It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Republicans’ best shot to regain power is to screw the country up as much as possible:
Polarization isn’t a new story, nor were California’s budget problems and constitutional handicap. Yet the state let its political dysfunctions go unaddressed. Most assumed that the legislature’s bickering would be cast aside in the face of an emergency. But the intransigence of California’s legislators has not softened despite the spiraling unemployment, massive deficits and absence of buoyant growth on the horizon. Quite the opposite, in fact. The minority party spied opportunity in fiscal collapse. If the majority failed to govern the state, then the voters would turn on them, or so the theory went.
That raises a troubling question: What happens when one of the two major parties does not see a political upside in solving problems and has the power to keep those problems from being solved?
If all this is sounding familiar, that’s because it is. Congress doesn’t need a two-thirds majority to get anything done. It needs a three-fifths majority, but that’s not usually available, either. Ever since Newt Gingrich partnered with Bob Dole to retake the Congress atop a successful strategy of relentless and effective obstructionism, Congress has been virtually incapable of doing anything difficult because the minority party will either block it or run against it, or both. And make no mistake: Congress will need to do hard things, and soon.
I realize this is a tired old song, but there are a myriad of other things about our system that aren’t set up well for the current state of affairs. No matter how crazy the Republican party gets, they’ll still get their airtime on Dancin’ Dave, in the Politico, and in the Kaplan editorial page. It’s actually even a bit worse than that: saner elements of the Republican party will get no more airtime through these or other outlets than the Khmer Rogue gets. If anything they’ll get less.
Some of you have pointed out that there are things about California that aren’t mirrored at the federal level: the weird state constitution, a higher level of gerrymandering, less media scrutiny, for example. But neither is there the same level of organization on the right as there is at the federal level — no Heritage Foundation, no Moonie Times, no Fox, Wall Street Journal, at least not on the same scale. And the problems the federal government faces are more complicated and therefore easier to bullshit about.
Ash
So how weird it is that I’d give just about anything to move to California, despite how fucked up it is?
Left Coast Tom
Well, we do have the Hoover Institute. Hosted by the same fine folks who, God only knows why, employ Condoleezza Rice.
Notorious P.A.T.
Don’t forget about President Nelson and Prime Minister Lieberman. He doesn’t drive a car on saturday, so he’s a better man than you or me!
DougJ
Well, we do have the Hoover Institute.
They’re nowhere near as bad, not that they’re perfect. When I lived there, the most high-profile thing they did was oppose Three Strikes You’re Out.
Don’t get me wrong, I realize they mostly practice McArdlism. But they’re still not as bad as Heritage or AEI.
Brien Jackson
Can’t we retire this already? It’s really counter-productive.
Dork
You rip the WashPost, as you link to them to make your point. A bit confused.
Julius Ray Hoffman
Didn’t Obama get elected because of polarization? The Democrats prevented anything good being done for this country when they were in the minority in the same way that Republicans are doing so now. Then Obama came along and promised to move us all beyond that, and it seems that he was elected on that promise, which held special significance in the polarized atmosphere. But he hasn’t actually accomplished anything– we’re still in Iraq, doubled-down in Afghanistan, he failed at Copenhagen, and we have no health care solution. Oh, but we have a very tenuous uncertain road to a healthcare bill built on the back of Nebraska-loving industry-buffing business-as-usual corruption, right?
Polarization is a an aspect of our current political system that was supported by both parties. Obama and the Democrats are in charge now, though, and so it falls into their hands to change it.
DougJ
You rip the WashPost, as you link to them to make your point. A bit confused.
I like Ezra and Dionne. I don’t like the rest of them and I don’t think they should run the crazy stuff from Palin et al.
DougJ
The Democrats prevented anything good being done for this country
Can you give me a single example of something good that Democrats obstructed under Bush? Just one.
gwangung
So who exactly WERE calling midnight meetings, cutting the other party out of meetings and shenanigans like that?
dmsilev
@DougJ:
Good for who? Important question, that.
-dms
gbear
You mean like the privatization of Social Security? That would have been so awesome.
Napoleon
@Julius Ray Hoffman:
BS, just look at the number of filibusters/closure votes and the Dems are not even within a million miles of what the Reps have done.
DougJ
Good for who? Important question, that.
Well, I’ll let him say what he thought that the “good things” were and then go from there.
Unabogie
@Julius Ray Hoffman:
Lily Leadbetter Act
Ended torture
Began withdrawal from Iraq
Ended HIV ban
Passed Stimulus
About to pass healthcare
Expanded stem cell research
Began investigation into torture
Released Cheney torture memos
Ordered Gitmo closed
Restored America’s reputation
Won the Nobel Peace Prize
Off the top of my head. So what the fuck are you prattling about?
parksideq
@Julius Ray Hoffman:
Yup, because then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid prevented FEMA from adequately responding to Hurricane Katrina.
Oh, wait.
ETA: Hell, Republicans don’t just cock-block Democrats; they even cock-block themselves if it’s politically expedient in the short term. See: Scozzofava, Dede.
Laertes
Still, it’s a fair question, and I’m fascinated to hear the answer. What does Mr. Hoffman think the Democrats successfully obstructed during Bush’s tenure?
They gave him his budget-busting tax cuts for the rich, his budget-busting wars, and his budget-busting giveaways to the health insurance companies.
