Elections
As we've been witnessing, the democratic process is broken in America and movement conservatism has corrupted our ability to govern. In any party there usually are different factions within that party. Some might be more moderate than others, but when a party wins a mandate in a general election they are usually allowed to govern.
That doesn't apply when Republicans are out of power. Yes, we have terrible politicians manning the Democratic Congress, but it's almost unprecedented when one party just votes no, so that even if you have a strong majority in the Senate, one Senator from the other side has the power to stop all legislation. So even if you're in a huge minority, the filibuster can sink legislation or hold up personal appointments every time.
The media are feckless and ineffective. They love the fight game and are more interested in ratings and clashing personalities than they are in actually reporting the news. So they allow a minority party that was soundly trounced in two elections (2006,2008) to maintain their defiance to the American people. And then they blame it on the party differences within the Democratic Party.
And we can't forget the conservative media that drives their narratives to millions of people a day. Fox News and AM talk radio do have a huge influence on the American people and the politicians in Congress, and they should never be ignored.
Our old pal Steve Benen writes a nice lengthy post on this, and his solutions are ideas that the blogosphere has been touting the entire time to break the logjam.
* Start using the phrase "up-or-down vote" all the time.
* Take advantage of every opportunity. Using reconciliation as much as humanly possible should be a no-brainer. The "nuclear option" should be put on the table, too. Endorse Harkin/Shaheen. Scour the rules and procedural minutiae and figure out if Republicans who want to filibuster can't be forced to literally do so. Search for GOP statesmen -- Lugar? -- and ask if they're really willing to destroy the workings of the United States Senate.
* Go on the offensive. Organize rallies in Maine and explain that Olympia Snowe, by endorsing her party's obstructionism, is single-handedly responsible for the fact that Congress can't function, and it's within her power to put things right and let key bills get up-or-down votes.
* Give voters who elected Democrats something to be excited about. Voters will be impressed with accomplishments, so maybe it'd be wise to give them some. Dems can start by passing the damn health care reform package.
It's not too late. Finish health care. Pass a jobs bill. Go after irresponsible banks. Bring some safeguards to Wall Street. Fix student loans. Pass an energy bill. Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This not a fanciful wish-list; it's all entirely feasible.
Digby posts an idea from one of here commenters:
A reader writes in to Talking Points Memo with this observation:
Why do you think Congressional Democrats have had such a hard time dealing with Republican obstructionism? It's been apparent for months that Republicans are unwilling to compromise on legislative initiatives, unless by compromise you mean that they will allow Democrats to agree with their proposals. In such an environment, it is pointless for Democratic lawmakers to ask themselves whether there is a way they can craft legislation so that some Republicans will be willing to vote for their proposal - there is simply no provision that Democrats can add or remove from a bill that will make Republicans want to vote for a Democratic proposal. And yet we keep seeing efforts - like the Baucus jobs bill - in which leading Democrats tinker with or even gut their own proposals in a fruitless effort to get Republicans to sign on to the legislation.
If Democrats in Congress behaved like the Republicans have after being trounced for the last four years, the media and the Village would be screaming bloody murder at them. The Washington Post led by David Broder would be lashing out every day: 'How dare they be such obstructionists," Broder would say, and all of his colleagues would follow suit.
And like clockwork, the Dems would be afraid of a backlash from voters and would once again pass legislation like Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and the bankruptcy bill, to name a few.
They must pass health care to get the ball rolling on their side. You want a commission? I got one. They should put together a Procedure Commission to investigate every nook and cranny that is available to them to pass legislation.
how you still believe in a progressive Democratic Party. Fact is the Dems really do like it screwed up so they don't have to follow up on the feel good rhetoric. There is only the illusion of choice.
...but I don't know that I would call it "touching". Pathetic seems a more appropriate description of those who cling to faith in the Democratic party of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Geithner, et al. They will accomplish nothing of substance, and will be voted out in a landslide of monumental proportions in 2012.
We will then see the arrogant stupidity of the Republicans again.
Until there is comprehensive campaign finance reform, democracy in the US will continue to be a total charade. Both parties are cesspools of corruption, wholly-owned subsidiaries of their corporate masters. Those who actually expected "change" from Obama couldn't have paid much attention to the reality of the last few decades.
Evan will announce at 2 PM he will not seek re-election.
http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/225685...
Check out the comments section below the article in the link. The ignorance is astounding. Bayh was definitely a DINO.
that being Republican means NEVER having to say you're sorry,
while being a Democrat means ALWAYS having to say you're sorry?
