Nope. If I recall my history and civics classes, it doesn’t work that way.
The difficulty in being obsturctionist in the next Congress is that a lot of stuff in the near future happens automatically. Deadlock means the Bush tax-cuts all lapse, the Stimulus tax-cuts lapse, and automatic discretionary cuts take place. Neither side particularly wants that to happen, as the GOP doesn’t like taxes going back up to what they were under Clinton and don’t like defence cuts, and the Dems don’t want a second Recession and discretionary cuts.
So I’d say obstruction is less likely to happen in areas where the status-quo is maintained by action rather then inaction.
She was referring to this man:
His objection was to the Spanish-American War, not to party politics. But you can’t think he went public with his objections. He never said a word. In fact Tuchman quotes him as saying to reporters, “The public! I have no interest in the public!”
While the past couple of years of partisanship are new in our lifetimes, you all are delusional if you think Congress was a better place in 1899 in any way. Senators were appointed by state legislatures and were wholly owned subsidiaries of the state political machines. The House was a collection of corrupt, ignorant lackeys of a few bosses. By any possible measure today’s Congress is incomparably better educated, less corrupt, more informed, and more capable than those of the past. There have always been a small minority of Mr. Smiths but the fact that Frank Capra thought to make a movie about how unbelievable such a character would be in 1939 should tell you everything about how things were. You can hate Congress but at least acknowledge the truth about its history.
Thanks, Expano.
Every elected politician goes forth to ostensibly represent his constituency.
My line of reasoning is something like this:
The House of Representatives must originate all spending bills (per Article I Section 7) then in choosing my representative I am voting for the person I wish to represent my district in that matter.
If citizens of my state then choose to support Senators or a President with stated opposition to the budget that my representative will support then conflict is sure to arise.
With the art of compromise being in rather short supply we get gridlock at the federal level. Maybe that is what the voters want. Maybe the voters expect a compromise. What is clear is that incumbents tend to have a significant chance of being re-elected.
I think it’s not so much a compromise they want, as that there are vocal minorities (tea party) who object to compromise. The way the primary system works the vocal minority jeopardizes the whole party. Republicans may be moderate like McCain but find themselves forced to have a Damascus conversion on abortion or taxes for example.
Secondly, the democrats would love an obstructionist congress. If push comes to shove they will remind voters that “republicans want to boot your adult kids off your health care and take away Medicare in your old age and shut down the government”. Etc. they remember that the Gingrich shutdown hurt the republicans mostly.
Finally if the tea party gets too strident they will either fragment the Republicans or drive many away. Nothing good can come of refusing to compromise.
Well, yes and no.
This has been an article of debate since the beginning of representatives. Should the representative vote to meet the wishes of constituents or vote to meet internal ideals?
There are problems with every side of this. No group of constituents have a unified set of wishes. No matter what office you talk about or what set of laws come up for votes, there will always be some constituents for and some against. This remains true even if constituents are defined to meet those who voted for the representative or those in the party of the representative. Representing the constituency has literally no meaning when applied over a term’s worth of votes.
Yet, the Founding Fathers’ dream of electing the wisest and noblest men to act upon their experience and understanding was doomed from the start. In reality, nobody is ever expert in every aspect of every issue that comes before government. Factions, which almost instantly became parties, were anathema to the Founders but were inevitable. Groups can get their way far more easily than individuals who have to form new coalitions on every law. The Founders understood compromise: every line of the Constitution was a painfully fought-out compromise. They never lived up to their own ideals of individual wisdom. And that’s separate from the issue that they saw their constituents as solely white male landholders and not the whole.
Because this argument is unsolvable and both extremes are nonsensical, you can’t get much traction from using it. If 100,000,000 people vote in November, you will have 100,000,000 reasons for why they voted as they did. There are no mandates, just working majorities.
I wouldn’t count on it. The tax cuts have already been extended several times in the current Congress. They keep doing it as compromises that cover a year or even just a few months at a time. The expiration in 2012 of the payroll tax holiday is no different than its expiration in 2011, or in the expiration of the stimulus payments in 2010 (which were replaced with the payroll tax holiday). And the Bush tax cuts have been extended 1-2 years at a time several times.
The usual argument goes like this:
Democrats: We need to raise taxes to pay for spending.
Republicans: We won’t raise taxes. We need to cut spending.
Democrats: How about this: we won’t raise taxes if you agree to more spending.
Republicans: OK, but we’re going to keep pretending that the deficit is all your fault.
I see no reason to expect the status quo to change.
Well, the Republican House will keep passing reasonable budgets, and if the Democrats keep the senate, the Democratic Senate will likely fail to produce any budgets at all.
