Lean Left

Posted in Health, Politics | 11 Comments

11 Responses

1. on January 27, 2010 at 12:42 am Dan M.

   Any political strategy that relies on the Democrats growing a spine is doomed to failure.

   The last time this wasn’t true historically was almost a century ago, and it had the side effect of them also trying to pack SCotUS. Fuck it.

   (Wait a minute… Half their platform reads like it was written by a libertarian. WTF?)

   
   
2. on January 27, 2010 at 3:11 pm Big U

   The unfortunate truth is this: as long as getting re-elected is the goal, meaningful reform will never happen. Doesn’t matter what party is in power. And with elections of some sort happening every two years, fear of losing an election is always present.

   
   
3. on January 27, 2010 at 11:03 pm Dan M.

   BU, I’m don’t disagree with your basic point, but I’m not sure what to conclude from it.

   For one thing, it does matter which party is in power inasmuch as the two have distinct kinds of harm that they prefer to do, and to a limited extent those preferences cancel out (e.g. over-regulation vs. under-regulation, being bought-and-paid-for shills for unions vs. shills for management) so alternating is a good default. And that’s before you consider actual substantive differences in what each side does when it sells out. (There’s at least something to be said for being unable to get an abortion because you’re destitute in the street instead of because Rick Santorum has crawled up your uterus and set up a bible study group there. Never mind what it means for those who are homosexual.)

   But more importantly, your comment about elections happening every two years almost sounds like a suggestion of longer terms. Looking at how senators differ from representatives with respect to incumbency and pork (not very damned much), I’m not sure that’s a solution. (Though I don’t think that’s quite what you were trying to say, anyway.) The underlying problem is how much benefit there is to holding office (and therefore how much there is to lose in getting voted out).

   Part of the problem is self-aggravating: If it was common for offices to flip party, then one party losing a seat would be a small loss on the expectation that they’d regain it soon. (I’ll mention again that I love New York State for supporting the existence of third parties.) But more largely, the problem isn’t office holders so much as political campaigners. Which flesh bag is stumping around mouthing platitudes matters a lot less than who pays the money for political ads that reduce everything to competing sound-bites, carefully avoiding discussion of real things like, say, media conglomeration.

   
   
4. on January 28, 2010 at 10:43 am Big U

   I see what you are saying Dan, and I will clarify.

   From my understanding, there are elections every two years in the US. Presidential and certain politicians get elected on a four year cycle and then two years later another group of politicians gets elected on a four year term. The terms are fine, but based on what I hear and see, because it is a two year window between election terms, the parties are almost perpetually in election mode. That makes the focus on how they will do at the polls much more significant in their minds.

   If all the elections were held in the same year, that would block a four year window for the party in power. I don’t know if that would be better (there are merits for both systems) but it would provide the opportunity for the government to pass politically unpopular legislation at the start of their mandate and give them two years or more to ease the political repercussions.
   For example: health care reform. No matter what gets passed, there will be a political price simply because it got passed. Some people will be upset at the change and move to get rid of whatever people they can out of spite. IF there was a two year period after the passing of the legislation before an election, people would be able to see if it was good legislation and then be able to vote on how it works rather than ideaology.

   Hopefully that clarifies my comment about getting reelected being a goal.

   
   
5. on January 28, 2010 at 12:41 pm tgirsch

   Big U:

   You’re almost correct. At the national level, the president gets elected for a four-year term, and is limited to two terms. Senators (two per state, irrespective of population) are elected to a six-year term, but there are elections every two years, so that every two years, roughly 1/3 of the senators are up for re-election. Representatives (in the house, apportioned roughly by population), are up for re-election every two years — every seat in the house could theoretically change hands every two years. For senators and representatives, there are no term limits.

   WRT health care reform, yes, there will be a political price to pay if it gets passed, but there will also be a political price to pay if it doesn’t get passed, and my argument (which mirrors Benen’s) is that the price will be much larger for Democrats if they don’t pass something.
   .-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Brett Favre’s Offseason Daily Planner =-.

   
   
6. on January 28, 2010 at 5:57 pm Dan M.

   Thanks, BU, that does clarify, and I think it’s a good insight into the problem.

   What I don’t get (and this isn’t your fault) is what that means for fixing the problem. It’s just frustrating.

   
   
7. on January 28, 2010 at 6:11 pm tgirsch

   I honestly think our media is more to blame than anything inherent in our system of elections. When sound bites always get all the air play, and nobody seriously digs into complicated issues, it doesn’t much matter HOW often we hold elections or WHO is in them.
   .-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Brett Favre’s Offseason Daily Planner =-.

   
   
8. on January 28, 2010 at 7:50 pm Dan M.

   TG, agreed.

   Though it is conceivable that we would work some arcane scheme of elections that would be too wonkish for the public to get excited about (positively or negatively) that could mitigate the problems rather than a head-on fight with media conglomeration where the media itself could create teabaggers to counter the reform.

   On the other hand, that amounts to admitting defeat. It’s like covering your balls when somebody stands on your chest. Sure, it prevents the chance of sudden, more salient pain, but it does nothing to address the real problem.

   
   
9. on January 28, 2010 at 11:02 pm Big U

   What it takes to make things work is people who are willing to do the right thing even if it will cost them. And that is in short supply everywhere.

   The tough thing is politician’s (or their advisors’) obsession with popular opinion. I would be really surprised if any significant price would have been paid by the Democrats if they had stuck together and crafted an intelligent health reform bill and just shoved it through. Take a look at Canada for the past four years and you will see what decisive action can do. We have had our most right wing party (still possibly left of the Democrats) in power for four years even though they have never held a majority of the seats. There are four parties in government but the Conservatives stay in power. By his detractors, Harper (the Prime Minister) is seen as cold, calculating, pompous, etc. and is often compared (wrongly) to the Republicans and Bush. To his supporters, he is seen as a decisive, direct, no-nonsense pragmatist….do what needs to be done to guide the country, even if it ticks people off. Result? The most recovered G8 country which while it relies heavily on the US for trade, has not suffered nearly as much. It works.

   People voted out the Republicans as much as they voted in Obama and just a few short months later, they are willing to vote in a Republican in what used to be a safe seat. So what did the Dem’s gain by wavering? I think if they had just put their minds to putting through what most of them thought was a solid bill, most people would have moved on by election time. Now it’s too late. Anything will seem like a compromise and the perception of strong, solid, decisive government is gone. And you can be guaranteed the Republicans will jump all over that come election time.

   
   
10. on January 28, 2010 at 11:19 pm Dan M.

    BU, agreed. Hence my first comment in this thread. There are systemic problems with our whole electoral system, but that’s nothing compared to the abject flaccidity of the Democrats. (The problem with the Left is that the media has succeeded in making people think the Democrats, in all their lickspittle glory, are the left, which is bullshit.)

    
    
11. on January 29, 2010 at 12:22 am tgirsch

    Big U:

    I think that might be your most cogent comment, well, ever. Of course, it’s a lot easier to have multiple parties in a parliamentary system, and HAVING multiple parties makes the ability to compromise that much more important — you can’t expect that your party will EVER have a true majority.
    .-= tgirsch´s last blog ..Brett Favre’s Offseason Daily Planner =-.

    
    

Comments are closed.