This Little Light of Mine
Glenn Reynolds has some typical simple-minded snark on why it’s so hard to “get things done” in Washington:
Back in September, noting a continuing pattern of White House incompetence, I predicted: “Expect this to play out in thumbsucker columns on whether America is ‘ungovernable.’”And, right on cue, here’s Matthew Yglesias: “The smarter elements in Washington DC are starting to pick up on the fact that it’s not tactical errors on the part of the president that make it hard to get things done, it’s the fact that the country has become ungovernable.”
Funny, that dumb cowboy Bush seemed to get a lot done with fewer votes in Congress. . . .
I have decided that this kind of inanity is good for one thing: It gives thoughtful, intelligent political observers like Steve Benen a constant flow of material to deconstruct:
On its face, the comparison is difficult — Bush had eight years; Obama hasn’t quite been in office 11 months. Bush entered office in a period of peace and prosperity, with an enormous budget surplus, and with the United States held in high regard around the globe. Obama entered office in a period of economic collapse, two costly wars, and with the nation’s international reputation stained. The differences matter.
… When I look back at the Bush/Cheney era, I think of a lot of things — incompetence, corruption, mismanagement, neglect, spectacular failures on a generational scale in almost every imaginable area of public policy — but “accomplished legislative record” isn’t one of them. He passed huge tax cuts, increased spending, expanded the federal bureaucracy, and expanded Medicare, but most of those accomplishments came in his first three years. In his entire second term, Bush sought very little — after his Social Security privatization failed, the White House effectively stopped having a domestic agenda — and got very little in return.
More to the point, the legislative successes Bush achieved came when Democrats joined Republicans to support the administration’s agenda. Indeed, congressional Dems always worked with Bush in good faith, ready to negotiate — despite questions surround the legitimacy of his presidency — and because there are so many moderate and center-right Democrats, Bush was able to score at least a couple key victories on the Hill.
For that matter, when Republicans held the congressional majority, Democrats rejected the filibuster-literally-everything approach to lawmaking. In many instances, Bush, like nearly every other president, could sign bills into law if they enjoyed the support of a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate. Obama has no such luxury — Republicans’ obstructionist tactics have no precedent in American history, and GOP moderates willing to work with the majority can be counted on one hand (a hand missing a couple of fingers).
Glenn Reynolds’ suggestion is that Bush was simply more effective in getting what he wanted. But that overlooks all of the relevant details — the crises, the diversity of thought among Dems, the lack of diversity of thought among Republicans, and the abandonment of majority rule in the Senate.
There’s more interesting stuff in Steve’s piece, including a couple of links to more analysis — and Steve’s readers make some good points, as well.
Share This
It seems to me that when the Repubs were in the majority in the Senate, 5 – 6 years ago, Senate Majority leader Frist threatened to do away with the filibuster rule if the Dems used it.
That could make a big difference today.
Mr. Benen must have a short political memory.
Its actually easy to get things done that a bipartisan majority wants, its when they have to start bribing Congressmen to vote with with one party or the other that it gets complicated. The bribes flow and the far-left and far-right get their agendas pushed.
So… which “far-left” agendas are being pushed? Mainly just curious to see what your definition is here.
Yglesias comment about the country becoming “ungovernable” seems appropriate to me. Without unity and common purpose (heck, it doesn't have to be common agreement, I'd settle for common honesty) what can possibly get done? And when capitalism becomes a god that no longer cares about character or limits, then what chance does a simple representational democracy have? Might as well be rule by mafia.
And of course there is the usual knee-jerk BS from people like Reynolds, Reagan, Malkin, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. whose livilyhoods depend on creating and exploiting division. Yup, that sure helps with the governing thing.
Control over the free market. They also tried to allow judges to control property owner rights in bankruptcy settlements, which undercuts the business contract and Rule of Law. Good to see that at least 70 democrats in the House haven't swung that far to the left, and that 27 are close enough to the center to vote against the whole thing.
It all comes back to this, JSpencer: Republicans (contemporary variety) are not interested in governing. At all. That's why they're willing to block legislation en masse no matter what it is simply because it's Democratic legislation; and it's also why Democrats generally work with Republicans to pass legislation even if it's very compromised from its original purpose. For Democrats' the priority is the underlying policy, the legislation, the governance. For Republicans the priority is the ideology, which for them is antigovernment. Republicans want to tear government down. The last thing they want to do is actually govern.
Kathy, I believe you're right. The republican vision for America seems to be something along the lines of a jungle.
Actually Kathy, simply put, most Rebublicans don't believe that more government control and spending is the magic answer for everything like many Democrats do. They prefer the private sector to the public one and the federal government acting closer within the bounds set by the US Constitution (although some republicans aren't exactly praiseworthy on staying within those limits either).
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.
–Thomas Jefferson
And the Democrats call themselves “The Party of Jefferson”. I think the GOP is closer to having a valid claim to that title. The “Party of Mary Poppins” is still available for the Democrats though.