And, looking at other modern-era 2nd terms, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, it’s likely to be a real mess. I think if the Republicans win the Senate (which seems unlikely) and/or solidify their control of the House, they’ll certainly try to harass the executive branch in any and all ways practical or possible.
Isn’t it pretty much a given that any Republican who tries to get along will get primaried by a Tea Partier?
Yes, looking at current election ads, they are all about blaming Obama for the high unemployment caused by 8 years (or more, to be fair) of policies that produced a severe economic crash several months before Obama’s inauguration. “We’ve been harassing the government for 4 years and they still haven’t produced a recovery from the last Republican debacle!”
But really, the next 4 years will be about positioning for the next election. Normally, the VP would be urging the president to arrange matters to facilitate his election next. But, Biden like Cheney before him seems for many reasons not the likely heir. So it’s a wide open field. Watch for Hillary to quite early, distance herself from being to closely associated with Obama policies. Watch for both sides in Congress and the Senate to look for the best mix of obstruction and progrses that can be spun as “we would have done better but the other side would not let us.”
However, when it comes to extra borrowing power vs. shutting down government - Obama has nothing to lose by forcing a confrontation next time. Whereas last time he jumped through hoops to prevent a full shutdown, now he can simply let it happen and say it’s congress’s fault; it won’t affect his reelection prospects. Similarly, he has more leverage with Israel if necessary, since he has less reason to worry about the lobby.
IIRC, congress can pass all the rules it wants but the executive does not have to act. They can pass laws, he can decline to prosecute; they can allocate money for Israel etc, his departments can decline to spend it or hand it out. He has a lot more leverage.
You know that sounds reasonable, but, I’m not sure I buy it. As soon as Obama wins, he’s a LAME DUCK, and that was true for Clinton, W, and Reagan and Nixon. . . it seems to me that as soon as the President can no longer be elected, he looses all respect and they’re just going to come after him, and like you say, everyone will be positioning themselves for the next election for the next 4 years. I think when Obama wins, he’ll have very little leverage, he immediately becomes old news just like all of the 2nd-termers since presidential term-limitations became effective.
That is one of the huge issues. But in any case for a generation now the standard reaction is that when Democrats lose, it’s because they were too Liberal, when Republicans lose it’s because they were not Conservative enough. The Limbaughs, Norquists, etc. will take a hypothetical losing Romney as evidence that you need a true hardcore “real conservative”.
But you can do a*** lot ***of damage in 4 years if you are willing to be confrontational. Other than George W, when was the last time we had a 2nd-term president whose VP was not really considered the obvious next choice for presidential candidate for the party? (Quick - who was Truman’s VP? But even Alben Barkley ran against Eisenhower for president - but he lost, that’s all. )
IMHO Obama “threw a bone” (bad choice of words?) to Hillary by selecting a VP who would likely not rival her in 2016.
Removing the re-election monkey off your back can have plus and minus effects. Removing the 'election monkey" off the VP’s back too gives Obama even more freedom to maneuver.
I can’t believe this is still in GQ, but I’ll jump in. I think Obama winning a second term might be the moment when a critical mass in America says enough is enough to GOP obstructionism. Some folks will conclude that he’s not the antichrist, others will finally go off to the big RNC convention in the sky, and by the time of the next presidential elecion, the demographics of the US will have changed enough that national office will be out of the GOP’s reach until they change their rhetoric. The result will be a weariness to the constant obstructionism that states that they hate having a black president more than they love America.
If Democrats were to control the House and have 60 seats in the Senate then the Republicans can no longer filibuster.
I’m not sure what the numbers are as far as how many seats each party has up for grabs in the Senate and how many of those are safe for that party, so I’m not sure if it’s possible for the Dems to get 60 seats or not.
I think it’s also possible that if the Dems control the Senate by a simple majority they can change the rules at the beginning of the session to eliminate the filibuster or at least lower the number of votes needed to end one. Whether they’d do that I can’t say, but given the recent behavior of the Republicans it’s possible that they would consider it.
It’s not that much of a mystery. I doubt that many people vote with that goal in mind. It’s just the result of our archaic electoral system which unfortunately would be very difficult to change.
Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “mandate”? There’s no such thing in the Constitution. And certainly not a party mandate, because political parties are not authorized by the Constitution either. Every elected official has a list of assigned powers and that’s pretty much all we have to go by. So, all it comes down to is whether any particular elected official exercises his or her powers in a manner that makes voters want to vote again the next time.
I don’t think there’s a whole lot of split-ticket voting at the federal level these days, at least not enough to be significant. I doubt that someone who votes for Obama for president is very likely at all to vote for a Republican for Congress. I could be wrong though.
60? Right now the odds are only 50/50 they’ll get to 50.
Well, as I said, I didn’t know.