America, the Ungovernable
I’ve always tried to be understanding of the Republican cause. I’m left-of-center, but not far from the middle. I’m no longer so lenient; I’ve begun to see the Republican message more clearly than ever before, and it isn’t anything I care to understand. They’re out of their minds, and I don’t care to follow their mindless political ventures. Best just to forget them. You can’t reason with unreasonable people; otherwise, they wouldn’t be unreasonable.
This year I’ve been a pretty avid reader of Paul Krugman’s columns over at the New York Times. He seems to be one of the most level-headed of all commentators on American politics and economics. He’s got that distinct analytical style that sidelines distracting nonsense and sifts through all the political bullshit to tell story as it really is.
As of late, he’s painted quite a grim picture of the American political landscape. His latest column shows that despite what appears to be a done deal on health care reform, the bill is no where near what was demanded of the Democrat leadership. Obama ran on a platform of fundamental health care reform. His near landslide election gave him the nod from the American people that a fundamental change was not only needed, but mandated. Although their call was heeded, their wish was far from granted. What should have been a relatively straightforward and painless piece of legislation turned into a buzzer-beater like nail biter. What we’ve been left with is a bare-bones reform bill that, although historical in nature, falls far short of Obama’s original plan and the wishes of millions of uninsured and overpaying citizens. But this isn’t the main point of his article; the health care case serves as a reflection of a parasite sucking freely at the blood of America’s supposedly elite governing body. The now anemic body is the Senate and the good-for-nothing bloody sucker is the filibuster.
The kicker to the health care compromise bill is that it’s not a slim, healthy bill with all the excess fat and unwanted substance shaved off by robust congressional debate and keen compromising between competing parties. It’s the emaciated sick child who was starved, beaten, and neglected living in an abusive household. Despite popular demand and wide-spread support, health care reform was nearly killed off. The frustrating thing is that it wasn’t nearly dropped because of legitimate concerns or well-intentioned opposition. It was nearly suffocated by despicable group GOP henchmen on a mission to kill anything blue, a few fence-sitting Democrats, and the politically senile (and possibly mentally senile) Joe Lieberman. The vehicle of assault? The filibuster.
Although the filibuster is no where to be found in the Constitution, it is a well entrenched tradition of the Senate. It’s an opportunity for Senators to make prolonged speeches ramble senselessly non-stop in order to prevent cloture on a bill required before voting can commence. It’s been a rare political tactic until recently. Now its used by political minorities (i.e. Republicans) to stifle bills unfavorable to their views. Since 60 votes are needed for cloture on a bill, more than a simple majority is needed to get bills to a vote. Until recently political history, this was never a problem. But as of late, the Republicans have employed or threaten the use of a filibuster to thwart any significant Democratic legislation.
I’d have less of a problem with filibuster were they used in an intelligent and politically mature way. However, that’s far from the case. Given the recent shift in political power, the GOP has found its on the other side of the majority. In response, they have utilized the filibuster to severely alter or totally inhibit any significant legislation proposed by the majority Democrats. Krugman briefly summarizes Political Scientist Barbara Sinclair’s trace of the transformation of the filibuster.
In the 1960s, [Barbara] finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.
To be frank, the Republican party has transformed itself into the party of fear and hatred. They continually stir up irrational fears based on a paranoia style of politicking and show no signs of changing their immature political behavior. Consequently, they have made themselves into a formidable foe against the agents of sound governing. They have become the party of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin: a party of stupidity and spite. Their party apparatchiks in the Senate have heeded their call. Their weapon of choice is the filibuster. The result is the disconcerting of America. We’re on the verge of becoming ungovernable. America is at a historical crossroads. Significant financial reform needs to be made. Historical levels of unemployment threaten to put generations at a long-term disadvantage. We need to seriously consider global climate change and curbing our carbon emissions. In addition to all that, we’re fighting a war of attrition in the deserts of Asia, and are at the tail-end of a bloody occupation in Iraq. What are the odds of any sound legislation regarding these issues making its way through a highly polarized Senate where the minority party will stop at nothing to defeat any moves made by the majority? I venture to say shit all.
As Krugman says, “Nobody should meddle lightly with long-established parliamentary procedure. But our current situation is unprecedented: America is caught between severe problems that must be addressed and a minority party determined to block action on every front.” The filibuster no longer serves any constructive purpose other than disrupting the legislation process and transforming America into a nearly dysfunctional state. Somethings got to give. It’s either the filibuster or America’s ability to function.
Ezra Klein argues that the bills aren’t too different from what Obama actually promised: link
Thanks for the link, Jonathan.
The one quibble I’ve got with Klein’s analysis is he ignores degrees of priority and importance. If every goal is given equal priority, then sure, the bill likely to pass and Obama’s original plan aren’t very different. However, I think most Democrats, and people in general, had prioritized certain parts of the several health care reform proposals. The public option, for many Democrats, economists, and public health care analyst see the creation of a public health insurance option by Federal fiat is the only real way to drive down costs, foster competition, and loosen the monopolistic hold that insurance agencies have across America.