Actually Kathy, simply put, most Rebublicans don't believe that more government control and spending is the magic answer for everything like many Democrats do.
Yes, they do. Of course, they do. They just have different ideas about who the beneficiaries of government control and spending should be than do Democrats.
They prefer the private sector to the public one and the federal government acting closer within the bounds set by the US Constitution (although some republicans aren't exactly praiseworthy on staying within those limits either).
Yes, like every Republican administration since (and including) Reagan.
And the Democrats call themselves “The Party of Jefferson”. I think the GOP is closer to having a valid claim to that title.
I'm not aware that Democrats call themselves “The Party of Jefferson.” I don't think either party bears much resemblance to the politics of Jefferson. And I very much doubt that Jefferson, or any of the Constitution's Framers, would recognize or approve of the symbiotic relationship between government and private business which has been growing steadily such that it's very difficult to distinguish between the two anymore, or know where one ends and the other begins.
Actually Kathy, simply put, most Rebublicans don't believe that more government control and spending is the magic answer for everything like many Democrats do.
Leonidas if you're talking about most Republican citizens you may be right, but if you're talking about GOP politicians they haven't felt this way for some time. I was hopeful that the thrashing they received from the Democrats in the past few years might encourage them to act more responsibly, but I'm not sure they have gotten the message.
James Joyner has a much better deconstruction of the Yglesias piece here.
Progressives are frustrated because they don't have the votes. They don't have the votes because progressives are a minority of the population, and the bulk of the Democratic majority in Congress got elected on a more moderate platform. America isn't ungovernable, it's just not that into progressivism.
I cannot believe anyone could believe such a steaming pile of manure of a comment.
Except Kathy.
How can one even refute such idiocy – a belief that one side in American politics is mostly pure and without guile, the other side the embodiment of evilness incarnate? It is the belief system of a delusional or infantile adult, and neither can be reasoned with successfully.
I cannot believe that anyone should have to result to childish name calling all while accusing the person being called a name of … wait for it… being a delusional or infantile adult (i.e. childish)
(Actually, I can but I needed to illustrate the irony)
Austin, you are the one that put the absolutes of “mostly pure and without guile” and “embodiment of evilness incarnate” into Kathy's mouth since she didn't say them. Neither side of this is pure by any means but in my opinion it comes down to which side attempts to act in good faith regardless of whether they're in the majority or the minority. Most of the current Republican congressional members are not acting in good faith on legislation because they are much more interested in attempting to score political points against Obama & the Democrats and lining their own pockets than legislating. Likewise, there are also some Democrats that are very much like that. The point is that when a Congressional member's priorities stop being about legislating for the good of the entire country and not just their base, they should get the hell out of government.
And the Democrats were equally obstructionist when they were not in the majority. Which is of course my point.
Those who cannot see that both sides are equally partisan when it suits their needs are the most partisan, and deluded, of all.
p.s. – I called her no names at all. I did call the comment itself something, also commented on the mindset required to make such an absurd statement as she made, but I assuredly did not engage in name calling.
“They don't have the votes because progressives are a minority of the population, and the bulk of the Democratic majority in Congress got elected on a more moderate platform”
“And the Democrats were equally obstructionist when they were not in the majority. “
Their stance on Social Security during the Bush years remains a, if not the, classic example.
(So mindlessly obstructionist and exploitive of the most-exploitable, in fact, they willingly forfeited their chance to “own” reform of “their” program and win public acclaim to good effect for years. That surpasses any resistance the GOP has predictably made against the loonier legislation and strong-arming by the Dems this year. The Dems the were so insistent on obstruction for obstruction's sake that they refused the opportunity of a generation or more. What does that say about them and those who supported such a decision, or can see nothing wrong with it now, or didn't care then and don't now?)
* * *
Yep — the “safe and sane” posture. At least it was (pathetically) creative post-1994, several years ago, with the Dem leadership's “Third Way” presentation. It didn't go away with Bill Clinton, either.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=128
“The point is that when a Congressional member's priorities stop being about legislating for the good of the entire country and not just their base, they should get the hell out of government.”
It's time for lib Dems in Congress to leave, then. They've proven, according to what you say, that they must go — the stimulus alone being an example, and incontrovertibly so with the House “climate” energy legislation, which the public jammed communication channels imploring them not to pass such lunacy.
Of course, they won't go, and should be made to go (Americans want term limits), and you may not really mean what you say about the Dems, but only about the GOP, but it would be better if they would go, or at least stop insisting on rushing to pass bad legislation. (Hopefully they're learning their lesson with the health care fiasco that continues to reveal itself.)
“The 'Party of Mary Poppins'”
A lot of kiddies are upset right now. They may not get to hear the party elders sing “Here Comes Santa Claus” and mean it, again, with gusto this year — with health care “reform” this Christmas.
Lefty talk radio is at elevated temperatures these days. Poor Joe Lieberman, Target. [sigh]
Just wait for the House-Senate conference. [shrug] It might be a better circus than Copenhagen's.