My question is about the theater that seems to be going on year after year, decade after decade. This is the one where the democrats claim to be in favor of some type of legislation which they would pass if only it weren’t for the evil republicans. Or that the legislation that they do pass is essentially 80 or 90 percent corporate and ultra rich friendly such as the new tax bill. Or a health care law that sends more clients to insurance companies and lacks a public alternative. Or financial regulations that allow the companies that caused the near financial collapse to not only remain intact but become significantly larger so that they remain ‘too big to fail’. I am wondering if the democrats caving on these issues time after time (although you wouldn’t think this to listen to conservatives who scream because 1. they are not in power and want the majorities and white house back and 2. why accept 80 or 90 percent of what you want when you can have it all) is just the usual script playing out. Its a way for democrats to get reelected in liberal leaning districts by saying we are for (fill in the blank liberal policy) while at the same time serving the large corporations and very wealthy individuals who help to finance their campaings, offer lucrative jobs as consultants and lobbyists after leaving elected office and are just more fun and prestigious to hang around with than the boring poor and middle class. Democrats with liberal constituencies can vote for a liberal bill with reasonable assurance that republicans and the conservative democrats will be able to either block its passage or alter it to the point that almost all shreds of liberalness are gone. So my question is, do others wonder as I do if we are not just getting political theater over and over in Washington where the debate between the parties is merely a facade.
To a degree, probably. They clearly like sucking up to the rich, and many are almost as bigoted as the Republicans. But I believe a great deal of it is due to their spinelessness and cowardice. Especially since it isn’t remotely working; most of the liberals I know of blame the Democrats’ weakness at least as much as they do the Republicans’ intransigence and malice.
That the democrats are spineless is something I often hear as well. I wonder how much of it is true though. Sometimes I think that either the democrats are the most spineless and stupid people in the world, such as in calling for compromise with the republicans when they typically give none. But since I doubt that the democrats are that spineless and stupid that there are real motives going on. Such as toadying for corporate America. I don’t think that all democrats are like this but I do think a lot of them are or at least become that way after a short time in Washington and learn how the game is played.
I think that these types of overly siimplistic, broad brush painting generalities about a large body of people are always wrong. The fact is, when the Democrats push their agenda too hard, they get thrown out of office. That happens to the Republicans, too. We just saw that in '06, '08. and '10.
Not at all; it was the more conservative and moderate Democrats who got hit hardest this last election. And they barely push their agenda at all, much less “hard”.
What makes me laugh is that voters still somehow believe there’s a difference between the two parties.
They’re both sock puppets for the rich. Nothing significant ever happens to dislodge the evil rich from their positions of power. The vampires at the necks of the working class simply switch to another jugular vein and start sucking anew.
It’s so funny because people just keep falling for it.
Republican policies are policies of the rich, but people who vote repub do it without that in mind. They vote Repub because of abortion, gun laws, a vague belief in returning to a safer past time (tea baggers), displaced anger ,hatred of immigrants, fear of Muslims and other negative beliefs.
If you polled those who vote Repub, I doubt they favor most of the policies of the party. But their favorite cause is espoused by the party. However they don’t legislate for them at all. They don’t work for their interests.
Republicans lost in 06 and 08 not because they were pushing their agenda too hard but becuase the level of corruption and lies were becoming too high for some of the moderates to continue to stomach. There were to nonexistent weapons of mass destruction used as a reason for the Iraq war. Abu Ghraib, Katrina, no bid contracts for Halliburton and other favored companies, Jack Abramoff, near economic collapse etc. There were also sordid cultural scandals such as the homonsexual airport bathroom encounter of a US senator. Even with all of this Obama still beat MeCain by 53 percent to 47 percent of the vote. Once those scandals had faded into the fog of history in the short attention span American consciousness then the lies of death panels, government takeover of health care etc were able to sway many of the ‘moderates’ back.
Other than their positions on gay rights, taxes, unemployment insurance, abortion, and universal health care. My friend had two horses like that.He couldn’t tell them apart. One day he decided to measure them and found out that the white one was 1/2 hand taller than the black one.
That’s always true, though. San Francisco’s always going to elect a Democrat, rural Mississippi is always going to elect a Republican. The seats that are almost always at the most risk are seats in the swing districts, and those candidates who get elected in those districts almost by definition have to be closer to the center than the national party, because those districts are closer to the center than the national party. That also means that when the national party pushes a partisan issue hard, those are the vulnerable seats.
My point is that often these ‘differences’ are often just theater. They are used to mobiilize the respective bases to stay in office. Time after time the bases get screwed while the very wealthy and large corporations benefit.
That anecdote is pure win.
Your argument assumes a unity of purpose within each party that just doesn’t exist in real life. While the Republicans have displayed the ability to march closely together in both houses of Congress, there’s still at least one major ideological split within the GOP. And Will Rogers once said “I don’t belong to an organized political party; I’m a Democrat.” Which pretty much still holds true.
The US legislative system is an engine of compromise when it’s working properly, and an engine of waste or sloth at all other times. Just because legislation becomes altered in favor of powerful interests in conference doesn’t mean it was all theater from the start, and it doesn’t mean moneyed interests have a lock on Congress quite yet.
Democrats keep trumpeting their differences with Republicans yet they managed to fail to bully Obama into a public option and they failed to beat back the tax cuts for the rich. There’s always some excuse why the Liberal economic agenda fails to win any major victories. Always some excuse. Just like the Republicans and their “war” on abortion. Granted, though, I support Democrats in their efforts to get the Government out of everyone’s bedrooms. But you better believe, 20 years from now the rich will still get their tax cuts and Wall Street will still be getting rich off the citizenry.
I don’t think there has been more differences between the parties than there is today. Look at the lopsided votes on a whole range of topics. The way the Senate is set up means that you need to have every single Democrat, plus a couple more, to enact legislation. Is that an excuse? Maybe, but it’s also true.
What makes you think that refutes what I said and what actually happened? If you had a “D” next to your name last time around, and you were in a marginal district, it didn’t matter so much what your voting record was. It was the “D” they took aim at. Same think in '08 if you had an “R” next to your name.
Yep. Conservative and moderate Democrats got hit hardest this time because for the most part they were in those marginal districts. So because the Democratic base was uninspired and uncommitted voters wanted to punish the party in power, those districts were the most vulnerable. I’ll note that perhaps the loudest and leftiest of Democratic congressmen, Alan Grayson, also lost his seat in the 2010 election. That fact, like its converse, should probably not be used to make a point about the risks/benefits of pushing progressive agendas.
I tend to agree with the OP. In fact, I predict that on Jan 5 the dems will change the Senate rules to no longer require 60 to pass anything, then lose their majority in 2012, and then whine when the pubs are able to pass anything they want with a mere 51.
Unless I am mistaken, it requires 60 votes to change that rule.
What really made me think this was the case was the filibuster. The GOP filibustered tons of bills in the 2007-2009 congress too. So the dems knew they were going to face a 60 vote hurdle. Even Chuck Schumer (head of the DSCC at the time) said the dems needed to elect 9 senators in 2008 to get to 60 and overcome the filibuster. Anyone paying a modicum of attention knew the GOP would filibuster everything in 2009-2011, and knew the rules had to be changed.
But now, now that the GOP controls the house, there is talk of changing the rules at the start of the next congress. Now that there is no chance of both houses passing progressive legislation and the senate can’t be a roadblock anymore (the house is hte roadblock now).
So the dems knew the filibuster was being abused and could be abused. But rather than change it at the start of the 111th congress, they waited until they lost the house and hte 112th congress started to talk about changing it.
Not so. Read all about it here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011958-503544.html