The solution: turn red states to blue and blue states to red
I don’t know about you, but I’m fed up with the focus this nation places on partisanship. It has destroyed much of what we value in America.
No longer do our politicians – or their followers – put what is best for the nation at the forefront although many believe they do so by taking strong, unyielding partisan positions.
Today, it’s all about how a policy plays out for the party – not the country.
Does anyone really believe that the Obama win, cool as it may have been for those who supported his candidacy, has turned out to be a victory for the nation? Does anyone really believe that the two terms of George W. Bush was a victory for the nation?
Yes, I know…Obama’s problems are the fault of a GOP minority in the Senate hell bent on stopping the president no matter what he attempts to do. As for Bush, it was all about oil, right? While Obama’s hidden, nefarious agenda involves the pursuit of socialism in America, Bush’s master plan was to further the interests of corporations and the nation’s wealthiest citizens.
Guess what? George W. Bush contributed more money to fight AIDS in Africa than any president in our history. In the real world (the one where politics is not reduced to a football game), an evil man who cares nothing for the disadvantaged and only works to benefit the privileged just doesn’t do this.
Here’s another shocker.
If you actually believe that Barack Obama is pursuing a socialist course for this country, you are either completely ignorant of facts or need to return to high school and pay attention the day your civics class teacher discusses what socialism actually means. While facts can be inconvenient, President Obama has, so far, turned out to be a pretty conservative president – certainly far more conservative than most who supported his candidacy expected.
The truth is that an American president can no longer succeed on behalf of the nation because whoever is on the other side of the aisle believes they have too much to lose in that success. It’s not about the country – it’s about the success of the team for whom our politicians and their followers play.
The inevitable result is the loss of logic and good sense in the national debate. And when good sense is lost for too long, history tells us that nobody wins the game.
We have GOP senators running around making the case that the nation’s jobless be damned because the deficit can’t handle further payment of their jobless benefits unless we can find the money elsewhere so as to avoid increasing the national deficit. To back up their position, they try to sell us on the notion that the unemployed are only unemployed because, content to take the taxpayers’ money and watch TV all day, they don’t really want jobs. Of course, the fact that statistics make clear that there is only one job out there for every six trying to get it is of no consequence.
At the same time, these identical senators pitch the notion that we should continue the Bush tax cuts despite the treasury’s need for a little help from the nation’s wealthiest in order to conquer the deficit – no offsetting money required to keep the deficit at even.
In what logic system does that add up?
The Democrats are hardly immune from the loss of good sense. Robert Gibbs goes on television and makes a dramatic statement of the obvious by pointing out that the GOP could retake the House this fall. Wow…who would have thought that was a possibility? Apparently, Nancy Pelosi figured that there was still someone left in the United States who didn’t already know this provocative bit of information when she publicly beat up on Gibbs for having spoken the obvious to avoid looking like a complete dunderhead before the nation.
And then there are the whack jobs. Michele Bachmann wants us to believe we are being turned into a nation of slaves. The tea party hangs up billboards comparing the President to Hitler because, somehow, this is good for America. And yes, liberals made some similar accusations against President Bush that were just as stupid.
Ultra-progressives insist that unless we get a health care program that includes every single thing they want, we should have no reform at all. The uninsured will just have to tough it out until the progressives get their all or nothing solution. Of course, most of those who take such a position do so with the comfort of having their health insurance policy sitting comfortably in a file somewhere. They will also tell you that faith based distribution of aid to the needy is a bad thing because it mixes church and state. I’m sure that argument comes as great comfort to families without food who only want a sandwich and don’t really care who gives it to them. But then, a hungry child’s stomach has yet to be indoctrinated into partisanship. To such a kid, food provided by a conservative or a liberal, a church or a government welfare program, is still just badly needed food.
So, I’ve got an idea.
If you live in a blue state – whether you are a Democrat or a Republican – look for a Republican who is moderate to the point that you can swallow hard and vote for his or her candidacy. Look for the Snowes and the Collinses out there. Maybe even the Scott Browns.
Best of all, look for folks like Charlie Crist.
These are the candidates who actually use their brain instead of their party affiliations and aren’t afraid to be supportive of a president from another party if what that president proposes is good for the candidate’s constituency.
If you live in a red state – vote Democrat. No, it doesn’t have to be a progressive or a liberal –a more conservative Democrat will do just fine.
In other words, let’s move our politicians towards the middle. While it won’t satisfy the deeply committed progressives or the equally committed conservatives, it may do something much more important – create a government that is capable of actually governing.
Sound radical? Think about what voting ideologies has done for us so far. Democrats are still blaming Bush (not that he doesn’t have it coming) and conservatives are convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ. Congress is incapable of acting in a rational, meaningful way to solve any of our problems because the leadership on both sides doesn’t allow governance – they only allow votes that are likely to deliver the desired result in the next election.
Here’s a new flash. Running a government is pretty much like running any other type of organization. There can be different opinions as to which may be the better plan to get the job done but, at the end of the day, what is most important is that the organization picks a direction and goes there. Mistakes will be made- but they can be corrected when they show up, if it is about running the government to the best interests of the country and not in the interest of political elections.
If the electorate delivers more Republicans in a given election year — assuming they are rational Republicans — then let’s do it their way and see how it goes. If the electorate chooses more Democrats then they get to steer the ship, so long as they do so rationally.