Does this list of “good things” that the Dems obstructed begin and end with the half-hearted attempt to privatize Social Security?
El Cruzado
@Julius Ray Hoffman: You mean the republicans were going to do anything good for this country? Color me surprised.
Julius Ray Hoffman
Did the Democrats, during the Bush years, do anything to end the corrupt corporate-controlled political system? Nope, it was working for them just as it was working for the Republicans so it was just fine!
Did the Democrats do anything to stop the mass internment of people for using marijuana? What do we have now– 1 or 2 million people in prison for pot? Nope, they went right along with it.
Did Democrats step up and say that these astronomical housing prices might actually be… you know… not a good thing. Nope! Everybody was making money and flush in the funds and it was all just fine!
These are just three examples.
I recognize that Republicans work against the good of the country by primarily disrupting, but Democrats seems to work against the good of the country by coasting along with the current political system and ignoring things that really need to be done.
Laertes
Even allowing for the Republican understanding of “good,” on what major initiative did Congressional Dems defeat the Republicans?
They got everything they wanted except the destruction of Social Security.
I mean, I get that things are a shambles now, and that for Bushites this requires the construction of a narrative in which Bush tried ever so hard to prevent the current catastrophe but was stymied by Democratic obstructionism, but speaking as someone who earnestly wished for Democratic obstructionism for eight years and never got any, I’m just wondering what exactly he’s talking about here.
gbear
JRH is right that Obama was elected due to polarization. Sarah Palin was just so out on the edge that the large majority of voters realized that she should not be allowed anywhere near a position of power. Thank you, president McCain.
DougJ
The one sort of example that came to my mind was immigration reform. But there I recall it was mostly Democrats and Bush trying to get it through while Congressional Republicans fought it. I don’t Democratic support was universal for it, but I seem to recall they were more supportive than Republicans (I’m not sure how much ever came to a vote, so it may be not be possible to measure any of this).
eric
@Julius Ray Hoffman: but not one of those failings with in contradistinction to the GOP platform. Your point was about politicization, not complicity. You will get very little argument about complicit on this blog.
eric
General Winfield Stuck
I don’t see any real comparison between California’s system and the national one. California is doing exactly what the founders warned against. And that is direct democracy by mob rule referendum. It is a bifurcated system of governance that seems to be leading the state into catastrophe.
The one thing that is similar and relevant to the national governance, are spending through government programs and an unwillingness to raise the revenues to pay for that spending, whether it be for wars or the social safety net. Dems are trying to cover their spending with pay go and offsets for passed legislation, but that is like closing the barn door after it is being engulfed by flames of debt. Some really radical shit is going to have to be passed out of congress in the next few years, or the fiscal shit will hit the fan, especially with entitlements, and continued funding for foreign wars and policingl
And it was caused primarily with the batshit insane Bush administration spending like drunk sailors, after being handed a surplus, and not paying for any of it. By draining the treasury on unnecessary war, massive tax cuts for rich people that did not reenter the economy, and passing wingnut welfare for big corps under the guise of improving the nations general welfare, ie Prescription Drug program. All of it and then some responsible for crashing our economy causing the national debt to soar from fixing it.
And there is not a doubt in my mind, that at the root of their mindless mischief, is to drain the treasury and collapse the country’s economy and then to blame it on the age old ideological boogyman of income redistribution to the poor. That is something they hate above all else and are willing to pull down the whole show to make it stop. The Norquist Bathtub Syndrome.
And for those who believe the country on the whole is smarter than that, then explain to me why Mccain/Palin got 47 percent of the vote, in the most favorable political atmosphere for dems in a generation, or two. And why Sarah Palin is polling favorable in some polls, not all that far behing Barrack Obama.
Laertes
That’s a pretty clear statement. You’re alleging Dem obstructionism. And when called upon to provide ONE example, you list…
three things that Republicans didn’t even try to do, and blame Democrats for failing to legislate while in the minority.
Do you understand what obstruction is?
Brachiator
This kind of reminds me of a recent piece by LA Times sports columnist Bill Dwyre on the vanishing prospects of a Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather championship match.
Angry ideology trumps everything for the obstructionist GOP.
Cat Lady
Shorter Ezra Klein – we’re pretty much fucked.
DougJ
@Julius
Your examples make no sense. You’re speaking of things you wish (and I wish too) Democrats had pushed through Congress and then tried to make Bush sign. It would not have been possible to overcome filibusters on any of these issues during the first two and last two years of Bush II and in middle four years, Republicans had majorities in both the House and Senate. What you wrote is:
I think you and I have very notions of the word “prevented”.
Ash
@Julius Ray Hoffman: Oh, I see what you did there with the mentioning of the weed and corruptness. Brava.
Also, you used a lot of words to say something simple: The Dems didn’t do what I wanted them to do however many years ago, so I’m going to come up with a stupid analogy to express my anger.
Johnny Pez
C’mon, guys, spoof. “Julius Hoffman” with the silly middle name “Ray” added.
Jeez.
ds
No, they aren’t.
I want to know what shit you were on from 2000 to 2008. When the hell did the Republicans try to end corporate control of politics, reform our drug laws, or stop the housing bubble???
Are you trying to say that the Dems were so good at thwarting Republican initiatives that would benefit the public that no one ever heard of any of them in the first place?
