The other comment that did not make the cut here went something like this.
Now as you know, I am a fan of gridlock and slow steady change. I like it when we take 2 steps forward, 1 step back, maybe a couple to the side. Anything to give people time to adjust to the social change and to allow our economy time to adjust to the new system.
For 6 years Liberal comments have been obsessed with how the GOP were OBSTRUCTIONISTS to the CORRECT function of Government. They kept insisting that Government should be doing more of something in order to be deemed productive.
My big questions now are what are the Liberals going to call:
Now as you know, I am a fan of gridlock and slow steady change. I like it when we take 2 steps forward, 1 step back, maybe a couple to the side. Anything to give people time to adjust to the social change and to allow our economy time to adjust to the new system.
For 6 years Liberal comments have been obsessed with how the GOP were OBSTRUCTIONISTS to the CORRECT function of Government. They kept insisting that Government should be doing more of something in order to be deemed productive.
My big questions now are what are the Liberals going to call:
- the GOP as they work to pass laws, budgets, tax cuts, Justices, etc?
- the Democrats as they try to stop the passing of these?
Is the Democratic Party now the Obstructionist Party? Thoughts?
23 comments:
Along those lines. It was nice of the Senate Democrats to open the door for the Senate Republicans...
For 6 years Liberal comments have been obsessed with how the GOP were OBSTRUCTIONISTS to the CORRECT function of Government.
And at this time of soul searching, it's useful to ask how and why we were so wrong about this. First, it was wrong to argue that there was one correct function of government. Certainly, this seems absurd on the face of it. There are many, many functions of government. What could we have been thinking of?
Concerning obstructionism. Is it somehow incorrect to be obstructionist? Or is this just a pejorative label Democrats apply to a party that is committed to government not doing much? At the moment, I can tell you lots of things the Republican Party is against. But I don't know what they are for. And as a party, I just am not sure they are in favor of being for stuff.
--Hiram
The Democratic Party won't be called the obstructionist party, because we won't be able to obstruct anything. The period of divided government is over. Those who have a fondness for gridlock are among the losers of this election. The search for a different set of labels has begun.
--Hiram
By the way, during the campaign I proposed a definition for gridlock, which I thought I would throw out here.
Gridlock, in my view, is that state in which legislative measures which have bipartisan support are unable to get passed. This concept can be understood narrowly as referring to a specific measure such as a bonding or tax bill, or more broadly when goals which have universal support cannot be achieved.
--Hiram
The definition seems good on the surface, however I think the Devil is usually in the details.
I mean it is easy to say that a "Bonding Bill" has broad bi-partisan support. But if one side wants to put $1 Billion on the credit card and the other only wants to rack up $0.5 Billion in debt. That leaves us with $500,000,000 in difference... Now that is a lot of monthly payments...
"For 6 years Liberal comments have been obsessed with how the GOP were OBSTRUCTIONISTS to the CORRECT function of Government. They kept insisting that Government should be doing more of something in order to be deemed productive."
No, I don't think that's exactly true at all. I think what most liberals objected to was the fact that Senate Republicans defied the traditional norms that governed the Senate. Never in the history of the body has one party made it a requirement to get 60 votes in order to accomplish practically anything. Democrats used the filibuster back in the Daschle days, but to nowhere near the extent that Republican have -- and they routinely allowed votes on Presidential nominees. McConnell's strategy busted those norms, and I don't think at this point that Democrats should be expected to play by the old rules.
That is an interesting outlook, Sean. As I see it (differently, of course) the Democrats simply pushed too far, too fast, and forced the Republicans to scrap the conventional rules of comity in favor of trench warfare, to prevent bad things from happening. It was Democrats who "changed the rules" to allow them to run roughshod over the opposition. Now they are faced with having those changes used against them. Schadenfreude. "Gridlock" and "obstruction" are simply the words used when YOUR side isn't getting its way. For the other side, it's just the "prevent defense."
Republicans have recently talked about the "Harry Reid Memorial No-Filibuster Rule."