Given the state of our politics, this can only happen if we put our attention to solving problems – not pursuing ideological agendas. This means choosing candidates focused on problem solving and problem solvers tend to be moderate, deliberative people. They aren’t people who suggest that the president of the United States wants to put our children in camps or make us slaves. They are not people who compare American presidents to the most heinous villain in modern history. They aren’t people who pretend that unions are always right in every opinion and position, even if they are supportive of the right of workers to unionize. And they certainly are not people who suggest that the American government wants to create death panels to decide when our seniors should die.
While it is true that dinner party conversation may be less interesting and cable news shows might drop a few rating points, I think this is a sacrifice we manage in order to preserve the nation.
I would also nominate Charlie Crist to be the poster boy for this movement.
A lifelong Republican, Crist was drummed out of his party for seeking to do what was best for his constituents, whether they be Democrats or Republicans. Those of you who read this blog know that I tend to lean in the direction of the left in my own approach to problem solving. So, my putting up a life-long Republican as the leader of this strategy may appear odd.
However, my interests are for the country – not for a political party. I respect a man who put his state first even if it meant giving the president a (gasp) hug in front of the camera. After all, Sammy Davis Jr., a life-long Democrat, hugged Richard Nixon for the cameras and I didn’t think any less of him for it.
Running the greatest nation on earth like a football game isn’t working out very well so let’s institute a new player draft system designed to even up the teams. Let’s go for moderates, whether Democrats or Republicans, who are more interested in governing than scoring touchdowns.
It has worked well for us in the past ad it might just may save the nation in the future.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
How dare you … suggest something so pragmatic? Of course, it will be widely ignored. As a left-leaner myself, I’ve begun reading mainly moderate conservative bloggers, because I want to get an sense of where we can meet in the middle.
I actually was going to vote for McCain in 2008 until his campaign went off the deep end. It was going to represent my move to the middle until partisanship crapped all over it. I will continue to support our president because I’m thrilled at what a temperate pragmatist he’s turned out to be … although I guess that’s not sexy enough for most people. Until we clear out the noise, it will be difficult to have rational discourse on the issues. Thanks for pointing it out.
As a left-leaner myself, I’ve begun reading mainly moderate conservative bloggers, because I want to get an sense of where we can meet in the middle.
Nowhere. Republicans don’t “want to meet in the middle.” They want the government to fail under Democrats so they can exploit voter resentment.
They’re not interested in compromise. They’re interested in exploiting a populace who doesn’t know who to blame for Senate obstruction. And people like Ungar only help spread that ignorance.
Stop helping them.
In response to another comment. See in context »Gotta agree with Justin here- there’s a definite shortage of rational Republicans out there. In my own state, Wisconsin, I have a senator I like in Russ Feingold; that’s not because he’s one of the few unashamed Liberals in the upper house, but because he’s demonstrated himself to be honest, competent, and moral. The local Republicans are offering up as his challenger a millionaire businessman, Ron Johnson, whose proposed policies are to lower his own taxes, and lift regulation from his own business. He may be a nice guy, and not crazy, but I don’t trust him to vote against his party when they want to do something (let’s be polite) utterly insane. It’s important to remember that, besides their fierce devotion to discredited supply-side economic policies, the Republican party’s foreign policy is still controlled by the Neo-Conservatives- Kristol, Perle, Podhoretz, and others, who have proven to be gibberingly inept strategists, as well as war-loving maniacs. How long would it take for a Republican administration to get us into big trouble in Iran? Five minutes? Fifteen? No, Rick, the only real virtue to political moderation lies in it’s willingness to reason, and reasonably compromise. When it means splitting the difference with folly, well, you’re off into Broder-land, or Friedmanistan, two places I don’t really care to go. I’m no more Liberal than I ever was, but I’m a LOT more radical than I was in 2000. I’ll happily become less partisan when the Republican party puts the Nation’s welfare above it’s own prejudices, and political power. Not before.
I appreciate the good work the Junior Bush did on AIDS, within it’s limitations; I don’t forgive Clinton’s NAFTA backing, or his signing Gramm-Leach-Bliley- these are good points. But, as corrupt as the Dems have been, and can be, the Republicans just look too much like nihilists to me, for me to currently consider voting for anyone with an R behind his name, no matter how sane he presents.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kayla Swift. Kayla Swift said: The solution: turn red states to blue and blue states to red: If you actually believe that Barack Obama is pursuin… http://bit.ly/9627RW [...]
In the case of George W. Bush and AIDS in Africa, I think it is more fair to say that he did something primarily for the religious base of his party which had the side-effect of also helping (some) Africans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President’s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief#Criticism
Withholding condoms and birth control (and education) in the one hand, while giving out AIDS medicine [initially branded pharmaceuticals] with the other does ultimately benefit some people in Africa, but it was a very poor way to demonstrate that he was not “an evil man who cares nothing for the disadvantaged and only works to benefit the privileged.”
He obviously cares deeply…about Evangelical Christians, who overwhelmingly vote Republican and also brought about the Republican resurgence in the 80’s.
But I don’t like Obama, either. He’s worse than Bush, in a way, because he said he would have no lobbyists/no exceptions in his administration, then proceeded to make immediate exceptions. Give Bush/Cheney credit: they rarely made attempts at such pretense.
We’re presented the false dichotomy of red team and blue team, but none of us are actually ON those teams, unless we represent wealth or corporate interests. [Much like referring to your favorite pro sports team with "we" even though they have no idea who we are and could care less about anything other than our money.]
I would suggest we all stop voting red and blue entirely. It would be a thousand times more statistically likely to get people at the polls to select a third party of their choice or write-in “none of the above” than to get the entire country to switch their party votes.