Damn, that must have took some ninja skillz.
Julius Ray Hoffman
Complicity and polarization go hand in hand.
If you agree that the Democrats were complicit in having this country go to shambles, then how exactly was the Democratic candidate able to run on HOPE and CHANGE?
HOPE for a new… what… exactly?
CHANGE to… what… exactly?
The only way for hope and change to make sense in an environment of complicity is to amp up the polarizing rhetoric at the same time. The salespitch doesn’t make any sense without the necessary manufacturing of a big bad Republican beast– perhaps not without reason, but definitely without mentioning that there was a big bad Democratic beast too.
And, back to the present, you could say that what Republicans are doing now is just complicity in the existing system. They are serving their stakeholders, just like the Democrats did when they were in the minority. The tactics are only slightly different compared to the large-scale agreement that this is how politics is done.
DougJ
C’mon, guys, spoof. “Julius Hoffman” with the silly middle name “Ray” added.
I didn’t know who Julius Hoffman was. Now I know.
My bad.
mcd410x
cnnbrk: Security breach at Newark Airport; TSA: Terminal C on lockdown. Details to come on CNN.com
ZOMG, get out ur plastik wrap and protect urselfs!!
As DougJ said: We’ve had a good ride.
dmsilev
@mcd410x: I’m sitting in a different airport (Boston Logan) right now, with CNN blathering in the background. My flight is an hour late already. I hope to Hell that nobody decides to lockdown other airports just on general principles.
-dms
General Winfield Stuck
This is kinda like true. The problem is the dishonesty from the wingers who claim to be doing what they do to help the average voter, when it is to please their “stakeholders” which are always those with the most money.
And everyone knows that dems are soshulist DFH’s wanting to give people healthcare, well most are DFH’s, a few are not, and it only takes a few to stop the gravy train. Sometimes only ONe.
Nick
@Julius Ray Hoffman
Kind of hard to do anything about this when the majority party, who sets the agenda, isn’t interested in these issues. Did the Democrats do anything about rising healthcare costs while in the minority? No, but they sure would have liked to. Which brings me to this…
Actually they did, repeadidly, but the people voted for Republicans anyway
n:
mcd410x
@dmsilev: Hope so, too.
We really are at the point where terror and fear have almost finished our domestic airlines. That’s a lot of jobs to lose because of fear.
gbear
@Nick:
Nick, what a great word!
To perform an act over and over again to no effect what-so-ever.
TenguPhule
At this point the only solution is a good purge.
The bowels of the republic need a good flushing.
TenguPhule
Corrected for accuracy.
TenguPhule
Hint, the minority party does not have control. That’s why they’re the minority.
Have people really forgotten just how fucked up things were when Republicans were in control?
Brachiator
@TenguPhule:
Of course, the problem is that the Republicans are purging all but the most narrow band of true believers from their ranks.
pablo
This is the toast from W and the Repugs saluting the last decade.
http://pavlovianobeisance.com/oughts.htm
jenniebee
Shorter @Julius Ray Hoffman: My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.
I’ll go along with JRH that Democrats did not achieve the total fucking impossible during their time as the minority party, but I fail to see how that supports his earlier statement that Democrats in the minority blocked the Republicans from legalizing pot. Apparently a pro-cannibis position is a cornerstone of the Republican platform now. Who knew?
Maybe if I got loaded it might make sense…
Cassidy
Julius didn’t get his pony.
Abbie Ray Hoffman
Steal this comment!
Notorious P.A.T.
What the hell are you talking about?
They may not fit in with the point John is making but they are nearly as bad as Republicans.
Notorious P.A.T.
Yeah, the Republicans wouldn’t have filibustered that–and Bush wouldn’t have vetoed it, either.
Notorious P.A.T.
Bah, I’m way behind the curve here. Time to check my Facebook.
The Grand Panjandrum
@Julius Ray Hoffman:
Won’t you please come to Chicago?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Read this. The author’s thesis is that the Senate rules are not the problem, nutless leadership is. Transformative legislation can be passed if you make worthless rubbish like Nelson and Lieberman filibuster, as in, filibuster.
Kobie
I, too, am pissed off at the Democrats for not legalizing weed while they were the minority party. Bunch of assholes.
Comrade Jake
I hate to say it, but to a large extent, this is why Obama reaching out to Republicans makes sense. At some point, he is going to need their help to get things done.
Now I guess we can all assume that this effort is futile, that none of them will ever help. And that may in fact be what happens. But I’m not sure I see a plausible alternative to trying to work with some of them to get things done. It’s not as though they’re capable of being shamed into acting responsibly.
Kobie
@Comrade Jake: Honestly, I don’t see how Obama “reaching out” to Republicans makes a lick of sense when you take into account how they act. You’re talking about a party that sends its biggest windbags out to essentially blame Obama because some douchebag got on a plane in Holland and tried to blow it up; that accuses Obama of supporting “death panels” for the elderly and infirm; that has trotted out the Communist/Socialist/Fascist label repeatedly; that refuses to disavow the loony-tunes “birther” theory. Why the hell should Obama show these morons anything except his middle finger?
DougJ
Read this. The author’s thesis is that the Senate rules are not the problem, nutless leadership is.
I liked the idea of the piece but I found it very unconvincing. We just need Senators to act with more honor? What kind of real-world solution is that?