Democrats didn't change the filibuster rule until Republicans allowed nominations to stack up. At the time, the change was made 75 nominations of Executive Branch positions and judges were being blocked by McConnell and crew. Senate Republicans had blocked more Executive Branch nominees from 2009-2013 than had been blocked from 1789-2008.
I don't expect Republicans to eliminate the filibuster rule because as an essentially negative party, maintaining the availability of obstructionist tactics is in their interest.
--Hiram
Again, I think blame can be laid on both sides. WHICH nominations were being "held up"? Were they people of a far-left bent, or otherwise underqualified and anathema to Republicans? I used to think that "good" nominees should easily get 2/3 or even 3/4 of the Senate to agree. But that was back in the good old days where we had only creeping leftism.
I expect Republicans to go a bit further to eliminate the filibuster, say for court and cabinet positions, but leave it intact for legislation. They have the "two-speech rule" for that.
WHICH nominations were being "held up"?
Not Robert Bork's. Not Clarence Thomas'. Not Samuel Alito's. Not Antonin Scalia's. I could go on, of course.
Republicans won't want to eliminate the filibuster because they need it's protection. Remember it's a divided party. While it represents rural America, it's financing comes from urban America and from people who share urban America's values. So they need the filibuster to stop them from doing what their constituents want them to do, but which violate their own values and principles.
--Hiram
We were talking about Obama nominees being held up. Had Obama nominated Bork, Thomas, Alito or Scalia, I don't think Republicans would have objected.
We were talking about Obama nominees being held up.
Do you think that's an example of obstructionism? I think it would be if the senate has a duty to confirm, but I am not sure it does. It's an arguable point, and in this context not a terribly significant point since Republicans have the votes to defeat nominations. A more purely obstructionist act happens when parliamentary means are used to deny the majority from imposing it's will. To my mind, the Supreme Court disrupted a delicate balance here when they took away the president's power to make interim appointments.
--Hiram
--Hiram
You will need to explain that one. AFAIK, the President does not have that authority unless the Senate is not in session. And I don't remember SCOTUS being involved.
You will need to explain that one. AFAIK, the President does not have that authority unless the Senate is not in session.
The point of giving the president the power to make interim appointments was that it tended to force the senate to act. They knew that if they didn't act decisively on presidential appointments, the matter would be decided for them. In taking that power away, the Supreme Court disrupted both the checks and the balances the founders installed in our constitution.
--Hiram
Again, I am unaware of any Supreme Court action on this matter. In the most recent example in my memory, the Senate "stayed in session" to prevent a recess appointment. If the SCOTUS said that was Constitutional, they were right. It's a parliamentary maneuver, but nothing unconstitutional about it. The President never had the right to make an appointment without Senate approval, except when they are in recess, which he did to stack the NLRB. Maybe the GOP just got a little payback.
I am unaware of any Supreme Court action on this matter
Here is a link to the case:
http://images.politico.com/global/2014/06/26/12-1281_bodg.pdf
--Hiram
OK, that is the case I am thinking of, and the court ruled correctly. The SC did not "take away the President's authority." He never had that authority in the first place. Hard for the GOP to be "obstructionist" when Obama simply goes around them and ignores the clear letter of the law.
The SC did not "take away the President's authority."
The president lost the case.
--Hiram
Yes. And had he not broken the law, would not have been in court at all.
The original question was "Is the Democratic Party now the Obstructionist Party?"
The answer is no, because it assumes an equal moral standard for both parties which simply does not exist. Start with the premise that "Democrats are always right." Therefore, when Democrats push legislation to which Republicans object, Republicans are "obstructionist." When Republicans push legislation to which Democrats object, they are NOT being obstructionist because they are, by virtue of being Democrats and that alone, on the side of Goodness and Light.
Sorry, misleading pronoun in the above. s.b. "When Republicans push legislation to which Democrats object, =the Democrats= are NOT being obstructionist because they are, by virtue of being Democrats and that alone, on the side of Goodness and Light."
Post a Comment