I’m hoping it’s a bit of Kabuki theatre. They both have a lot of Conservative constituents. Maybe they’re protesting to appease the voters who might flip to the Republican candidates? ‘Look, we tried. But in the end we had to go along with it – even though we didn’t want to – for the good of America.’
Or they’re sincere. But I’m hoping it’s political Kabuki.
I was talking about the other 48, those that @SenorBeef didn’t understand why they were not playing the same games as Manchin and Sinema.
He has the power to set the agenda.
So if nothing else, Chuck Schumer is at least standing between what we see right now and the probability that every Democratic nomination for an executive branch appointment or judicial opening suddenly be put on hold in favor of holding 25 votes to open debate on the “Democrats Want To Abort Babies And Club Baby Seals Act”.
Because I’m sure that’s what Mitch McConnell would prefer to be doing right now.
Fairly often in recent history as politics has been so polarized. Republicans refusing to ever work with democrats no matter what, even for policies they approve of, is very recent history. But I’m sure we’ve had narrow majorities in the past that just weren’t purely along party lines where the impact of 1 or 2 representatives flipping was a dealbreaker.
They could get personal concessions and concessions for their constituents for their constituents before rolling over and approving of it anyway. So they demand some jobs program for their state (or some money for their campaign funds) and then vote for the legislation anyway and it passes.
I’m glad that this isn’t routine, I’m just surprised it’s not. I guess the solution to that is simply to say no, and if push comes to shove, and they will vote for it because they support the legislation. But I guess this mechanism is probably how a lot of “pork” gets added to bills, so maybe this is a routine part of the drafting process.
I don’t get how you phrase it this way. If it is a bill that I favor, then approving of it is not rolling over. What exactly are you trying to get at here.
It’s the infrastructure bill, with trillions of dollars. I’m sure that there is money coming to their state.
That’d actually be illegal, I believe.
Right, they support the legislation, that’s why they would vote for it. They’ve already decided that it is good for the US and their constituents, so voting against it would be bad for the US and their constituents.
What I suppose is a bit surprising is that the left has allowed the bill to be watered down and weakened as much as it has been, and are still willing to vote for it. But, they see that even a weakened bill is better than nothing, so will vote for it.
No, pork used to get added to bills in order to get people to sign onto a bill that they otherwise would not have. You are asking why people who are in favor of a bill would vote for it rather than hold out for personal favors.
How much of that is bad and how much of it is a realization that crossover in the parties have disappeared? Sure, in the 1980s many bills would have bipartisan votes because you had Boll Weevil Democrats from the south who were conservative and voted with Republicans on a lot of issues and you had northeastern liberal Republicans who would vote with Democrats on a lot of issues. So you could look at a vote breakdown and feel warm (if that is one’s thing) about all of the bipartisanship going on.
But in the decades since, those northeastern liberals have become Democrats, the Boll Weevils have become Republicans, but they still largely vote the same way. Is it the end of the world that the tally sheet no longer shows bipartisan votes simply because people have realigned to where their views properly belong?
I’m going to praise a book I haven’t read (but have listened to a podcast with the author which is almost as good), which is Ezra Klein’s Why We’re Polarized. Basically the premise is that political scientists think that US-style systems with divided governments and complex legislative procedures usually eventually break down into an ungovernable partisan mess, and the real question for the US was why it wasn’t polarized for such a long period. It’s also worth noting that in the totality of US history it was probably polarized for most of its history. From the founding until the end of reconstruction, the US was much more polarized on the issue of slavery than it is now over any issue, including modern racial politics (if that wasn’t obvious).
If you are counting non-elected, political appointees, I’d add Sandra “Swing-Vote” Day O’Connor to the list.
Bumping this after Sinema’s Can’t we all just get along? speech last Thursday. Being busy with a dog show over the long weekend I was blissfully unaware of it until today. Here’s the first draft of a letter I’ll be sending her. I’m going to let it steep overnight before putting any final touches tomorrow.
It seems there was more than one “critical 60th vote” for Obamacare. Another one was a Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson:
Sen. Ben Nelson focused on three requirements as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid zeroed in on the Nebraska senator as, all of a sudden, the last remaining hope for Senate Democrats — and for President Barack Obama — to secure the decisive 60th vote that they needed to enact the Affordable Care Act in 2009.
My question is completely off-topic, but it’s a one and done. My dad was in various semi-successful bands over the years and says that This is Spinal Tap really nailed that experience. They just got it right. Is that true of Best in Show?
As is usual for comedy in general and Chris Guest’s in particular, traits that exist IRL are exaggerated for comedic effect. In any event, we were members of one of the clubs hosting the cluster so even though we had no dogs entered, were busy anyway.
Thanks! I’ve never heard of a saluki. Apologies to everyone else for the hijack.
@DesertDog (somehow the post link didn’t work)
Nice rant, but I do have one nit pick
Are you sure you mean a majority here? Trump lost the popular vote. Unless I am misunderstanding who you mean (which indicates additional clarification might need to be included) your issue is with a substantial minority.
Good catch. Large minority.
One of my big issues with Sinema is there seems to be no effort to even pretend to go to the next step.
So divisive politics is the root cause of our problems. In the scenario where you don’t solve the root cause, what’s the next best thing you can do.
Bernie Sanders (rightly) gets a lot of questions about how to achieve his lofty goals in a realistic way. And he actually puts up. He has proposals that are more achievable than his pie-in-the-sky campaign promises. If Sinema wants to say her goal is to end divisiveness, which is honestly about as pie-in-the-sky as free college in the US, she needs to explain what concrete steps she advocates towards that.
Getting the VRA filibustered and not passed means that we don’t do anything for voting rights AND we don’t solve divisiveness.
Ys, that’s the thesis of Juan Linz, a professor of polisci at Harvard (no longer with us). His article “The Perils of Presidentialism” is a good, relatively short read on the topic. His thesis is that divided government, where both the executive and the legislative branches can legitimately claim to have a popular mandate, inevitably lead to partisan gridlock. His studies of presidential/congressional systems, other than the US, was that they all failed, often through coups or strongmen, or simply a breakdown in the constitutional consensus. The US was the outlier.
Worringly, the factors which he identified as contributing to the breakdown in all those other countries now sound familiar in the US: extreme partisanship, refusal to recognise the validity of the other side, refusal to work together.
I started a thread on this issue some time ago, and asked “After the US, what is the longest-lived presidential/congressional system?” The consensus answer was “Costa Rica! Coup-free since 1948!” (With some uncertainty about how to county Mexico, with its perpetual revolutionary party.)
I’m now reading Ezra Klein’s book now (honesty it’s a bit underwhelming), but it’s hopefully going to get to the part where they talk about Linz.
The problem at this point is that there isn’t really a solution to hyperpartisanship. Unilateral disarmament obviously won’t work. Well I guess if the other side who’s legitimacy I refuse to acknowledge decided to unilaterally disarm that would be great, but my side should never do it.
I obviously think the GOP base is wrong, but we basically missed the boat for them to be able to get exactly what they want, have it fail to deliver what they thought they would get out of it and be forced to adapt their ideology. If they get exactly what they want now, we might not have a democracy.
Remember when John McCain was the solution? He was a ‘Maverick’ who stepped beyond partisanship to do what’s right. He was a hero. People like John McCain who stand up against their party’s leadership are the answer to blind partisanship - or so we were told by the left when McCain bucked his party’s establishment.
How does this not apply to Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin? Are they not standing up to partisanship by bucking their party in favor of the desires of their constituents? It seems to me that if you hate partisanship, McCain, Sinema and Manchin should be your guiding lights, not partisan hacks like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden or Mitch McConnell.