Part of it may be the differences in the economic landscape between the US and the UK. I’m going to come right out and note that the paper I’m citing is ass in terms of not defining key terms and data sources, but it adequately matches the perceptions of people as far as I can tell. The undefined term is “top companies”–but the idea was that in Britain, the CEO of a “top company” made on average 22 times as much as the average worker. In the US, that ratio (using the Fortune 350, as nearly as I can tell) is alleged to be closer to 475 to 1.
Is it that out of kilter? I don’t know, the cite is ass. However, you can get the idea that if the average American perceives CEO compensation to be that far and away from the average worker’s wage, how the average American might feel a bit more hostility towards the rich (and perceive more hostility from them, in the form of “who needs to hoard all that money, isn’t it enough to be wealthy without being obscenely wealthy?”) than the average UK worker.
The UK has a Gini coefficient of 34, and the US 45, which indicates that the US has significantly greater income inequality. Among developed states, only Hong Kong (not really a state) and Singapore rank higher than the US.
I think denial of a quorum is (fine points of constitutional whatever or democratic intent aside) at least far more public than the use of a filibuster. You can’t exactly deny a quorum and have it go unnoticed what you are doing. It will be seen; it’s arguably meant to be seen. Filibusters (old style) barely qualified as the same (though only Washington groupies would mostly learn of it); filibusters (new style) are no more than a procedural poke in the nose to raise the bar for passing legislation to 60 from 50. They can and are routinely used without the public even learning or caring to learn what is going on.
Quorum denial’s not like that. If the Wisconsin legislators were standing on poor principle or none at all, or even truly going against the wishes of the majority of their constituents (regardless that they are technically in the minority themselves), they would not survive the attempt (electorally speaking). That they are not only surviving but even thriving in this (if polls are anything to go by) suggests that the principle they are standing on is a good one. They are making their case, that this bill is too atrocious to let stand without using every legal alternative first, and they are doing it well. I’m just glad it’s “my” side that called it right on this one, and not the other side calling it right on something I myself abhor and would have hoped the majority did too.
You know who can’t handle ambiguity? Retards. Are you a retard?
There is good obstructionism and bad obstructionism. Good obstructionism is when someone attempts to ram a blatantly partisan power-grab through the legislature, and people slow it down so that everyone has a chance to figure out what’s really going on. Bad obstructionism is when someone *routinely *slows or blocks *everything *that they don’t like, regardless of how long it’s been up for debate.
Oh, and a side note, if no one else has brought it up yet… You know who else used “fillibuster by flight” to deny a legislative body the quorum it needed? Abraham Lincoln. Someone who’s generally considered to be a pretty decent politician, all things considered. Oh, and a Republican.
Not to worry. A few more tax breaks for high earners, elimination of tax on investment income, and elimination of unions will get that score up to 75 or so. The US will then be #1! Can’t let Namibia show you up!
