The Key Issue in the 2012 Presidential Election--Dysfunctional Congress
Oh, it’s a bit longer with a little more detail. I just don’t see that he has any insight about the current moment in the U.S. As we talked higher up in the thread, over the last thirty years the Democrats have moved to the right and become a decidedly centrist party while the Republican Party is now in the hands of radical reactionaries who spend a lot of time telling themselves completely fabricated stories.
Other countries have left/right conflicts and plenty of contentious issues but still have functioning governments. So what Haidt ought to look at is what prospects are there for governance with this unwieldy U.S. apparatus given the ability of the reactionaries to throw a spanner in the cogs. I didn’t get a sense from either interview that he wants to take these questions on.
In case it wasn’t completely clear how insanely uncompromising the Republicans were in recent history:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03/how-obama-tried-to-sell-out-liberalism-in-2011.html
Well, so, it’s looking like Republicans are finally accepting that Romney is gaining the ticket, since he has 50 percent of the primary delegates and reamed Santorum this last week.
I don’t know if Daily Show/Colbert Report joking is verisimilitude re: the lack of passion the GOP feels for Romney in specific, as that sort of political dialog confuses me anyway. Media portraits, even satirical ones, get fixated on an idea of a person and then pound that idea no matter how much evidence/reaction to the contrary, so people’ve been calling Romney flat and tasteless pretty much whatever he’s done. Other people may in fact feel quite positive about Romney, who knows if its a significant proportion of anybody or anything.
But anyway, I’m mentioning this because it ties into the discussion we had about what the primary may mean in terms of the lessons the GOP learns from this election cycle (if anything). We had discussed before how a Romney loss may push the GOP further to the right as it holds the loss as evidence that ‘Centrists’ are uninspiring, or it may break off the wingnuts as a whole as they get disenchanted with the party and decide to create a Tea Party ballot or something. The likelihood is that little will actually change, but as this is the first year that I’ve paid a lot of attention to electoral politics instead of policy politics, I’m curious to see how this pans out.
Anyway, Santorum is still doing the Democrats’ work for them as he continues his thing, so it’s also fun to sit back and watch him mix metaphors and pull random crap out of his ass especially now that we can rest easy that he’s pretty much not going to get the nomination.
So anyway, I’ve been thinking about the issue this thread mostly revolves around, instead of the general politics within, of the Congressional gridlock and lack of momentum on the federal level. I was thinking about how much press Arizona is getting for its right-of-right activity. A conflict I am considering is the issue of what non-Arizonians can even hope to achieve getting riled up about Arizona policies. After all, if you do not have citizenship in Arizona, you not only cannot vote against Jan Brewer, you also cannot vote for their Senators and Congresspeople who affect policy on the federal level.
I guess the question I have is, in these days of interconnected media, social media, and policies, if ‘states rights’ really has a place in our current political geography. It seems any public school that goes and makes a policy error gets the weight of national criticism on them, god forbid a single principal attempt to take a book out of a library or something. Things like gay marriage and contraception are being decided on the state level, but everyone is looking at the federal level to set the policy.
What does a conscientious citizen hope to achieve by getting worked up about a law that passes in Arizona, if they do not live there or possibly even have never been there before? Are the states responsible to each other or at this point do we only expect the federal level regulations to matter on how the country is going? Are we tacitly moving towards a more centralized, bigger government simply because we won’t leave other states alone?
I am a big proponent of local-level voting. There are the statistics about how few people vote at all, but there are also the fact that even those who do vote rarely vote outside of the general federal elections. Even the midterms get less activity than the generals. I’m always struck bemused and a little exasperated when a friend of mine complains about something like a cut in local school funds or new construction in a well-trafficked area because I’ve voted directly for or against the requisite bond issues surrounding those events and my friends think The City just decided whatever The Public thinks. It fascinates me how many people are willing to join PIRG to canvas for money to lobby the federal government, but have never attended a single city council meeting.
You cannot get involved with everything, so why is there so much energy around what legislation gets tossed around in Arizona, something that non-Arizonians cannot do very much about, while little energy seems to be expended engaging in local state, county, and municipality level policy to make sure where you actually live is running roughly the way you please.
In the end this post is really about what people actually expect from the federal government, versus what they are capable of in their own home bases. Perhaps Congressional gridlock would be a less significant issue if the states are moving along sorting out their own turfs, or perhaps that’s unfeasible in this modern interconnected world and it’s time to create some sort of interstate but non-federal (if that makes sense) legislative domain.
—PolarisDiB
“reamed Santorum”
Eek! There’s a phrase you don’t want to Google.
haha ^ btw i live in arizona. we’re not all nuts here. that said, i mostly try to keep my mouth shut. and i’m happy to have this window on the world where things are still somewhat sane
also i believe we still have one blue county, pima county (tucson metro area)
one of the problems is there are just too many old white retired people here…
but hey, we give the rest of y’all something to make fun of ;)
Here in NC, we have Amendment One coming up for vote next week.
some of my friends admit to being embarrassed by the press coverage we get. but most here are probably cheering on sheriff joe in his big showdown with the justice dept over his right to conduct racial profiling
sometimes, i just can’t help telling them that jesus was a socialist haha. luckily they think i’m a harmless nut so they haven’t burned me for a witch…yet!
