shitting on the constitution, the southern fucktardishness, and that bit where they almost got my brother killed, and least of all the massive debt they have saddled me with….
Never again.
“Deficits don’t matter”
“We make out own reality”
“Two wetsuits and a dildo”
Convincing the parents is hard, but it’s my burden in life for being so young and gullible.
ct
I will personally escort all of you left-wing human shit to hell when the King, Jesus Christ, returns. Your stink will then be contained in hell and God’s glorious Earth and universe will not have to smell you ever again. Good riddance to all you malignant souls. Fascism is for really creepy people, leftists. It’s not good being creeps (your obviously filthy, dumb mothers should have taught you that). You really had an opportunity to change your ways. We’ve disabused you of your ignorance and your hatred of freedom and life and light; but your devotion to tyranny, death, and darkness has now sentenced you to hell for eternity. Again, good riddance, malignant souls. Good riddance creeps. Good riddance.
Neurovore
Wow, ct…are you joking or just a troll? In an case, I think that the people who oppose meaningful healthcare reform are more likely the ones that are going to hell than people who actually care enough about their fellow human beings to try and scrap a broken system.
xaaronx
@Bootlegger:
Depends on the neighbors, I suppose.
General Winfield Stuck
@Neurovore:
ct = creepy troll
The Populist
Doug, I’d hold off on that IF the Roberts Supreme Court decide to erase all the rules that keep corporations from directly giving money to candidates.
That could change everything for the right (and as you all know I am an avid rightie hater).
I forget the case but the supremes hear it next month. Here’s hoping Kennedy can be the swing voter we all hope he can be and keep this obviously partisan attack from being reality.
One good thing for the dems if they remove the rules? Unions will be allowed to directly give money as well.
Conrads Ghost
Populist –
Recently read somewhere the arguments and Court questioning concerning the case you’re referencing, and Kennedy’s questions were aggressive and not friendly. I’m reading analysis of the situation saying it doesn’t look good, not good at all…..From Politico (crappy source, but I’ve read the same at better sites):
“Campaign finance experts predict the court, which has demonstrated an inclination towards incremental loosening of rules restricting the flow of money into politics, will expand the types of ads corporations and unions can pay for. Their only question is just how much the justices will open the floodgates.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26843.html#ixzz0R0stjfYc
This will change the game; the question is how much. Funny how it’s ok for a Repukelican Court to conveniently overturn “decades of legislation and ruling” just as support for the Left is gaining major traction, eh? I guess the chances are pretty slim, then, for us to live in a true first world country any time soon (sorry, John); it seems we’re to be shackled to the present neo-feudal, corporate authoritarian massive pyramid scheme/skim operation for the time being. The vampires have to feed on something, and when they can’t find sustenance ‘out there’ they’ll eat their own, count on it. What a country.