Does anyone really believe that the Obama win, cool as it may have been for those who supported his candidacy, has turned out to be a victory for the nation?
Yeah, I do. Why wouldn’t I, given that Obama has had more legislative successes in two years than Bush had in 8?
Democrats are still blaming Bush (not that he doesn’t have it coming) and conservatives are convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ.
Wow, looks like not even you could set up such a false equivalence without balking at it. So, what I’m supposed to take away from this is that while Republicans are campaigning on a position that is an objective lunacy, Democrats have rightly made the case that Republican governance leaves our democracy in a shambles – but they’re each just as bad as the other.
Um, why? Doesn’t your entire post actually prove that you should vote Democrat regardless of what state you’re in?
In other words, let’s move our politicians towards the middle.
Why would we want to do that? How does that improve governance in any conceivable way?
You seem to be under the delusion that the obstacle to governance is that the Democrats won’t compromise. But has any legislation passed Congress in the past two years without being drastically watered down in the Senate? The stimulus was cut in half by the Senate. The House passed HCR with a strong public option; the Senate took that out. The past year of wrangling the financial reform package has involved the Senate pulling out the strongest protections to court Republican votes.
I don’t get any sense that the obstacles to bills passing the Senate – which, objectively, is where everything is getting hung up – is that Democrats are too partisan. The obstacles are 42 Senate Republicans who have determined that their party’s electoral success rides on complete legislative paralysis that they then blame on Democratic spinelessness.
Stop helping them, stupid.
Your post ignores history which tells us that when the GOP has been in power, the Dems. have done everything possible to stop everything they wanted to do -whether useful or not. Now, you will probably argue that the GOP never proposed anything useful, but that only reinforces the point. You’ll stick to ideology and leave us going nowhere. Sorry, but that just isn’t working for me.
And why is it that you always get so freaking nasty? As I’ve pointed out often in the past, you have a serious personality problem. You are the perfect example of what I’m talking about. You can’t have a conversation without calling someone ’stupid” if you disagree.
In response to another comment. See in context »Your post ignores history which tells us that when the GOP has been in power, the Dems. have done everything possible to stop everything they wanted to do -whether useful or not.
Indeed. That’s a symptom of the problem I’m talking about – a Senate that gives the minority party far too much power to derail legislation. Great, it saved Social Security – so what? Of course, Social Security was the status quo, and the Senate does nothing but preserve the status quo.
But the status quo is untenable. From jobs, to the necessary stimulus, to health care, to the environment, to the changing climate – the status quo has us headed to disaster, but the undemocratic rules of the Senate block any attempt but the smallest to change that status quo.
Now, you will probably argue that the GOP never proposed anything useful, but that only reinforces the point.
No, I won’t argue that. The GOP had a lot of good ideas, and most of them were rolled into the HCR bill, for instance.
But the Republican minority has no incentive to vote in favor of their own ideas, because only the majority gets credit for legislative success. So the end result was that every House and Senate Republican voted against a bill crammed full of their own good ideas.
As I’ve pointed out often in the past, you have a serious personality problem.
No, I don’t, Rick. You have a serious reading comprehension problem, and a serious problem with grappling with the facts and arguments as they are presented to you.
I’m engaged in a discussion of ideas. You’re the one who insists on responding to every argument with me by making it personal – and then projecting it all on me.
You’ll stick to ideology and leave us going nowhere.
Hundreds of bills have passed the “ideologically liberal” House, Rick, and then been stalled in the Senate. Hundreds of government positions remain unfilled because of Republican holds on the nominees.
How can you explain any of that as a result of Democrats not being willing to compromise? How do you explain any of that as the result of our politics not being “centrist”?
How was HCR not fundamentally “centrist”? Liberal health care reform meant full-on, universal government run health care and an end to the private health insurance industry altogether.
Is that anything close to what passed either the House or the Senate? No? Then what on Earth could be the basis for your insane notion that deadlock in the Senate is the result of Democrats not moving to the middle?
In response to another comment. See in context »“As I’ve pointed out often in the past, you have a serious personality problem.
No, I don’t, Rick. You have a serious reading comprehension problem, and a serious problem with grappling with the facts and arguments as they are presented to you.
I’m engaged in a discussion of ideas. You’re the one who insists on responding to every argument with me by making it personal – and then projecting it all on me.”
Did I somehow fail to correctly comprehend the line (written before I responded at all) that read – “Stop helping them, STUPID”?
In response to another comment. See in context »Did I somehow fail to correctly comprehend the line (written before I responded at all) that read – “Stop helping them, STUPID”?
Yes, abundantly! As well, you seem to have totally failed to comprehend the ten paragraphs to which your post is ostensibly a reply.
Can you respond to my arguments, or not? Your feigned touchiness is an obstacle to genuine discourse.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Stop helping them, stupid.”
Hmmm. I guess there is no point in encouraging our politicians to seek common ground. We’re not supposed to “help” each other.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is a lack of dialog about competing interests. The Democrat Party isn’t wrong about the need to overhaul health care. And the GOP isn’t wrong about the need to curb spending.
This is not about who gets more legislation passed. What a stupid metric! This is about recognizing our differences and similarities and negotiating something that works best for everyone –not ramrodding legislation through congress. Even staunch opponents on the political front such as Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil used to get together all the time have a meal together and discuss what could be agreed upon.