Thanks for the link, though, it was a good read — I don’t read CounterPunch enough.
Martin
Somehow we need to change the fundamental analogy by which people view political parties. The assumption is that the two party system sets up competition as in a marketplace, that if the Democrats can’t figure out how to get you a prescription drug for $20 per month, that the Republicans will work harder to do so and solve the problem, if only we vote them into power.
The problem is that the GOP doesn’t need to win that game. Instead, they can go to the manufacturer, ask them to keep the price of the drug artificially high and then when elected into power, the GOP will legislate that it stay that high. After all, they’re now in power.
It’s not a competition between two stores but between a store and the mafia. The mafia might, in fact, be full of excellent businessmen far more able to compete than the store owner, but they’re the fucking mafia and the organization drives them down a completely different path.
General Winfield Stuck
@DougJ:
Yes, I read that too, and it sounded more like a banshee cry for battle. The author answered his own question and shot down his own thesis in describing the senate as set up to function by “: unanimous consent” and was right to defend it as making the senate set apart from the House, that should stay that way as the founders intended. Trouble is, if you force the minority to actually filibuster, you might get one bill passed that way, but the UA applies to every part, or nearly so of senate business, and the minority will use it to slow or shut down senate business. This was the main reason the “Cloture Rule” was created in the first place to create enough comity the senate could function albeit slowly, but surely.
The author obviously knew this, but wrote this cantankerous piece anyway. The only way the senate filibuster cloture rule will change is if the minority goes along with setting a future date, say 6 years or so, for it to be adjusted or done away with. It won’t happen though, for the simple reason of all the other senate rules and the UA requirement they are subjected to that will remain as the ultimate “I object” bomb.
None of it solves the current problem of intransigent wingnuts adopting a scorched earth tactic of preventing anything from passing as a way to claim dems can’t govern.
The only weapon I can see is convincing the public that that is what is happening and giving dems more senate seats next election. Not much chance of that with a press hand holding wingers to keep the party wars at peak battle for the audience. Very sad situation, and a race to the bottom for the country.
Julius Ray Hoffman
It’s not a competition between two stores but between a store and the mafia. The mafia might, in fact, be full of excellent businessmen far more able to compete than the store owner, but they’re the fucking mafia and the organization drives them down a completely different path.
No, of course Liberals don’t practice polarization! The Left is the “store” and the Right is the “mafia”… and that’s just the truth, right? Nothing polarizing about it.
Except when the Right follows the same paradigm. Then it’s polarization– when they do it.
General Winfield Stuck
UA should have been UC. or unanimous consent. sorry
Martin
@Julius Ray Hoffman:
Do you remember when the Democrats were in the minority in California and how they acted?
Get back to me when you know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Stevie Ray Vaughn
I’m still dead.
Julius Ray Hoffman
@Martin- Why do we need to look back at how he Democrats acted long ago when we can just look at how they act now?
Remember how Liberals were so taken aback when W offered that “you’re either with us or against us” tidbit after 9/11? I remember ‘cuz I was offended too. Surely there was some area in between.
But now it’s the same thing from the Democrats! You’re either with us or you are against us– just like old times!
Really, do you think if the Democrats were in the minority in California now that they would act any differently? Times are more difficult now, and that seems to bring out greater partisanship, not less. And the general trend over the last few decades is toward greater polarization, no matter who is in charge.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
All it would take is for Reid to make the SOBs filibuster. The Civil Rights Act got passed in spite of a 67 vote barrier for cloture. Fortunately for Barack Obama and other dusky-hued politicians there were a few people in those days who actually stood up for the right thing.
Reid’s loyalty lies with his country club brethren, not us.
What kind of real world solution is whining about Senate rules? As if the same people who don’t have the balls to invoke them will change them?
Martin
@Julius Ray Hoffman:
No, just no.
The Democrats aren’t forcing the GOP to come along. But the GOP needs to offer *something* to help the situation, and they offer next to nothing. Instead we have budget resolutions that require that the Democrats do nearly everything the GOP wants because the GOP has the coveted veto button inside the legislature so long as they can keep their caucus together.
Dems have a 60%+ majority and the last budget solution was almost entirely service and budget cuts, with a small tax increase. You think that was ramming a plan down the GOPs throat or was it Democrats, with a massive majority, having to capitulate to the demands of a group that has no interest in governing reasonably – a group that when faced with severe budget cuts fought tooth and nail to hold onto a sales tax loophole for yachts.
And yes, Dems would act totally differently. To say otherwise shows you know fuckall about how the state of California works.
The Republic of Stupidity
Isn’t anyone going to call this asshole out for a hypothetical?
If…
If…
If…
You’re preaching a false equivalency.
SOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRY… it’s meaningless.
General Winfield Stuck
I do believe that making the repubs actually do the real filibuster for a while, has some political benefit. And I agree fully that Harry Reid has made it too passe by just accepting it as a matter of routine.
The spectacle of hauling out the cots and making Demint, or whoever actually talk for twenty fours hours or so could be some useful political theater for highlighting to the public what is going on, and getting the press’s attention. The wingers did that a few years ago on the judges fiasco. Though it didn’t do them much good in the end with only 40 wingnut senators today,.