Without a public option, there will still be a multitude of structural problems – namely the monopolistic strangle-hold that insurance companies have built over the years. Only a nation-wide, public option has any real potential to force insurance companies to loosen their grip, compete in a market-friendly fashion, and lower their costs.
The current bill seems more like a palliative measure. Historical in scope, but definitely in need of correction later down the road. It isn’t all that disheartening, though. Most social safety net legislation starts off small and imperfect and is amended and updated further down the road. Better something than nothing.
But perhaps I focused too much on the health care bill. This piece was intended to criticize the Republican abuse of the filibuster (of which Democrats could just as easily do) and the need for reform.
Look. Declaring that the Republican party has become the party of fear and hatred isn’t actually the same as the Republican party becoming the party of fear and hatred. It hasn’t, and your argument by assertion (oh, yeah, you did use Krugman’s dishonestly reported filibuster numbers as support of a sort; hey, did you wonder what happened in the 1990s and 2000s? Don’t seem to have) that it has doesn’t alter or form reality so that it accords with your hatred and fear.
See how easy that is? All I have to do (with exactly equal efficacy and proof as you offer) is declare it, and it is so.
Your writing here is rank with and reeks of hatred, fear, and plain mendacity, supported by nothing more than your huge egotism and self-regard. Get over yourself and instead of writing with dishonesty and self-love, try reason and observation.
Hey, Dave, thanks for stopping by the site. Appreciate’ your time.
First off, I am not God, or some divinely blessed miracle worker. My words don’t breathe life into events, inanimate objects, or the recently deceased. Although it would be quite an awesome power to make things “so” with the stroke of a word, I don’t think I’ve got that type of writing power.
As for the filibuster numbers, would you kindly point me to the appropriate source which shows that Krugman “dishonestly reported filibuster numbers”? If the numbers are way off the mark, I’d certainly like to know, lest I be mislead.
Secondly, there aren’t many political analyst out there that don’t make some sort of remark at the remarkable polarization of the current Senate. But don’t take my word for it. I’ll defer to someone of higher stature in an effort to deflate my purportedly huge ego and self-regard; I’ll get over myself, as you suggest, by referring to another. Here’s a quote from a recent New York Times article, discussing the culmination of Senate polarization over the health care debate.
Sorry if I sound brash, but I’m finding it increasingly hard to see the Republican party as anything other than an engine of fear mongering. Fox News is their primary fuel source, and the talking heads like Beck and Co. serve as their public liaisons. It isn’t a recent trend, but it’s certainly become intensified, probably due to the relative marginalization of the Republican party following the 2008 Democratic sweep and reclamation of power. This shift in power has intensified the GOP’s spiteful tendencies. But, given the demand for more “reason and observation,” I’ll defer once again to a more credible source.
Historian Richard Hofstader’s essay The Paranoia Style of Politics does an excellent job highlighting the “paranoia style” of politiking extreme right-wingers are likely to employ to maximize their political efficacy – there’s a lot of political leverage to be gotten out of the “passions and animosities of a small minority.” I’m certainly not suggesting that all right-of-center politicians are “extreme,” but the type of Republicans that attend the mics fit quite nicely into Hofstader’s “paranoia” model. Compare his historical examples to the modern day “birthers” advocates and all those paranoid Republicans screaming “socialism” like its bloody murder.
Like I alluded to at the beginning of my article, I’ve tried to be reasonable with the Republican point of view. However, observation has lead me to believe them unreasonable.
One typical response to the issue of polarization is that our country is not as polarized as it was when the civil war was fought and therefore we are not really very polarized. I find this argument to be rather shallow. Slavery was one issue—probably the most divisive issue in our nation’s history—but that does not mean that the North and South did not agree on anything. Frankly, they agreed on an awful lot. And they compromised on a whole lot. Our entire constitution in itself is a tremendous compromise. Imagine trying to write a new constitution with today’s Republican party at the table—it absolutely could not happen.
Essentially, the argument focuses on the quality value of polarization but ignores the quantity value. Sure, there is nothing we are as polarized over as slavery. But we are polarized over many more issues than we have ever been. The Republican is basically taking the stance that if a policy comes from the Obama camp, it must be opposed to the hilt.
Not that I’m in love with the Democrats and they certainly carried out their share of filibusters during the previous administration—every party does—but they actually cooperated substantially. Even when they opposed policies of Bush, it is clear that, taken as a whole, their conduct was much more civil.
I agree with almost every word you have written here.
some insurance agencies are very greedy that is why i always take a second thought when dealing with them–;
there are insurance agencies that are scam too so make sure that you deal with legit insurance agencies ,:”