That gentility and realism is absent today. Your attitude is one major reason why. If you aren’t ashamed of yourself for thinking this way, you should be.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] the past year or so, it seems that the Conservative movement is experiencing a resurgence. …The solution: turn red states to blue and blue states to redTrue/SlantExpect a dogfight for legislative seatsOrlando Sentinel (blog)Palin's Clout Narrows as [...]
I assume this column was a practice exercise for the post November period when marijuana is legalized in California because I can only assume you were high when you wrote it. As John Hightower said, “the only thing you get in the middle of the road is road kill.”
What is the middle of the road position on marriage equality? The moment one compromises, one gets domestic partnership, at best. I do understand the half a loaf of domestic partnership is better than nothing, second class citizenship is better than third, but it isn’t equality. Separate, but equal, isn’t equal.
What is the middle of the road position on the right to choose? One can have an abortion, but only after five visits to the doctor and forcing the doctor to spout lies about the false increase risk of abortion over child birth? The right to decide one’s private reproductive choices means one gets the best advice from the doctor, based on scientific studies and his understanding, not political agendas, and then gets the chosen treatment as quickly as possible.
What is the middle of the road position on economic stimulus? Not enough to do the job, but enough to make the Federal budget worse? What is the middle of the road position on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Don’t pull out and leave just enough troops to get killed, but not achieve any military or political goals? What is the middle of the road position on economic reform? Enough change to make things different, but not enough to stop Wall Street from wrecking the economy again by controlling them appropriately?
America is in trouble because of the middle of the road position. We compromise ourselves into idiocy. Here in California, the state legislature has compromised on the budget. The Republicans get their position of not raising taxes and the Democrats get theirs of not cutting services. The result is a budget hole of $25 billion dollars, about a quarter of the whole budget.
Governance is not like running other organizations. In many ways, it is the exact opposite. In most companies, one person is in charge and they decide how things will work. While, in theory, the board of directors is in charge, in practice, the CEO is selected and he (and is almost always a he) runs the place exactly as he sees fit. People may voice opposition. They are called the unemployed. The CEO doesn’t compromise to achieve consensus. Even more importantly, a company decides what it wants to do and, more to the point, what it won’t do.
Governing, on the other hand, takes on the tasks no one else wants to do, but, nevertheless, must be done. Don’t like that expensive national defense thing (about a third of our Federal budget), not like we can get out of that obligation. A school district can’t decide education is too expensive, let’s be a swim league, but the telegraph company can decide to stop sending telegrams and be a money exchange. Some things are not mandatory, but are so integral to the operation of a modern state, they might as well be. Social Security is a good example. Despite the yahoo Republican idea of eliminating it, for all practical purposes, that can’t happen. The most the Republicans really hope to do now is kill it by making it private (i.e., give the money to our supporters), but that idea went from a non-starter to toxic. Moreover, governance isn’t run by one persons whims (at least, not in our country, it is in some and those countries don’t do so well), but by some group. Thus, the choice is how to run the group.
The problem we’ve put ourselves in isn’t the fault of our politicians, but ourselves. Our politicians simply reflect our strong desires. We wish a strong, fully-functioning government for the price of a banana republic. We want a unemployment insurance, strong national defense, social security, big prisons, and real regulation, but we don’t want to pay for it.
Don’t pick a Democrat if you are a Republican and don’t pick a Republican if you are a Democrat, but demand the politician you do pick to be a realistic choice. Take the governor’s race in California. I am liberal Democrat. I want Jerry Brown to state firmly and clearly what taxes he will raise and to what level to support the safety net I believe in. He won’t, of course, because everyone is against taxes. I believe Meg Whitman should state firmly and clearly what programs she will cut and what changes she will make to cut spending down to the level of the tax rate she desires (something less than even today’s insufficient amount). Of course, she won’t because no one is really for ending child protective services, closing three prisons and letting the prisoners go free, and selling of the state university system (about what would be necessary to achieve her savings).
Paying for the government you want or being happy with the tiny government you want to pay for isn’t middle of the road, it is reality. Rick, your plan won’t achieve either.
We need to allow the other side to govern when they win. If the Democrats hold the majority, then allow them to pass their plans. If the Republicans win, let them pass theirs.
In the UK, I notice the Conservatives there are raising taxes and cutting spending to bring the budget in line. That’s governing and not the middle of the road. It is the Tory position, articulated in the election. The Conservatives won, more or less, and are implementing their plan. When they lose, they will allow Labor to implement their plan. This isn’t because of the parliamentary system — there are plenty of ways to frustrate legislation even as the minority party as Mr. Churchill goes on about in his seven volume bio — but the understanding that elections have consequences.
The current compromise position in America is to have our cake and eat it, too. That won’t be solved by politicians, even if red, blue, or purple, but by us deciding to vote and live with the election results. If your side loses, let the other side do their worst.
You can answer your own question. We have a government in place where the executive and the majority in Congress profess to be for marriage equality, the right to choose, economic stimulus, etc. And yet, none of that is getting through. So, how is this working for you?
In response to another comment. See in context »And yet, none of that is getting through.
None of that is getting through the Senate. Those bills passed the House last year.
The problem isn’t “ideology”; it’s antidemocratic procedural rules in the Senate. Why can’t we have majority rule in the Senate, like the Constitution mandates?
In response to another comment. See in context »Um, the constitution requires super-majority. And it used to be “super”-super-majority. Plus, it’s not a democratic process. We run on a constitutional republic where checks control the power of the majority. This is so they can screw up as little as possible.
Personally, I’m fed up with political parties, so I’m game for the swap experiment. It does sound a lot like a vote no for incumbent type of plan, which has some appeal. Not too confident it will matter which of the two parties are majority though. It hasn’t for the last 10 years.