But that is all it will accomplish, and doing it to actually pass bills as a routine will not solve the problem for the long term and would just blow up the senate, as would the nuke option. But could convince the public to vote in a dem majority of 63 or 64 senators that would make Leiberman and Nelson moot. Not likely, but possible.
kay
@Kobie:
I don’t think it was ever about “reaching out” to Republicans in Congress. I think it was about reaching out to those moderates and independents who vote for certain Republicans in Congress.
They’re not all wingnuts, GOP voters, particularly in Senate races, and particularly independents, who don’t vote a straight Party ticket. Olympia Snowe wins with huge margins. I guess he could completely dismiss those voters and their representatives in Congress, but I would remind you that’s what sank George W Bush. Huge stretches of the country were completely irrelevant to Bush and Cheney. They had that 50.1% when it mattered and they gave not a thought to the rest of us. They almost enjoyed flipping “us” the bird. They were prancing around crowing about it until they got “thumped”.
I don’t think a President can do that. He can’t ignore or reject whole states. He can’t align with “urban” to the exclusion of “rural” with that sort of ridiculous parceling off of the country that Bush relied on (but in the reverse, of course).
It’s poor policy and it’s also bad politics, so it’s an easy call. He can chat up Olympia Snowe all he wants as far as I’m concerned. He’s talking to her voters.
By the end of Bush’s terms he had essentially stopped speaking to everyone but Christian conservatives and war-mongering wingnuts, which is why the rest of the country had no fucking idea what he was talking about.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Honestly, do you expect anyone to take your opinion seriously when you link to something that poorly argued? Holy Jeebus, that made my soul hurt.
And, again, anyone equating what Ben Nelson did with what Joe Lieberman did during the Senate health care debate is a fucking moron and nothing less.
Ailuridae
@DougJ:
If Harry Reid had just challenged Joe Lieberman to a duel everything would be ideal!
ds
No. This is a misconception.
Filibuster rules have changed since the 60s, where you actually had to hog up the floor to maintain a filibuster, and it was possible for a determined majority to break them by attrition. It’s far easier to filibuster now.
All the Republicans have to do to maintain a filibuster is keep one senator on the floor at any given time, to object to a vote. They wouldn’t even have to talk.
If you were watching C-SPAN, you wouldn’t even know that a filibuster is taking place.
Ailuridae
@ds:
Fuck You. I saw Mr Smith goes to Washington so I clearly know more about filibuster rules than you with your stupid facts;
arguingwithsignposts
@Stevie Ray Vaughn:
I saw what you did there.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Because we obviously should take a commenter on Balloon Juice called Ailuridae more seriously than Winslow Wheeler.
But please, do keep up that taught argumentation [snort].
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Let’s test that one in the real world. You game?
jim
The GOP’s cunning plan to get back in power by screwing up America might remind some of their cunning plan to keep power by screwing up America.
Mmm, smells like Disaster Capitalism.
“If we just keep cutting taxes until they get to negative 300,000%, everyone in America will be rich! Then the liberals will all cry … forever! MWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAAAAAH!”
They’ve stopped even mailing it in now – instead they make a hat out of the envelope & eat the stamp.
arguingwithsignposts
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Wait, what did I miss here? I get all my serious thought from BJ commenters.
General Winfield Stuck
@ds:
Well, yes, they have to hold the floor, talking or not. And to keep a quorum the majority has to keep 50 + 1 present.
I am not sure you read my comment accurately. The real filibuster rules are the same, that the minority has to hold the floor continuously. It can be broken by dems if they don’t, but the minority has many other ways to retaliate. And Harry Reid has made the filibuster passe since 2006, by too often not even calling for cloture votes on threats of filibustered bills, and at one point just doing a UC for them without cloture votes, though not so much recently.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
How about you engage someone else in debate then? And how does citing WW’s CV demonstrate his argument isn’t patently absurd? Hint: it doesn’t.
Wheeler is comparably credentialed to Lawrence O’Donnell who also makes demonstrable factual errors on a regular basis. Or is the new standard from the New New Left arguments from authority?
His piece is impossibly fucking naive and stupid. Address these two paragraphs:
Eliminate all that, and what do you get? You get the House of Representatives. If you want to fix the gridlock problem in Congress and fix it good, the best thing to do is to eliminate the Senate.
It’s a bad idea if you like democracy. As designed, the Senate has an important role: cooling the heels of excess, either from an overreaching executive or the House where the majority can run any tyranny it pleases.
Is there something there you find defensible or did someone on FDL post this and you didn’t have time to read it yourself before “Me, Too”ing it here?
General Winfield Stuck
@Ailuridae:
It was about the worst piece of drivel I have read concerning the filibuster. Sounded drunk to me.
kay
@Kobie:
I mean, did you even know that Bush vetoed S-CHIP because he had a broader plan to expand health care using (of course) tax cuts?
True. He had a big ‘ol health care plan. Tax cuts, buy health insurance. You didn’t know because he had stopped speaking to you at all. He didn’t bother to introduce the idea to the Democrats in Congress at all.