Witches are probably two of three down their list of priorities yet, so you’ll probably OK for a few more years.
““reamed Santorum”
Eek! There’s a phrase you don’t want to Google."
My friend has informed me that apparently ‘Santorum’ is the LGBT community’s slang for the mix of offal and semen that results from gay anal sex, though I haven’t yet researched that assertion (definitely don’t want to Google). Apparently, this slang arrived long before Santorum took the stage running for the executive branch, back when he was one of the most outspoken proponents of anti-gay legislation.
I wrote the word “reamed” with that in mind.
;-)
—PolarisDiB
@Polaris
Are you thinking of an additional layer between state and national? That doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me. Besides, wouldn’t that would require at least one all-but-impossible-to-pass Constitutional amendment?
If Congress wasn’t broken and the Supreme Court wasn’t in the process of diving into the rightwing swamp, I would favor transfer of more power—or at least oversight—to the Feds. In the meantime, I would advocate for eliminating lots and lots of offices from the ballots. For instance, it is a horrible idea to have judges on a ballet particularly to elect them or retain them. (I’m a bit more conflicted about a ballot recall.)
@Ruby
Arizona is one of several beautiful states that I would consider living in except for the people who already live there. Ugh.
@Matt
Someday the Supreme Court will have to strike down all those discriminatory state amendments. I had been thinking they would do it soon, but perhaps all that matters is what Kennedy thinks. Can’t say I know his mind.
“Are you thinking of an additional layer between state and national? That doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me. "
I don’t think it is either, it wouldn’t work, and it’d be like the equivalent of the electoral college on the policy level, and NOBODY wants that. I’m just throwing out the question of how much states can expect to choose their own way without other states’ interference anymore.
I don’t see what’s wrong with electing judges. But that may have to do with the fact that I commonly know the judges I’m voting for.
—PolarisDiB
Yeah, I’m generally down on the idea of states having a lot of autonomy. And I say this even from California where the Feds have often pulled the rug out from under state progressive measures such as on the environment. Lately I’m highly annoyed that the Feds are out here busting up all the marijuana dispensaries. What a pathetic waste.
Of course, so much of federal power has been pegged to the Commerce Clause. Where is Kennedy going to go with that?
You know who the judges are, but almost nobody else does. You can look up cases where a corporation knows in advance that it will have actions before a state court. So they bankroll a candidate for judge, buy a lot of ads, and get their man elected. If the population in general has consistently shown that it is not interested in vetting the candidates for the bench, then there is no advantage to the ballot. But that ballot is sitting there waiting to be exploited by a narrow interest with deep enough pockets. Elections, alas, are often a mixed bag and are certainly not the same thing as democracy.
Have you heard of this 99% Spring effort? If it does prove to be both broad and focused, it could be significant.
The Washington Post: Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
—PolarisDiB
^Well, there seem to be more commentators making the plea. Let’s hope the press at large takes them up on it since continuing with their traditional “he said/she said” and “both sides are to blame” has become so dishonest.
In the meantime, Republicans in the statehouses keep voting in favor of deliberately unconstitutional reactionary bills:
Sorry I haven’t been as active in this thread (and other political ones). Honestly, I feel a bit deflated and worn out. The annoying thing is that’s just what people in power want. :(
^ To be fair, has anyone thought about how much it would suck to be a member of Congress right now? You can’t tell me all this stranglehold and bickering doesn’t exhaust even the ones that maintain it.
One of my iFriends mentioned during the midterm elections, “Great! Now we get to see what happens when the public realizes the Tea Partiers actually need to lead.” Of course he was being pseudo-optimistic in his snark but his point is valid, it’s one thing to say, “I’m gonna get in thar and fix shit right up!” and another thing to, you know, actually lead. Rhetoric aside I’m sure many of those freshmen Congressmen are about ready to kill themselves. The problem there is that they probably see the source of the resistance as the nefarious incumbent Other side instead of themselves.
I expect at least some part of those freshmen to either drop out or get voted out this next election, not enough to change the balance but enough for them to write a few 200 page books titled something like ‘State of Disunion: the Systematic Problem of Congress and Its Endemic Wiring into the Liberal Left’ or something like that and then slowly back away through the red curtain.
—PolarisDiB
Rhetoric aside I’m sure many of those freshmen Congressmen are about ready to kill themselves.
What worries me is that the older, more experienced politicians feeling this way. (See Orrin Hatch.)
Are we talking now about the politicians, who, after leaving office, can land really fat jobs in the think tanks and as lobbyists? Not much need to feel sorry for any of them.