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, the Constitution does not require the super-majority. The filibuster was created by the Senate and can be done away with by the Senate by a simple change of the rules. The idea came about as a means of keeping the minority from total exclusion. It has, however, been taken to the extremes to create the situation we currently have.
In response to another comment. See in context »There’s no requirement for super-majority in the Constitution; the Constitution makes no mention of the threshold for a cloture vote whatsoever.
We run on a constitutional republic where checks control the power of the majority.
We have plenty of checks already. There’s already a president who can veto legislation; there’s no reason at all to require a supermajority for all legislation. Nobody thinks legislation is improved that way, or that screw-ups are avoided. It’s just a needless way of denying majority rule.
If we really wanted to give the minority party a way to block legislation, there would be a way to do it such that they were held responsible for doing so. The filibuster is the worst of both worlds.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick – wouldn’t changing the rules of the Senate be a lot easier, and a lot more effective, than your grand scheme of total electoral reversal? Just sayin’.
In response to another comment. See in context »Got my quotes messed up, was referring to “super” in context of the filibuster establishing that. And “super-super” referring to the filibuster override originally requiring 2/3 vote on cloture. And correct that should be Senate rules not constitutional.
But the purpose is still valid. Don’t forget, going down the path of pure majority may allow bills to pass with your agreeing view, but it will also allow the opposing party to create more bills that you would oppose.
I think less from both parties will make us all a little better off.
In response to another comment. See in context »Don’t forget, going down the path of pure majority may allow bills to pass with your agreeing view, but it will also allow the opposing party to create more bills that you would oppose.
If they win elections, shouldn’t they get to?
I don’t understand this objection. Am I supposed to support the idea of democracy only for people who agree with me? Am I supposed to admire your principled stand for unprincipledness?
The idea came about as a means of keeping the minority from total exclusion.
Well, no, it didn’t. It came about because, unlike the House, the Senate believed that they should be able to talk about an issue for as long as they liked, and the way that they came up with to determine when they had talked enough was to vote on it. A vote for cloture, in other words. It was never intended to serve as an actual supermajority requirement on the actual legislation. If that’s what they wanted to do, they would have simply put it in the rules that the Senate had to pass legislation by supermajority, but they never did.
No, the filibuster emerged when a group of racist southern Senators decided to use it to oppose civil rights for black people and hold the legislative branch hostage during epic feats of pointless oratory. To employ some gamer parlance it’s an exploit, not a feature. There was never any point where the Senate said “you know, majority rule is just so tyrannical, we should make the votes of the minority party count for more than those of the majority party, but just in this one house of Congress.”
The use of the filibuster routinely for all legislation is a “tradition” that only dates back to the 2007 Senate. Cloture was never intended to present a supermajority requirement for legislation. The Senate has always been meant to be a body that rules by majority vote.
In response to another comment. See in context »Because the Senate is stuffed with politicians who make decisions based on election politics rather than running a nation. So long as we allow this type of politician into office, this is what we will get. Precisely the point of this piece. Only the Senate can alter their rules. Put a different type of individual into the Senate and maybe they will do so.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, the Gang of 14 was a gang of moderates. Olympia Snowe. John McCain. Mary Landrieu. Joe Lieberman.
It’s the ideologues who want to end the filibuster. We need more partisanship in the Senate, not less. Your plan for a more “moderate” Senate would have precisely the exact opposite effect you intend – more Senate paralysis, not less.
The House is a raucous, partisan body. Alan Grayson. Michelle Bachman. Compared to the so-called Greatest Deliberative Body it’s a mud wrestling pit.
Yet, the House is the one where the bills pass. The much more moderate Senate is the one where bills go to die. Isn’t that a pretty dramatic counter-example to your thesis?
In response to another comment. See in context »Vastly better than under your plan would. Do you really believe any of those things would fair better under a Republican Congress? Even a Republic Congress with more moderate Republicans? The problem isn’t the Democrats are pursuing the goals, it is the Republican, rather serving as loyal opposition, are not allowing any of the Democrat’s proposal to become law. The Republicans are simply not allowing Democrats to govern. Nothing can pass unless it can achieve a supermajority.
If we had more moderate Republicans, more Olympia Snows, would health care insurance reform have passed? Nope. Would the stimulus bill? Nope. How about the even weak repeal of the DODT policy? Nope.
Rick, I like you and you often have good ideas. This isn’t one of them. This idea is the “things would be better if we all just got along” mode. It is unicorns and puppies dressed as policy. It is the big brown eyed children looking sad plea.
The problem is not people choosing representatives that reflect their goals, it is the right wing of this country not allowing the left wing to govern when the left wing wins elections. It is one step below Chile in the 1970s. It is the Nazis storming out of the Reichstag to force elections again. The paranoid, racist oligarchy of money interests (see Dick Cheney) has joined with the religious Christianists (to use Andrew Sullivan’s construction) to stop any liberal or progressive policies. They want government by failure until they can return to power.
All your plan does is help them along. The solution isn’t to vote for the other guy’s representative, but for the left wing in this country to find a pair and govern. The Republicans want to filibuster? Keep them in the Senate chamber each and every time until they drop dead. Ignore them on committees. Pass legislation and don’t even attempt at compromise. After a few major bill’s pass, the opposition will drop its stonewall strategy and join in the normal and historical process of negotiation and compromise.