That was a very hard-line tough guy approach, but how’d it work out for him? Not well.
nwithers
Although I admit to being one of those D.F.H types who feel in their gut that Obama is selling us down the river for easy Wall-street cash. If he really is doing the 10-D chess thing, this is how it might play out:
Some time spring-summer (Senate rules permitting, INASP (INA Senate Parliamentarian) Harry Reid slams the brakes on the abuse of the filibuster and makes the republicans start talking hard-core. At the same time, somehow, the administration manages to convince the media that pushing the “obstructionist-republican” talking point is a really good idea, in the face of possible anti-trust suits (or some other pressure). This would be especially effective time to be adding adding riders to other bills, ones that keep the country functioning.
At this point the Republicans are screwed. They either get to go the Newt Gingrich route of 2003-2004, or they actually have to compromise on some significant points. If they do the first, all but the 30% desert them. If they do the second, their 30% base votes crazy-primary-land/stay’s-home. Either way, carnage ensues for the Republicans, and political history is re-made again. Ben and Lieberman are kicked to the curb hard, and the back of the Tea-Baggers is broken before they can do real damage.
It’s just a happy dream though. NDO (No-Drama Obama) isn’t going to pull something like that, and when the Republicans get the 1-2 senate seats, NOTHING is going to move untill 2012. Welcome to the land of being Californicated.
DougJ
What kind of real world solution is whining about Senate rules?
The idea is that the whining will lead to them being changed. I think that if enough momentum builds on this issue, there is a possibility we can have some kind of Senate reform.
I could be wrong.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Seeing as you are the one calling his argument absurd, with zero supporting argument, the burden is on thou, child. Welcome to Phil. 101.
You mean the two you snatched out of context, after which he explains his solution? When you’re prepared to argue like an adult about the actual content of things, let the grownups know.
ds
The Civil Rights Act passed by a vote of 73 to 27. The filibuster was broken a cloture vote, not attrition.
That Winslow Wheeler piece is terrible.
Eliminating the Senate would be bad for democracy? The reason the Senate was created in the first place was to thwart democracy and give small states a disproportionate level of influence.
And the Senate could be functional again on a majority vote basis if individual senators stopped behaving like assholes? No shit. But we’re dealing with Republicans in the minority.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Arguing that making a legislative body subject to majority votes for procedural issues somehow “thwarts democracy” is, on its face, incorrect and fucking absurd. Are you too fucking dim to understand that?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
And why won’t whining lead to Harry Reid (and/or Obama, and/or whomever else you care to hold responsible) simply invoking the rules that already exist?
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Once again, nothing resembling actual argument against any actual content of the article.
Take a nap, little one.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
And why won’t whining lead to Harry Reid (and/or Obama, and/or whomever else you care to hold responsible) simply invoking the rules that already exist?
The rules that already exist make it rather easy to filibuster. This has been explained in this and other thread to you and other posters at least a dozen fucking times.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Do you understand what “democracy” means? Seriously, do you?
DougJ
If Harry Reid had just challenged Joe Lieberman to a duel everything would be ideal!
I thought he should have beat him with a cane on the Senate floor.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
So your solution is? And keep in mind, I’m being told that invoking a real filibuster is naive and unrealistic. And so your solution is?
ds
@nwithers:
The Republicans wouldn’t have to talk at all to maintain a filibuster. All it takes is one person to object when they try to call a vote.
Between 40 Republican senators, it would be trivial for them to maintain a filibuster indefinitely.
And Obama is a sellout if he doesn’t illegally use the government to thwart the press?
I don’t recall Obama running on a “left-wing dictatorship for America” platform. But I guess that’s what some people assumed he meant when he talked about “change.”
General Winfield Stuck
@DougJ:
Ah, those were the days!!
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
This attempt at deflection is quaint, but not fooling anyone.
Once again, argue against Wheeler’s piece concretely right here:
Hint: Bald assertions that it is “stupid” do not constitute argument. So, in case you didn’t do it up there, here:
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
So let’s try it. You game?
JD Rhoades
@Julius Ray Hoffman:
Now I remember why I gave up weed.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
The solution, dumbass, is Senate reform so that obstruction isn’t as easy or as difficult to overcome. Which is exactly what others have proposed and the approach the piece you linked without reading mocked? He suggested, instead, that people should behave more civilly. Maybe he is David Broder’s long lost brother.
When the current cloture requirements were instituted subjecting all minority dissent to cloture was unheard of. Since the minority has made this standard practice, reforming the cloture rules has become necessary. This isn’t really out-of-the-box thinking despite your ability to find a misinformed nut job who thinks it is.
ds
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
Who is saying that invoking the real filibuster is naive and unrealistic?
It’s perfectly realistic. It would just be a big waste of time.
All that would happen in a modern day “filibuster” is that the majority would attempt to take a vote, one Republican would object, and that’s that. No vote.
They’d keep trying, and a Republican would object every time.
The only way to override the Republicans is to call a cloture vote, which requires 60 votes.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
I did. Arguing that an up and down vote on procedural matters in a legislative body “thwarts democracy”is on its face false and fucking absurd. If you know what all of the words in his sentence mean its incoherent.
I don’t have anything else to type. Either you understand what the words mean or you don’t.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
So let’s try it. You game?
Ailuridae
@ds:
Apparently you didn’t see Mr Smith goes to Washington.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
And in comes the Green Lantern theory of legislating ….
ds
The only effective way that you could break a filibuster without having 60 votes under the current rules is if you somehow got 51 Democrats on the floor of the Senate, to achieve quorum, without one Republican bothering to show up. Assuming none of the Democrats objected, you could then pass the bill.