PASS THE DAMN HEALTH CARE BILL!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFVrBzuyhFA
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
these posts do you think the Democrats have not already heard?
As has been pointed out, it is laughingly simple to fix the process.
Those in the majority have been told for well over a year how to go about flexing the majority muscle.
For some reason, they deem it unseemly to use political power to move Democratic proposals through Congress.
They govern much like the people they purport to represent seem to live their lives. There are many, many more middle class, lower middle class and poor people in America compared to the rich and economically elite.
Yet those in the in the bottom 75% of the class and economic structures continue to be relatively meek in their approach to demanding equal footing on the American playground.
Yes, there are a few outspoken folks who assume what some call leadership positions. But the vast majority of those who need a major overhaul of our governing and societal systems are silent like sheep being led to a Glenn Beck slaughter.
Perhaps this is simply how the human psyche bears out under the duress of a daily life in America.
If so, and this looks more and more to be the case, this is what we have to look forward to now and in the future.
It could be that this is the natural maturation of a socialist-ideals-based, capitalist democracy.
The three sides of that equation are in constant conflict and right now we see that two of those sides - capitalism and democracy have been aligned by market and governing forces as nearly a single entity.
The other third of the triad is now fighting by itself against two mighty opponents and it does not look good for long term survival.
That discourages them from participating in the process, as they don't feel worthy. The religious ones among them think it is God's will that they have very little, and they will not go against God's will. Too bad they don't know who it is that actually keeps them poor. Here's a clue--it's not God.
oops
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Let me clear this up if I may.
socialism = belief in concerted action on behalf of members of a society in general. Such as universal education, universal healthcare and the like.
capitalism = belief in individual action of a capitalist, an individual with capital resources, ie wealth and thus action to increase that wealth for that individual.
democracy = social equality in the control of the government by the majority.
-----
There are fundamental conflicts when the will of the many is overcome by the will of the few most powerful.
-----
From the Manifesto
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
the point.
But I do understand the definitions and thank you for posting them.
As you are well aware, there does not exist among the major world societies today a pure form of any governmental system.
Ours never was a clear-cut absolute.
What we find is a combination of ideologies that are somewhat bred from an original textbook example and adjusted to our views, and that is where we are.
A socialist-ideals based, capitalistic democracy in the evolved terms that they have become.
And as you noted, the class struggles certainly have not gone away.
My point is that you have severely conflicting terms.
I wanted to illuminate the conflict.
I include a very insightful piece by Corey Pein on the work of the social economist Samuel Bowles.
The title is misleading, it might better be Notes on Inequality
Here
Inequality as a study of economics has disappeared after Marx. Economists now somehow think of their work as hard science, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Bowles describes various countries level of inequality, Sweden is the narrowest, other European countries lag somewhat behind, the United States rates with third world countries such as Uganda in its level of inequality.
The overriding question for the social economist in the political context:
Can there ever be democracy with such levels of inequality.
I am rather inclined to doubt it.
We have a well maintained ILLUSION of democracy.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
by the textbook definitions. I completely understand and accept that.
Yet we still have to use some term to describe what our current society has evolved into by way of our short history.
Though conflicting, we see when they are adjusted from their original hard intent, they work together as the system we live with now.
Though you may be inclined to state that the systems I noted are in conflict, to which I would agree, I would argue that they can co-exist in a combination of sorts as our country shows by its governance.
I certainly agree with being born poor. Upward social and economic mobility are each illusions in their own right.
Regarding pure democracy, I tend to lean your way in the analysis. I don't go as far to say it an illusion, but it is certainly not pure and perhaps was never intended to be.
To my view it is an evolving process and the last 233 years have seen some evolutions for the better and many for the worse.
But this bastardized system has held together, albeit through more sleight-of-hand than I would deem acceptable and I believe that's where you and converge quite nicely.
I agree with the first part for sure. Simple point being that we keep hearing these "new" ideas trotted out as if no one has ever heard of them before. Fact is, the Democrats in Washington have heard them, probably a million times by now since they've been in office for X-number of terms. They just ignore them.
The government hasn't been derailed by some big, bad Republitard bully demanding their way, the Dems are actively ignoring their constituents. They are truly pro-choice: Choosing to Do Nothing. They are not handcuffed and powerless, yet they've brought their beltway hooker fantasies into the Capitol, happily bending over for their spanking, ball-gag in mouth, kneeling to the power of the Almighty Rushbo and licking the boots of any Republican (or Lieberman) who happens to cross their path!
