An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« It’s a Great Day For the Taliban
Pakistan Lawyers Protest and Are Beaten By Soldiers: Something Odd About This Photo »
Tales of Mutual Dysfunction
I guess I overlooked it on the calendar, but today is apparently “What Went Wrong Day.”
In the NYT, it’s “what went wrong with S-CHIP.” In the WaPo, it’s “what went wrong with No Child Left Behind.” Taken together, these stories illustrate — clearly and painfully — what happens when political debate crosses the line between healthy and toxic.
Check-and-balance fanatics might be pleased with these stories, but I doubt the same could be said for the rest of us, who favor checks-and-blances but would still, occasionally, like to see our government accomplish something.
7 Responses to “Tales of Mutual Dysfunction”
“like to see our government accomplish something.”
Amen to that.
I’m probably going to offend your conservative soul by saying this, but I really see today’s conservatives as strictly the ‘just say no’ party.
Unfortunately, they’re saying ‘no’; to just about every compromise solution proposal.
Immigration and S-CHIP are just two examples.
We are becoming a country of ‘can’t do’, as a result.
As our internal prolems rise, this negativism is irking me mightily.
Doma,
You may be right, but what incentives do conservatives have? And was not the reverse largely true under Clinton and his vetoes?
Clinton did manage to work with the GOP- and got a lot done in his second term, despite working under the onus of impending impeachment.
And conservatives are only making themselves look like hard-bitten obstructionists who don’t deserve to hold office. They are still voting a vast majority of the time to uphold Bush’s policies, which didn’t work well for them in ’06. Its obvious that they are planning to run on hatred for illegal immigrants- a real positive message. They’ve blocked almost everything else, so have nothing else to run on.
Entropy-
1.what incentives do conservatives have?
>Maybe, doing something because it’s the right thing to do should be incentive enough.
2.And was not the reverse largely true under Clinton and his vetoes?
> I don’t advocate for an eternal exchange of payback
BTW, I don’t answer for Clinton or his presicency.
I’m certainly no apologist for the current crop of so-called conservatives in charge of the R party in Congress, far from it; but a key point of the two articles (in particular, the NYT piece on S-CHIP) is that there’s blame to bear on both sides of the aisle for the failures.
Irv-
You’re right about the articles, but I was going by my own obxervaions.
At any rate, re SCHIP, it seems to have been a question of tactics, rather than substance. Negotiating tactics are usually above my head, and, anyway, whether a tactic will work or won’t work, can only be seen when it’s too late. Since those excluded from negotiations were those consulting with the WH, perhaps (I”m just guessing) the Dems felt they had already compromised enough. I don’t see that it was necessary for Bush to squeeze so hard, unless he just enjoys flexing his muscles.
I left No Child LB out of my previous comment, because it is such a compkicated issue. The bill comes up at a time of wide experimentation in schools (charter schools and special purpose schools) plus the question of vouchers, that it’s hard to sort it all out. It may not be a bad iidea to let that one slide for awhile until the dust settles a little.. This is one time when I’m a conservaive in terms of making changes. It’s too easy to make the wrong changes, before more results are in. Education is one area, where the effects of changes appear only slowly.
“Something” is not the same as “anything,” much less “everything.”
Change is not the same as improvement.