In response to another comment. See in context »Steven – I do see your points. And the idea is more a provocation than an expectation that this will ever happen. However, there is a reality that the party in the Senate out of power will now always seek to block all government by use of the filibuster, leaving us with an inability to govern. Yes, the GOP has used it more than at any time in the past. However, the Democrats used it quite a bit during Bush, and, should they lose control of the Senate, we can expect them to go the same direction as the current GOP if for no other reason than to get even.
In response to another comment. See in context »The Dems. have had, at one point, a super-majority and failed to use it to repeal, or even modify, the filibuster rule. Why? Because they recognize the day will come when they will need it.
So, how do we go about governing when this is the MO of the Senate?
However, the Democrats used it quite a bit during Bush
Less, however, than Republicans used it under Clinton.
Objectively, Democrats filibuster less. And filibuster use has literally exploded under the GOP, where Literally. Every. Bill. has been subject to the 60-vote requirement for cloture.
The Dems. have had, at one point, a super-majority and failed to use it to repeal, or even modify, the filibuster rule. Why?
Because the moderates want to preserve the filibuster. Just like they acted to preserve it in 2005, when 14 Senate moderates joined forces to protect anti-democratic minority rule in the Senate.
In response to another comment. See in context »Even if you could cure the partisanship, the money-based power brokering is still there. As long as partisanship is alive and well, the plutocrats will continue to waltz with whomever they need to to assure that their unearned positions of power and privilege remain intact. A third ideological vector is desperately needed and neither party’s extremist or moderates are attuned to this need at this time (with rare exceptions). Any liberal that doesn’t see Obama for the shallow corporatist that he is has no ability to think. Any conservative that can’t see that George Bush was a clown puppet of the oil industry are equally as blind. Steering the moderate course may be bland. But it may be the best first prerequisite to getting issues dealt with in a constructive manner. I am a registered Republican and will probably vote for Dan Onorato for Governor of PA. Our’s is the state that invented modern political moderation. Our moderate hall of fame includes Arlen Specter, Tom Ridge, Dick Thornburg, and the rising powerful new fence-rider Jason Altmire. People bitch about Specter cuz he’s weasely n@, but he fought valiantly for Clarence Thomas.
I like your writing Rick. But you’re no where near as smart as Justin SGP. Dude’s an intellectual baddass. He opened up a can on your moderate-sympathizing ass today, bro! Whoa!
I guess I’m just dumb enough to be totally lost by your post. You write,
“Steering the moderate course may be bland. But it may be the best first prerequisite to getting issues dealt with in a constructive manner.”
My small and addled brain reads this as basically agreeing with exactly what I had to say in this piece. And yet you, at the same time, appear to agree with Justin SGP who, as you say, opened up a can of badass on my moderate -sympathizing ass.
????
In response to another comment. See in context »Sarcasm, I suspect. I’m pretty sure he thinks I’m a dumbass.
In response to another comment. See in context »You’re not in any way a dumbass, Justin. Actually, I think you’re rather clever, and fiercely passionate. That is not sarcasm. The epitaph “dumbass” should not be used to describe somebody that you do not agree with, you smarmy pinko.
In response to another comment. See in context »After reading all your comments here, I’m leaning more towards douchebag who owns a Thesaurus, but that’s just me…
In response to another comment. See in context »Actually, while you’re probably right about my douchiness I don’t, in fact, own a thesaurus. Seriously.
In response to another comment. See in context »My bad! Sincerity should not be punctuated with sarcasm. People like me need to know and stay within our limitations.
In response to another comment. See in context »On a serious note: Do you really think the messy business that fouls our treasured national ideals, that goes on between Manhattan and Washington may ever heal?
Rick, I like most of your posts, but this one I can’t agree with.
I don’t see that the “middle” is much of a middle at all. It’s in between two severely corporatized parties that behave substantially like the other despite the public venom and arguments, and it’s little different these days than sports teams, where rooting for your own is the most important thing – much more important, apparently, than the fact that the teams end up doing the same things and play in the same league with the same rules. One takes a step forward, the other takes a step back until the previous one steps forward again, but they always wind up going ultimately in the same direction because they’re both substantially owned, and the public has no other choices.
That ownership – all that money – is completely planned and managed in such a way that the benefactors come out on top. Money, media saturation, and advertising are the biggest players in this game.
I’m probably what you would call “far left,” but I have no such issues as some of those you name. I try to be reasonable; to see the other arguments. If the church wants to feed the poor or rebuild housing for them, I have no problem there. I do *not* say that unless I get everything I want out of health care there should be no reform at all. It is almost like a comic book character on that point: Nobody I know is like that. As far as health care goes, I (we) ideally want the insurance companies, advertisers, lobbyists, etc, gone – all those things that aren’t health care and yet get paid for by us under the umbrella of ‘health care costs.’ Insurers provide no service at all that is any different from what a Vegas bookie does. Classic middle men graft and money moving for profit, complete with winners and losers, and we pay an arm and a leg to be indoctrinated that it is the right way by their advertising and public media mouthpieces. Said another way: With our own money, we pay to be told that insurance companies are right, which is absurd, and very representative of that thing American conservatives tell us doesn’t exist: What amounts to a control system by a non-government capitalist body that ends up being just as publicly controlling as any government could be. Does this mean I wouldn’t compromise in some way if health care were actually made affordable? Absolutely not. Admittedly, I don’t see how, and I’m not in a position to do anything about it, but I have no doubt in my mind that my health care could be a lot cheaper if I didn’t have to pay for someone to tell me that it’s the best way to do it, to pay for that same person to buy a politician, to pay for drug ads and lear jets and gold-plated silverware on those jets, etc..