But, yeah Jazz, I feel your sense of discouragement. I’ve been watching Krugman’s exasperation with the political establishment (here and in Europe) and the supporting media/pundits. There is a century of good, hard won, economic knowledge about what to do under current conditions. But the establishment insists on doing the opposite using concocted narratives about confidence fairies and ignoring the real economics.
Meanwhile the people suffering from all this are left to protest and riot in the streets. I’d like to think that we are at the beginnings of new political reform, but it mostly just looks like we are in the middle of a long civic decay.
@DBL
Are we talking now about the politicians, who, after leaving office, can land really fat jobs in the think tanks and as lobbyists? Not much need to feel sorry for any of them.
But you don’t feel sorry for politicians who genuinely want to solve problems—politicians who are willing to put country ahead of their parties? Personally, I feel sorry for them right now because I don’t know how they don’t succumb to despair. Indeed, it seems like the more moderate types are leaving office—and that is not encouraging.
But the establishment insists on doing the opposite using concocted narratives about confidence fairies and ignoring the real economics.
I’m reading about the economic crisis in the 1920s-30s, and the parallels are interesting.
I guess I figure that the politicians who will really take risks to get worthwhile things done have mostly all already left or been voted out. The flip side of that is that I cannot imagine that there are very many sensible people wanting to get worthwhile things done who would even consider it a reasonable idea to run for Congress or the Senate these days. The process of getting elected, and the process of the Congress are both very unreasonable. Reasonable people know this, of course. (Partly I’m just pushing back against the common idea of “well, if better people would run…”. They won’t. Any improvement will have to come elsewhere.)
I’m reading about the economic crisis in the 1920s-30s, and the parallels are interesting.
Yes, interesting. Also, depressing.
I guess I figure that the politicians who will really take risks to get worthwhile things done have mostly all already left or been voted out. The flip side of that is that I cannot imagine that there are very many sensible people wanting to get worthwhile things done who would even consider it a reasonable idea to run for Congress or the Senate these days.
I haven’t sunk this far, yet. I don’t know if there are real risk takers, but I do think there are reasonable people willing to do right by the country at least some of the time—but they seem to be shrinking group and their influence seems to be waning. My hope is that this next election can change this a bit.
Yes, interesting. Also, depressing.
Yeah, but at the same time, I see some of the reaction as understandable (history repeats itself for one thing). This doesn’t make the situation less depressing, though.
Oh sorry, I only meant that to be half cynical. The other issue is the idea that you have to run for office to be in a position to “make a difference”. Organizing might be more productive than running.
My hope is that this next election can change this a bit.
What if the election results are more or less a wash? Lots of people are looking for something decisive, but there is a sizable chance that it will be anything but.
Organizing might be more productive than running.
Well, if the Washington is so dysfunctional that only a huge groundswell of activism from the general public is going to change this, then I think you’re right. (And I think Washington is getting close to this point, if it’s not there already.)
What if the election results are more or less a wash?
Then I suspect it might not change much—however, if Obama wins—even by only a little—that will be much better than if Romney or Republican wins—because the latter will validate the stonewalling tactics. Then again, if Romney wins because of a more moderate approach that would be less bad, imo.
<object width = “617” height = “348” > <param name = “movie” value = “http://www-tc.pbs.org/s3/pbs.videoportal-prod.cdn/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf” > <param name = “allowscriptaccess” value = “always” >
Watch Is Washington’s Partisanship ‘Even Worse Than it Looks?’ on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.
Former Republican Mickey Edwards addresses some of the issues discussed in the thread. I agree with almost everything he said in this interview.
<object width = “350” height = “348” > <param name = “movie” value = “http://dgjigvacl6ipj.cloudfront.net/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf” > <param name = “allowscriptaccess” value = “always” >
Watch Mickey Edwards Urges Congress, Be ‘an American First’ on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.
“I haven’t sunk this far, yet. I don’t know if there are real risk takers, but I do think there are reasonable people willing to do right by the country at least some of the time”
They problem here is the political process—just sliding one or two “honorable men” into a Congress won’t change anything because without a a block of votes to glom onto, like you and I, they’re just one vote, and if you want to get anything done for your own state, there’s all the quid pro quo to deal with.
By quid pro quo you’re referring to horse trading to get goodies for the home state? My sense is that’s not a major problem; it’s part of the process. The bigger concern (as Mickey Edwards alludes to in that interview) is that the politicians can see beyond their party. I also think the financing of campaigns and the nature of lobbying is a big problem.
I was listening to a program the other day, and the commenter lamented the fact that Congress will do nothing until January. That sounded about right to me, and it just made me ill. Do they care about unemployment and the economy? Deficits and debts in the short and long term? Immigration? Climate change? (Man, I’ve been alarmed at how little I think about this.) My feeling is that they care more about political warfare than these issues. There are solid solutions that reasonable people on both sides of the aisle could embrace on many of these issues. It’s really sickening. A part of me wishes we could scrap the government and start over. (I’ll try to more positive next time.)
Jazzaloha
Is that interview worth watching, DBL?