Oh, but let me waive my magic wand, write them and tell them "hey pal! buck up ol' boy! Shoulders back, chest out, chin high! You're a US Senetor/Congressman, give it your all and go get 'em tiger!" And this top-secret spell will transform each and every one of them into someone who actually gives a damn? Great! I'll get right on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B5_lneZSts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLQ3i_XQXsw
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
As I've mentioned before... Democrats spend all their time worrying about the next time they're in the minority, while Republicans spend all their time thinking up ways to steal back the majority.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
I have to disagree with John on the media and "the fight game" part. Whne the Rethugs had complete control, the left was (as now) virtually ignored, and the policies of tghe right were cheered constantly. No encouragement of a fight. The media are RW companies that have no ethics about pushing RW propaganda, rather than the truth.
valid point.
Whenever we use the words "company" or "corporation" regarding the political process, we must gather that they support and are supported by the right wing.
We have a corporate totalitarian government.
The to and fro' of the Rs and Ds is almost all smokescreen.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
IMO.
Not exactly there yet as far as each side of that coin, but on the path.
Yes. The smokescreens are working as planned.
if it were any smokier, the country would be choking to death.
...oh, wait...
All these wonderful "ideas" come down to one simple solution. Playing hardball politics. Do you REALLY think the lavatory attendant and the chambermaid are up to it? The moment that Franken or Wiener or any Democratic pundit starts spewing these points, Pelosi or Reid will be on tv talking "bipartisanship" and genuflecting at the altar of Ronald Reagan.
PULEEEASE...spare me this nonsense. The facts are simple. INCUMBENTS...on both sides of the aisle are in trouble. The lavatory attendant for Caesar's Palace is in real trouble as are many other long time congresspeople. Real change in strategy and direction will not happen for EITHER of these political parties until after this election cycle. There will be a whole host of new faces on both sides of the aisle with a clear message from their constituents. Do what WE want, or we'll fire your ass too.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
There will never be real change with the current processes.
Then follow my plan B...stay home...what's the point.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Keeps me from masturbating.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
work on your multitasking skills. :-)
gain a stroke.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
As long as I don't have a stroke.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Are you talking about Reid when you talk about the "lavatory attendant"? A guy has filed to run against Reid and whatever republican is running against Reid. This new guy will be representing the Tea Party. If he does run, he will split the republican ticket.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
This, I feel, is one of the reasons why we need a viable third party. I'm with Alice X...the Democrats and Republicans know that they have a stranglehold over our political process for the most part, and it's not at all hard to see that they have allowed themselves to become lazy and complacent as a result. They've also conveniently forgotten the fact that our Founding Fathers never really intended Congress to become a lifelong career, and they've allowed themselves to become so focused on their own perks and petty squabbles that they've forgotten the duty of a Congresscritter is to represent the people rather than themselves or their party. (Unfortunately, people in a democracy also get the government they deserve rather than the one they want or need...so the American voters deserve to share some of the blame for allowing them to get away with it.)
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
...is still going to be the corporate-controlled media, which is more or less doomed to lean to the right unless or until more is done to diversify it. (Ted Turner -- who you think would know -- said that only four or five companies control about 90% of what we see, read, and hear.) Unless that happens, the so-called "liberal media" (HA!) is always going to favor the Republicans to at least some extent simply because that's the direction in which corporate America in general seems to lean. Unfortunately, it's not at all hard to see that profit increasingly seems to trump principle in corporate America these days -- and when you consider the tangled web of relationships which corporations in different industries have with each other nowadays, there are moments when you wonder how the media manages to report anything anymore without running the risk of offending someone who may have influence over their profit margin! Parent companies, partner companies, fellow subsidiaries, and (perhaps most importantly) advertisers can all potentially have at least some influence over what a media outlet does and does not choose to report -- and most media companies are very reluctant to report anything which could be harmful to their profit margin.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
You've most likley linked to this in the past, but I just noticed it... it's interesting, if ya get some time?
OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
Study the symptoms not the virus...
?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I just heard that on tv but they didn't say why. I must admit, I will not miss him.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Ditto
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Dodd, Bayh...incumbents are retiring because they know they will lose primary challenges. Politicians rarely "walk away".
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
√
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Bayh will make his announcement today at 2:00. A reporter at fox is speculating that due to the way Bayh feels about the Obama administration he might be going to retire and run for president in 2012.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
who have been looking for a Dem with balls to primary Obama with.