Which brings me to my last point: Powerlessness. I feel completely unrepresented by anyone these days here – certainly not by “moderates.” Again, we’ve already got two conservative parties, one of which masquerades as a sensible, caring version that is totally opposed to the other but which in practice is not so far off. Those in the middle of two conservative parties are going to be…still conservative. Are we still in two wars? Yes. Have any substantial reforms been made to the banking and loan industries? No. Was the health care “reform” some great liberal victory? No. Do lobbyists and big business still get just about everything they want? Yes. Are they still making windfall profits while the rest of the country has stagnant wages or outright unemployment? Yes. There are simple question-and-answer things like this in every hot button issue you can name, and the liberals are not winning this game. I’m no commie, but I might as well be, considering that anything close to Kucinich in the US is considered “far left.”
Voting for some milquetoast version of what I believe, a version that exists only in rhetoric and a public show and not deeds, is pointless. To a large extent I’m almost ready to let it go and stop voting entirely – just let these bastards from both parties ruin the country so that change only ever emerges from the inevitable carnage and suffering, as it has to some extent through history. Fools and warlords will out.
Another modern conservative fallacy: I’m supposedly in love with “government,” a term of such high abstraction that it is ultimately close to meaningless. Ok, so I love “government,” right, but that doesn’t mean this one, nor most of those that exist in the world today or through history. I love a type of government that has never been allowed to exist anywhere except in the minds of those like me. I hope to see it someday, but I know better.
Matthew – I agree with much of what you have to say, particularly with regard to your football analogy. I do have to say that, as you describe yourself, I don’t know that I would term you as ‘far left’ as the term ‘far’ typically denotes an unwillingness to compromise and reason. I don’t think you are unwilling to compromise or reason.
My problem is that while I understand that, as you note, voting for a milquetoast version of what you believe is unpalatable, we have ample proof that we can’t seem to get anything done when we vote ideology over voting for getting something done. The result, whether your preference is to vote on the left side or the right side, is that nothing gets done in either direction. What’s more, I don’t think that anyone ‘loves’ government. Some believe that government can solve more problems for more people than other people may think. Hard to say which is right. I do, however, know that a non-functioning government – no matter what it’s leanings in terms of solutions – can solve absolutely nothing. That is where we seem to find ourselves today.
What I propose here is not necessarily a long-term solution – but a short term approach to getting the government functioning again. If we can re-establish a government where the majority is permitted to lead (no matter which party happens to be the majority), at least we will be heading in a direction. And, as I say, if there are mistakes along the way, they can be corrected. The truth is that much of government is about responding to needs and problems rather than pursuing ideological positions. When government takes a non-partisan, non polluted point of view, solutions to problems tend to present themselves given the conditions of the times.
We would probably both agree that most of those in government don’t really have a strong ideological position- they only feign one in order to appeal to the electorate that they believe gives them the best chance of holding onto their job. Thus, why not go for politicians who want to fix things rather than fight over ideology for their own selfish purposes? While you and I are likely , for the most part, to agree on what direction might be best, what good does it do us if the current structure is such that it can never be accomplished? At the end of the day, its just dinner conversation and cable tv entertainment because the structure doesn’t permit real advances in any direction. This is going to kill us.
We need to focus on solutions and problem solving. I don’t deny the corrupting aspect of money in this equation. It is very real, indeed. But we are capable of exposing poor decisions based on corrupt principals when we do away with the false ideological arguments designed to fool people. As it stands now, our polarized politics merely obscures the truth -that decisions are made to benefit the corporations at the expense of the voters and these decisions are sold as ideology.
In response to another comment. See in context »Rick, again – what is the incentive for the minority party to “get things done”? Americans equate Congress with the majority party, so legislative success has results only for the majority.
What incentive does that give to the minority to do anything but obstruct?
In response to another comment. See in context »You forgot to call Rick a dumbass, ye of personality disorderliness.
In response to another comment. See in context »Changing the rules in the Senate would most certainly be much easier – if the Senate would ever change their rules. This is precisely my point. In the current atmosphere there is not a chance in hell that the rules get changed to end the filibuster. This could only happen with moderate Senators more interested in governing than running for office. There are lots of things Senators and Congressmen could change that would make my proposal unnecessary. It is precisely because they will not do so that leads me to the proposal.
In response to another comment. See in context ». This could only happen with moderate Senators more interested in governing than running for office.
But the only reason to be a moderate is because it’s advantageous in a run for office to please as large a constituency as possible. By definition, people who want to govern, people who have a set of principles they want to see enacted into policy, can’t be moderates. In your parlance they’re “ideologues”, by definition.
I’m not saying that statesmanship isn’t about compromise, because it is. But we don’t need politicians to compromise their principles before they even get into office. A true democratic body, like the House, works best when politicians come in with a desire to passionately advocate for their constituents, and then the rules and procedures allow them to arrive at compromises among each other.
Someone who wants to govern, not win elections, by definition is not a “moderate.” Your idea that moderates would reform Senate rules to end the filibuster is a non-starter. It’s actually the moderates in the Senate who are its most vocal proponents! Don’t you remember who was on the Gang of 14, the bipartisan caucus of Senators who resolved the confirmation filibuster crisis of 2005? It was your moderate darlings: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Robert Byrd, Ben Nelson, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Landrieu, Leiberman. And so on.
It’s the “extremists” who have the most to lose from the filibuster. It’s the moderates who have always benefited the most from it. Why would a sudden wave of moderates mean the end of the filibuster?