But short of drugging the entire Republican caucus, that’s not going to happen.
Ailuridae
@ds:
The only effective way that you could break a filibuster without having 60 votes under the current rules is if you somehow got 51 Democrats on the floor of the Senate, to achieve quorum, without one Republican bothering to show up. Assuming none of the Democrats objected, you could then pass the bill.
But short of drugging the entire Republican caucus, that’s not going to happen.
And …. crickets
nwithers
@ds:
So you are basically saying we are fucked and should start stockpiling weapons because the republicans are saying “we will hold you to the letter and spirit of the law”, but “we don’t believe in the spirit of the law”, and if the letter of the law gets tough, “TERROISM!!! PANTS BOMBERS!! The Constitution Is Not A Suicide Pact!”
I’m not entirely sure, like I said, INASP, but there might be some easy changes to the senate rules with the start of the new senate season that might make the filibuster a whole lot more unpleasant.
But that’s just a happy dream.
Martin
Sure you can. There are all kinds of situations where someone needs to come into the Senate to adjourn or reconvene something during a break to make sure some goddamn thing doesn’t happen. Only one Senator ever shows up, they turn on the lights, enter something into the record, and turn off the lights. Just have 51 senators show up instead of one.
Would they do it? No. Because the GOP might then act like dicks, and we wouldn’t want that, now would we?
burnspbesq
@General Winfield Stuck:
The rest of the industrialized world doesn’t see a VAT as “really radical shit.”
Ailuridae
@Martin:
Not so much. You would have to get 51 Democratic caucus Senators there without even one Republican Senator being present.
General Winfield Stuck
@burnspbesq:
Let’s pass it then. Whatever it takes to raise the cash for the spending we do. That is what I meant as radical shit, though for sane people not wingnut, it is just basic math and common sense.
Or we could just round up all the millions of wingnuts and put them in camps, to regain our national sanity. Maybe the only way to be sure and all.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
Yes indeedy. One of you finally gets it right. A genuine filibuster would entail a great deal of time and inconvenience not only for those filibustering but for the majority as well. That’s why you never see it, because tee time at the links is more important to Harry Reid than good legislation.
Here is a paper on the filibuster from the Senate itself. Transformative social legislation only comes around every 30-50 years, so you’d think that Reid or whomever could upset the Senate apple cart and forego Happy Hour for a few weeks in order to get it done. But Reid doesn’t care enough about this once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it done right. He cares more about his country club and his off hours. But fortunately for him, he has loyal apologists in the Balloon Juice comment section at his back.
So yes, “real” filibuster is a possibility. You’d only want to use it for transformative social legislation that you genuinely believe in and the country desperately needs. David Broder would piss his pants. The Republicans would be so steaming mad that they’d vote against every single bit of your agenda (oh, wait a minute…). But if the folks in charge really, really, really wanted a good piece of legislation they could have had it.
Ailuridae
@Bruce (formerly Steve S.):
It doesn’t inconvenience the minority party very much at all which is what you are missing. It allows them to stop all movement of legislation from the majority party at the expense of having one of their party there at any time the majority party can muster 50 votes (plus one if Hellraiser Joe is available). Stopping all legislation from the Democrats is exactly what the GOP wants.
Again, this is little more than Green Lantern theory applied to Senate procedural rules.
mclaren
@General Winfield Stuck:
California and America as a whole are both running unsustainability marathons. Both California and America as a whole will crash sometime in the foreseeable future unless they change.
The problem with the fantasy that California is collapsing because of “partisanship” or because of “bad politics” or because of “an unworkable system” is that it requires us to believe that California’s legislature had less partisanship back in the 50s and 60s, when California was doing just great as a state.
To buy General Winfield Stuck’s thesis, we have to believe that California’s system of government was in great shape back in 1955 or 1965, but somehow magically stopped working starting in the 1970s.
In reality, people in CA weren’t any smarter or wiser in 1955 or 1965 than they are now, and there’s no evidence that CA’s state goverment worked any better in 1955 or 1965 than it does today.
What’s different between 1955 or 1965 and 2010 is that Califronia was built on a whole lotta unsustainable things that couldn’t last. California was and is a car culture with endless freeway built on the premise of cheap gasoline forever. Guess what? Cheap gasoline went away in 1973 and it’s never coming back. That’s why Califronia started to collapse in the 1970s, not because Califronians suddenly because irascible intractable evil people.
Califronia was built on endless miles of tract homes in isolated suburbs with tons of empty land and an ever-growing tax base, so Califronia could keep increasing services even though they had low taxes because of the stampede of new people coming into California to live there. When all the cheap land got used up and Califronia became so crowded that the quality of life went down the toilet, people started stampeding out of Califronia isntead of in, and the unsustainable cheap land-low tax ponzi scheme collapsed. That’s why housing costs and quality of life and the state educational system in Califronia have collapsed — there are wayyyyyyyyyy too many people crowded into California. It’s not because the California legislature suddenly became evil or stopped working.