Too bad his are blue.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
He had a 20 point advantage in recent polling. So why would he bail? He could keep his Senate seat and still run for President.
Until you respect the citizenship of those with which you disagree, you're not a true American.
done anyway.
He is as red as they come for a guy wearing some supposed shade of blue.
Because the poll is bupkis.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
make more than one?
Billy Tauzin is retiring too!
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
William (Billy) Tauzin
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Only Bill is now walking from his job with PhARMA.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
C
Study the symptoms not the virus...
The neocon/RW Cabal effluence on our Constitution will be noted as a dark time in the history books.
Look under the chapter titled: The return of the Robber Barons.....effluence indeed!
'Talk to the hand'
the Ronald Reagan Memorial WWTP in SF.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
They can just continue to run on the 'we're not Republican' mantra and using the whining about Republican obstructionism as an excuse to do nothing.
Fact is that during the entirety of the Bush administration the Republicans never had a clear majority like the Democrats do now, yet they got almost every damned thing they wanted.
Why? Because they weren't a bunch of whiny pantywaists. Democrats haven't changed now that they're in power.
The best thing that could be done for America right now is for the Dems to oust Harry Reid and put someone in his role that has a scrap of spine left to him.
The only reason why the Republicans are filibustering and obstructing is because Senate Rule 22 (the filibuster rule) allows it. Instead of dragging out the cots and making the Republicans actually give a speech to the American people every time they filibuster Reid allows them to just say 'filibuster' and suddenly the Dems need 60 votes for everything. That's bullshit. All you need is 51 votes to pass almost anything.
It pisses me off that the public isn't up in arms about this shit. When the Republicans were ruling this country they didn't give a damn about supermajorities or filibusters. It was 51 votes unless some Democrat tripped over his balls and decided to speak up and even then most of the time they caved. Now that the Republicans are the minority they're STILL ruling this country because their opposition are cowards. All they needed to do was to convince are uneducated countrymen that somehow 60 votes was normal operating procedure. Not hard considering the sad state of education after eight years of uncontested Republican rule. We should be glad we can even spell America by now.
we have a MSM that keeps the American voter ignorant. If we truly had a free press, People would be better educated.
NoBuddy put up a link last night on the open thread, that I think hits the nail on the head, called Inverted Totalitarianism. Chris Hedges nails it when he says that the Obama Admin. and the Dems don't really want to implement change. It is just marketing. The shitty health care bill that came out of the senate is what the Obama Admin. wanted. Dr Margerate Flowers who was desperately trying to get single payer on the table said as much on Bill Moyers last week. The whole thing is just a charade to give us the illusion of democracy.
oops
Being obstructed is convenient for the individual democrats who are in the pockets of the same corporations as the republicans. It's very nice to blame somebody else without having to be a total hypocrite.
Until campaign financing is fixed and lobbying is outlawed, we'll never have a true democracy.
John,
The problem is not that the Republicans vote no to everthing, it is that they are filerbustering everything in the Senate. There is no problem if they vote no, the bullshit is now they are effectively saying that if the Dems want to pass absolutely anything of substance (even appointees) they need a super majority. No where else on the planet do governments require a super majority which is almost next to impossible to get. In any other country if a party wins as big a majority as the Dems did, the new government would be able to pass sweeping change and legislation. The problem is that the Dems will do it right back to the Repubs as soon as the Repubs get control again, so the political process is essentially deadlocked on anything major.
The Democrats are not going to fight back in the obvious ways that they can. For many reasons, the most disheartening of which is that too many of them don't want to.
There are the bought-and-paid-for Democrats who are corporatist all the way. There are the largely neutral or vacillating Democrats who care only about maintaining their seat in the next election, which means catering to the people who will give them the money to keep their 50% + 1 vote in their arbitrary, gerrymandered districts (not quite bought-and-paid-for or sociopathic, but largely the same in effect). There are the Democrats who really want to bring a Democratic agenda to fruition, but who are in a de facto minority, and who have to compromise almost everything to get a teeny tiny bit done. And then there are the progressive heroes, the ones who can't be bought and are in safe districts, who champion our causes on television but are too few in Congress to have real influence.
Reconciliation? Please. It doesn't just corner the Republicans. It corners too many Democrats. If Democratic Senators were forced into an up or down vote, they'd be in an impossible position, and they know it. Either vote no to please the corporate masters, but displease the voters, thus losing their seat or vote yes to please the voters, but displeasing the corporate masters, thus losing the money to keep their seat. It's the last thing they want. And they can rationalize well enough to keep even most of us in line: Sure, go ahead, and try. It'll result in Republicans back in the majority, and no matter how bad it is now, that'll be worse, right?