In response to another comment. See in context »Incredibly good comment and insight, Matthew.
I agree with most of what you say, and I consider myself to be a Goldwater conservative. The haters have to be displaced in the political dialogue.
….Ok, so I love “government,” right, but that doesn’t mean this one, nor most of those that exist in the world today or through history…. I admire the honesty of this statement.
In response to another comment. See in context »Firstly, I love the thought behind this piece. It’s sad that we have to consciously say to ourselves, and our politicians, that we have to start putting the country first, but we do. We should remind ourselves of this more often than we do. As much as it can be fun to turn politics into a game and a form of entertainment it is serious stuff and unless we treat it with respect it will bite us.
I suppose, in regards to the Senete, it is fulfilling its constitutional mission as a check against majority rule. If its own rules appear to be gobbing up the system, then pressure to change needs to be put upon them. Don’t get me wrong, 6 year tenures means this all takes time, and we would be remiss if we didn’t recognize our own responsibility in this mess. Part of putting country first is being an informed citizen and researching and remembering candidates records. For all the anti-incumbentcy rhetoric, watch how many survive in this next cycle. One of my favorite descriptions of the Senate is The House of 100 Kings, is it any wonder when we allow them to rule without consequence?
It’s sad that we have to consciously say to ourselves, and our politicians, that we have to start putting the country first, but we do.
Well, look. If your view was that everything that liberal Democrats wanted to do was suspect at best and outright dangerous to the nation at worst, then wouldn’t “putting the country first” mean “doing what it takes to put Democrats out of power and Republicans back in”?
Mature adults living in America have to understand that even people who “put the country first” are going to have dramatic disagreement on policy. Partisanship is good. It’s a good thing to have two parties that represent two dramatically different policy alternatives on the issues.
I mean, what’s the point of even having elections if we’re going to blend the parties together into a mushy middle?
The only problem with American politics is that the Senate rejects democratic majority rule. What you and Rick are saying is that liberals and conservatives don’t deserve to have political representation – that the only people who deserve to participate in American democracy are the people, like you, who can’t make up their minds.
That’s absurd.
I suppose, in regards to the Senete, it is fulfilling its constitutional mission as a check against majority rule.
Where in the Constitution do you find the Senate’s mission to be one of a “check against majority rule”? Please be specific. Which clause of Article 1, Section 3 are you referring to?
In response to another comment. See in context »Putting country first means means doing more than playing partisan politics, it means compromise. That’s what’s missing when our politics become so polarized. “Mature adults living in America have to understand that even people who” disagree with them are patriots, and not socialist commie fag loving junkies, or war mongering corporate loving racist polluters. That’s the only message here. When the health care market is not serving the needs of the country it means working to find a solution, and when the financial market collapses it means creating an environment that prevents it from happening again through compromise.
Now, about elections. That is the point of my comment. The Senate was not designed to represent the people (the majority) directly, it was designed to represent the individual states and give them equal representation — and until the seventeenth amendment, its members weren’t even directly elected by the people that they represented. So you may quibble with my simplification, but the role of the Senate is indeed a check against the majority found in the House of Representatives. I’m not saying that is a bad thing at all. It slows us down, just as the framers intended. However, the Senate has the power to make up it’s own rules and that’s where things have gotten balled up. It’s not that they reject majority rule, their own rules prevent the majority within it from getting anything done. The Senate should act as a brake if you will, not a brick wall and that is what it has become. So the issue at hand is how to get it to function better. The only way that occurs is through the vote. I don’t see the Senate acting in best interest of the country, only to maintain its own power. Again, is it any wonder when we allow them to rule without consequence?
In response to another comment. See in context »Putting country first means means doing more than playing partisan politics, it means compromise.
Does it always mean compromise? What if the compromise position is worse than either of the partisan positions?
Partisanship is a good thing. It gives voters a choice. What choice do they have when the only option is the mushy middle?
And again – isn’t it weird that it’s the partisan, raucous House that has a track record of passing strong legislation in a timely order, and the much-more-moderate Senate where legislation goes to die? How can anybody look at that situation and say that what we need is more moderates?
When the health care market is not serving the needs of the country it means working to find a solution, and when the financial market collapses it means creating an environment that prevents it from happening again through compromise.
Agreed. And it was the highly-partisan House that drove through the strongest, most beneficial legislation designed to solve those issues. Remember, the House HCR bill had strong regulation of the health care industry, a robust public option, and insured more people at a lower cost than the Senate alternative. And it had it a year before the Senate took the issue up.
Why? Because the House of Representatives is a democracy, and the Senate is not. And democracy works. We should have more of it, not less. Rick’s plan is to eliminate meaningful elections in the United States, and give you only the option of voting for the Purple Party, the mushy middle, the status quo.
The Senate should act as a brake if you will, not a brick wall and that is what it has become.
Why do we need a brake at all? If Congress somehow manages to pass truly abominable legislation, the President can veto it. If the President doesn’t, the Supreme Court can strike it down. There’s an abundance of veto points and ways to cancel out legislative mistakes; we don’t need anymore brakes. Especially ones we can’t take off, when we really do need legislation to happen quickly.
It’s not that they reject majority rule, their own rules prevent the majority within it from getting anything done.
But that’s exactly what “majority rule” means. The Senate is a body that does not represent Americans and rejects majority rule. Democracy works. The Senate doesn’t. The solution is to change the rules of the Senate, not enact Rick’s insane scheme to essentially eliminate meaningful elections in the United States.
In response to another comment. See in context »