California was built on aerospace industries that provided plentiful high-paying jobs to the middle class. When the Apollo missions ended and the manned space program scaled back, TRW and General Dynamics and all those other high-wage industries fired their workers and downsized, and those jobs aren’t coming back. That’s why California has two economic classes now, masters and slaves: the masters moved into Califronia in the 50s and 60s and earned good money and had good jobs and bought nice houses and now they’re retired. The slaves moved into Califronia in the 1980s or after and all the good jobs are gone now and the nice houses are priced out of reach, so these people work part-time at 7-11 stores and live in rathole apartments. That’s why Proposition 13 passed and why it can’t be repealed, not because of some mythical magical intransigence by the California legislature.
Califronia is a microcosm for America because we’re seeing the same unsustainability marathon getting run by America as a whole that we saw in California.
[1] California is a freeway car culture built on cheap oil, and the cheap oil has gone away. Take a look at the American interstate freeway system, at the nationwide trucking system that supplies goods to every store in America, take a look at those gigantic big-box Wal*Marts located 40 miles from the nearest town, take a look at all the strip malls festooned with identical fast food chain eateries. America is a freeway car culture built on cheap, and the cheap oil has gone away. What happened to California in the last 15 years will happen to America in the next 20.
[2] California is a tract home suburban culture built on cheap land and endless immigration to support its Ponzi tax scheme. When the state got crowded and the cheap land was all gone and immigration into California dropped from a stampede to a trickle, California’s tax base collapse and its intellectual capital disappeared. Take a look at America as a whole — America was built on cheap empty land and endless immigration of the best and brightest from around the world into the U.S.A. to support America’s Ponzi tax scheme (we have far lower taxes than any other country in the industrialized world). Now America’s empty land is gone and America is crowded and the quality of life has gone to shit and the best and brightest people around the world look at the collapsing corrupt American economy and our cruel sadistic police state and say, “Nuh-uh, no thanks, don’t want to live there.” So the best and the brightest either come here briefly to get an education and then return home, or simply don’t come anymore.
[3] California is a master-slave society split between families who own nice houses and 5 cars and a boat and 3 off-road vehicles and a giant camper for vacations, plus a vacation home, and the working poor who live jammed into rathole apartments with roommates and scrape by from paycheck to paycheck. This master-slave society evolved because the people who moved to California early on, in the 50s and 60s and early 70s, did great, while the people who moved into California after the 1980s got screwed. The same thing has happened in America as a whole. If you were born before 1955, you’re doing great. You own a nice house and you’ve got a nice job with plush health benefits and you’re not going to get fired anytime soon, so you have nothing to worry about. Your college education cost very little and you house is paid off and you’re living the American Dream. But if you were born after 1955, you can never afford to own a home and you can never find a secure job, let alone a full-time job, and you’re probably living in an apartment with 3 or 4 roommates just to afford the sky-high rent, and you can never afford health insurance.
The analogies between California and America as a whole are exact and alarming. Just as Califronia is collapsing today because it’s built on a whole set of unsustainable trends, America will collapse in the foreseeable future because it too is running the exact same kind of unustainability marathon.
Just as California did nothing to remedy all the crazy unsustainable policies it was following until California ran right over the edge of a fiscal and educational and societal cliff, America as whole has done nothing to remedy all the crazy unustainable policies it is following — endless losing foreign wars that bankrupt us for no reason, limitless growth of a parasitic miltiary-industrial complex that can’t win wars and produces gold-plated Buck Rogers superweapons that don’t work, making America’s immigrationand border policies so hostile to the foreigners we desperately need to maintain America’s intellectual edge that they refuse to come here in droves, crazy unsustainable pricing bubbles in higher education and housing that are pushing the cost of getting into the middle class far beyon the reach of all Americans, out-of-control police state thuggery that’s turning America is a giant penal colony policed by muggers with badges, a crazy unsustainable War On Drugs that’s bankrupting America while empowering the Mexican cartels and destroying the entire Mexican state… You name the unsustainable policy, America is following it.
California’s unsustainability marathon has ended. California ran off the edge of a cliff and it’s now in free fall. America is still running its unsustainability marathon because America as a whole is much bigger and can run much farther before it reaches the edge of the cliff. But the cliff is visible in the distance.
Lisa K.
It all just sucks. I have no hope for the future anymore.
You know, it is time for everybody to just load up on arms, hunker down, and wait for the revolution…which we will all engage in after American Idol is over and we get rid of the seventy extra pounds we are carrying around, and we get some big corporation to sponsor us. Being a revolutionary is expensive, you know.
General Winfield Stuck
Lex Luther, General Zod (illegal alien immigrant), and Wizard of Oz are Califronian. I rest my case.
Alex S.
The ultimate problem is that the Republicans are not worried about a dysfunctional government because that’s exactly what they want to achieve anyway. Their platform includes privatizing social security and health-care, and if they can’t achieve that via ballot box they can achieve it by collapsing the government.
From the republican perspective there is nothing the government should do. Donald Rumsfeld tried to privatize the army. Private schools replace public schools. Private universities replace public universities and so on and on…
The californization of America is just another step on the way to the dissolution of the government.
The Bush government already went as far as they could go with their program. The voters rejected every further measure. But the big financial companies, whose primary objective is growth, not quality, need new markets to keep their own hype going. And the republican party will not back away from their plans just because the voters don’t like them.
IndieTarheel
@jim:
And the early front-runner for Comment of the Year for 2010 (and inadvertent submitter of a damned fine addition to the Lexicon to boot) is…
Nancy Irving
“the Khmer Rogue” – I like that! Great idea for a name for Palin’s fans.