So, what to do? Campaign finance reform? Sure, not a bad thing, but you'll never really reform those laws effectively without a Constitutional amendment overruling Buckley and Citizens United.
Besides, it's more important to change the playing field so that candidates DO NOT NEED corporate money to ascend to political office than it is to try to regulate giving it to them.
So, like the broken record I am, I urge people to look into ELECTORAL REFORM. Join a long-term movement in your locality to change the rules by which people get elected. Get rid of the gerrymandered districts, and make it so that a person need not win a majority of any particular populous to have a voice in the legislature.
The concepts and the laws required to effectuate them are not that complicated. What we need is a serious, long-term movement from the bottom up. That's how the Christian Right and Movement Conservatism operate, and so must we. Changing the very game of democracy can revolutionize this country, and revive our Republic.
Some day, people will realize this. (My apologies for the condescension . . . it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
tongue in cheek or not, it is well deserved for those who will not listen.
...people will almost certainly realize the need for reform, but I fear that it may come too late.
The steps you outline would be wonderful, but they would require an informed and dedicated citizenry - something that is sorely lacking in the US. What we have (at best) is an angry citizenry that only knows how to punish one disgraceful party by voting for candidates from the other sinkhole of corruption.
Any vote for any Republican or any Democrat is nothing more than a vote for more of the same. There is nothing substantive that differentiates them - the ability to utter a coherent sentence is a welcome change from the last presidential imposter, but it's not nearly enough. Both parties need to be thoroughly repudiated if anything close to government of, by, and for the people is to be achieved. That means Obama and the Dems just as much as Bush and the Reps.
That ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Therefore, we're in deep, deep trouble, and it's going to get worse.
until you realize that they want it this way?
Media deregulation started under Reagan.
Furthered by Bush, of course! It helped the Republicans/Corporatists.
Then along came Clinton and HE DID THE SAME.
Now, you can't pretend to believe that Mr. Rhodes Scholar didn't know exactly what he was doing.
The further deregulation clearly would work against 'his own' party, but more than that, against the common man.
Bush the lesser comes in with a hacksaw to trim what was left of the carcass.
And Obama has not done a damn thing about it - not even a hint or a mention.
They want it this way.
I would like to point out that the sole original purpose of the Office of Vice President (aka == President of the Senate) was to break tie votes in the Senate -- in other words, 50 VOTES + 1 VOTE "should' Constitutionally be all that is required. The only other purpose, Constitutionally, of the Vice President was to assume the Office of the President if that Office were to become vacant for some reason. The filibuster is an artificial construct that devolved from the ability of Congress to override a Presidential veto through the use of a super-majority of 2 / 3 or 66%.
It is a case of being made a Senate parliamentary procedural rule, apparently in order to avoid that tedious and unsavory practice of having Senators stand up before an empty Chamber and talk unendingly in some kind of relay chat-up to forestall a vote on some bill or amendment to a bill. After all, we cannot expect our fine upstanding "Servants of the People" to stoop to such tactics -- why, it's ... it's undignified. The US Senate took a play (Super Majority) out of the Corporate playbook, designed to marginalize the will of minority voting shareholders. Since the vast majority of the Senate has been corrupted by the Corporatists for many decades, it is only natural for them to assume the tactics of their Masters.
The blame for ineffective governance in the US Senate can be laid directly at the feet of the Majority Party in power and their leader, Harry Reid, for permitting this faux-filibuster farce to continue. It is very hard to lay the blame for this with the Minority Party's attempts to leverage whatever power they can, by whatever means that they can -- that's only natural.
(Edit: Is there even a ghost of a chance that Harry Reid can be challenged in a Democratic Primary there in Nevada, or is the Nevada Democratic Party machine all locked-up by the Corporatists? He needs to go, ASAP!)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Even the Dark Lord of the Bypass came out of his undisclosed location to cast a tie breaking vote.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
a revolution, violent or not, to change the current system we have now. This sham of a system is not democracy.
NOBODY 2012
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Biden shot somebody in the face?
I find it a untrue that the media just likes to see in-fighting between Republicans and Democrats and that is why this charade is allowed to continue... so again, I ask, what if Biden shot somebody in the face? The bend is demonstrably in favor of the Republicans and it has nothing to do with leveling the playing field so we can watch the drama two sides fighting.
Comments are closed on this entry