Overreaching in the first 100 hours
Democrats are giddy with excitement about a burst of legislative progress in the opening of the next Congress in January. But I am concerned that they may overreach and alienate potential allies. I am concerned that pride of ownership may scuttle many reasonable hopes and dreams. Many of the organizations have staff that need to justify their jobs. They need to show progress. But some may confuse this with taking the credit.
I hope that the more diplomatic heads in the new Congress understand the need to share credit and to engage with the more moderate and conservative Representatives. I hope they meet privately with those who come from less liberal districts and find ways to invite them to sponsor or co-sponsor the legislation. To be open to including offsets and compensations. Such as minimum wage adjustments based on regions of the country with different costs of living.
I hope they do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Overreaching in the first 100 hours”
good post Paul. This is exactly what I hope for America. It seems to me that this is not just in the interest of the Democrats themselves, but also for America and – actually – for the world.
A united compromizing America is beneficiary to all.
You are concerned that the Dems will “alienate potential allies”? Have you noticed what has been going on in DC for the last six years? If you are really that concerned about alienating people then I would think you would be very happy right now because the Dems would have to work night and day to do more alienating than the Republicans managed to do and it looks like Democrats have little interest in doing that.
Also, how is passing legislation going to alienate potential allies? I just don’t get that.
COMMENT:
Wait, where does mandatory recreational gay illegal abortion fit into the Democrat plan?
Would it not please moderate voters to see the Democrats pass legislation with more than just party line votes?
Is it not worth it to aim for a veto proof vote?
Would it not benefit Democrats to demonstrate to the voters that they can work in a bi-partisan manner that the GOP could not?
Would it not benefit the Democrats to demonstrate to Republican moderates that their ideas and participation is welcome? Would not this kind of goodwill be useful in close votes?
Is it not worth it to aim for a veto proof vote?
No, it is overkill. There is only so much political capital you can invest in something. You shouldn’t waste that capital on getting more votes than you need.
Would it not benefit Democrats to demonstrate to the voters that they can work in a bi-partisan manner that the GOP could not?
Maybe. My guess, however, is that it matters more to the voters that the Dems demonstrate that they can govern effectively as opposed to “in a bi-partisan manner”.
Um…but they’d need a veto proof vote for it to actually become law, so if the purpose is to actually change something instead of making a political move looking towards 08 they need that.
My hope is that the Democrats are more interested in being effective than being righteous.
All this hoopla over the Democrats ability, or inability, to govern in a “bipartisan” manner forgets one thing: It’s highly unlikely that unless every senior republican is ejected from congress there won’t be bipartisanship. The Republican party is currently controlled by ‘politicians’ who practice group conformity to an insane degree and, if the past 12 years is any indicator, care more about pleasing their anti-democrat base than governing effectively.
I wish it weren’t so, but bipartisanship has turned into a talking point more than a real goal.
BTW: When the other side is inches away from jumping off the deep end into crazy-base-pandering the incentive to care about the opinions of their moderates is damaged… I hope that’s something the republicans can understand and use as reason to fix the party.
Um…but they’d need a veto proof vote for it to actually become law, so if the purpose is to actually change something instead of making a political move looking towards 08 they need that.
Changing things and getting things accomplished are not the same thing. I don’t think you realize how difficult it is to get a veto proof majority in the current Senate. It is basically next to impossible.
Also, poltical moves in politics are not inherently evil. In fact, they are how the system works. If you want the Dems to be apolitical then you are asking too much of them.
On the contrary I am hoping they will be hyper-political, in the best sense of that concept. To make the best effort and use the best skills to convince their collegaues to join them. To consider the validity of the concerns of the fiscal and social conservatives and to find accommadation.
This is kind of a strange post. You’re worried the Democrats might overreach, but you don’t mention any controversial issues in the 100 hours plan. Pelosi has laid out the general set of policies that will be covered, are there any you’re think are specifically objectionable?
I dunno, if moderate Republicans sense the end is coming for them intra-party (I think the theocratic wing will win the civil war and we’ll see huge challenges in primaries) they could easily “jump ship” and start working bipartisan. You’d only need 1/3 of them to do that, it’s definitely worth a shot.
Mikef
My concern about overreaching comes from the agenda at this website
http://www.americanprogress.org
What part of the country is 5.15 an hour a living wage?