We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.
I’ve been explaining this for going on five years. The first time I tried to explain parliamentary politics to Americans was after the 2004 election (sadly, gone with BOP’s archives). The most recent was in July, where I pointed out that without the possibility of snap elections, the US form is particularly virulent:
Now in parliamentary systems a majority government just does what it likes, and the opposition reflexively opposes but can’t stop anything. In a minority government, the opposition can’t just stop everything because if it defeats the government on the wrong vote it’ll cause an election and you don’t want one of those till you’re sure you’ll win and the governing party won’t get a majority. So the government can still get through a fair bit of its agenda, even if it doesn’t have a parliamentary majority.
In the US there’s no threat of a snap election, and the opposition can often hold up significant legislation, especially in a case like the current one where the governing party has unreliable members (something that’s very rare in most parliamentary systems).
So the Republicans have taken parliamentary opposition one step further. Instead of just opposing everything but letting it pass, then running against it, they figure why not oppose everything in the hopes of weakening policy to the point where it doesn’t work? The stimulus bill was compromised to the point where it didn’t do the necessary job. The global warming bill likewise, and the health care bill appears headed for the same fate.
Lousy policy leads to lousy outcomes. Lousy outcomes make the population unhappy, and less likely to vote the incumbents back in.
What the Republicans are doing makes perfect sense from an electoral point of view. Voters are not going to primarily blame Republicans for Democrats failing to govern effectively.
This is something that many Democrats, especially older ones who came from a more genteel era, or those who some sort of strange genetic disposition to compromise (Obama) don’t seem to get. But Republicans get it in their limbic system.
Learn it. Live it.
Carolyn Kay
>>I’ve been explaining this for going on five years.
And I’ve been thinking about it for 20 years, trying to explain it on the internet for 10, but must be considered some kind of wild-eyed nut for all the attention is paid to what I’ve been saying.
In the 90s, the left blamed Clinton for the right wing’s shenanigans. During 2000, it blamed Gore for its own failure to stand up to the right-wing crazies. During 2008, way too many transferred the blame from Bill Clinton to Hillary Clinton.
Despite the complete lack of evidence that Obama’s biracial specialness had ever stopped any right-wing ridiculousness, they bet the farm on him. Now they’re surprised that he’s being attacked IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as the Clintons and Gore.
So spare me what Yglesias thinks, or any of the other so-called spokesmen for the so-called left that has refused for more than 20 years to see clearly what’s been happening and develop ways to fight it successfully.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Mark Holbrook
Good article. If more attention were paid to substance (good legislation), a loyal electorate would follow. Is there anything we could do to make our system work more like a parliamentary system (short of a Constitutional Convention to chage the way our government works).
selise
guess i’m setting myself up to get flamed…. but how was preventing regulation of otc derivatives the right’s fault? or repeal of glass steagall?
or more recently telco immunity and walking back fisa law?
(i mention these three only because they are the ones i know a little bit about)
Carolyn Kay
>>how was preventing regulation of otc derivatives the right’s fault? or repeal of glass steagall?
Clinton bowed to the pressures placed on him by the right wing, and look at how much it helped him fend them off. They ended up impeaching him. The so-called left stood by and did nothing.
As to Obama’s betrayals on telco immunity and FISA, he had no such pressures at the time he made those decisions. Like Clinton, he was trying to win over the right wingers, and it did him no good, either. They still call him a Muslim terrorist traitor socialist communist.
And if you think that kind of name calling is silly and doesn’t work, you haven’t been paying enough attention for the last 20 years.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
kelley b.
This double standard is particularly remarkable because it seems to work one way only.
Democrats working for social issues like single payer or even an honest public option get completely marginalized whether it’s a Democratic or Republican run Congress.
Supporters of the War on Terror get their funds as a given priority regardless of which side runs the Senate.
Like everything supposedly nuanced about our elected representatives, it’s only nuanced as long as the weasel words fit the bottom line.
BDBlue
The repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn’t only the right’s fault, but if you will remember the GOP controlled Congress at the time it passed. So it’s not like it was something Clinton or the Dems did on their own. Clinton shouldn’t have signed it, but it was pushed by the GOP and they deserve a great deal of the blame (which does not make Clinton blameless). And a lot of the lousy effects of Glass-Steagall were magnified by the complete gutting of the regulatory agencies that later occurred under Bush (fun fact, the GOP controlled Congress repeatedly refused to give the SEC more people under Clinton to hamper the agencies’ enforcement efforts).
The decision not to regulate derivatives was a Clinton Administration mistake, but the mistake was in following a right-wing policy. The right has never been advocating for MORE regulation. So while I think ultimately the responsibility is on Clinton and his folks, lets not pretend the right was advocating a different policy. In fact, I think the Clinton administration would’ve had a difficult time regulating derivatives with a GOP Congress there to try to stop them. That does not, however, excuse their unwillingness to try (or the active support of no regulation by guys like Summers).
I think it’s a huge mistake for those on the left to constantly blame Clinton for things where he was primarily enacting conservative policy (this is not the same thing as saying Clinton doesn’t deserve blame). Whether we like it or not, he’s associated with the public’s mind with the left (even though he was a centrist). When you blame him, you let the GOP and conservatives off the hook and are hurting liberals and helping conservatives’ in the long run because then we’re going to be blamed for the failed conservative policy because it’s associated with the “liberal” Clinton. Democrats made the same mistake, IMO, with Lyndon Johnson. So angry about the war, they were unable to tout his important and historic domestic achievements like Medicare.
All of which brings me to my bipartisan point about Ian’s post, which is that I’m not sure it’s so much that the Democrats don’t understand the new politics as they’re willing to live with it. Most of them will keep their seats if the Republicans regain power and will be there to take power back in a few election cycles. The rest will go on to very highly paid lobbying and consultant jobs. There is really no reason for any of our elected officials to give a damn about the election cycle bouncing between the two parties. The only person who might care is the President because 1) you only get two terms and 2) in the end, history will give all the credit or blame to you, which is why we now get comments blaming Clinton for Glass-Steagall while the very corrupt point person on it, Phil Gramm doesn’t get mentioned.
BDBlue
Should’ve added that I hate Phil Gramm. To the extent any one person is responsible for the mess we’re in, he’s one of the leading candidates for that position.
The Raven
“preventing regulation of otc derivatives the right’s fault? or repeal of glass steagall? or more recently telco immunity and walking back fisa law?”
Half of the Senate Democrats are conservative. Didn’t you know?
Ian, I think this is the normal historical state of the Senate: a deadlock dominated by conservatives. The Senate I remember from 1965-75 was an anomaly. I think the customs that maintain the deadlock emerged at the beginning of the Republic, as part of the South’s long battle to maintain its slave system. It would behoove us, I think, to substantially reform or abolish the Senate.
Croak!
AR
Obama’s continuous call for ‘bipartisanship’ is clearly meant to stonewall liberals/progressives in Congress. It is a calculated way of taking advantage of the Republican obstructionism to ensure the New Democrats/Hamilton Project achieve their goals and no reform is accomplished.
So many are calling out Obama for a lack of leadership wrt Congress. But they fail to understand that Obama apparently wants gridlock, or else he wouldn’t insist on ‘bipartisanship.’ Why else would he be pursuing this strategy? It’s not very pragmatic if he has an agenda he’s pursuing other than status quo.
selise
BDBlue – phil gramm deserves every bit of blame he gets, but he didn’t do it on his own. and as far as i can tell that story of secretly slipping in the CFMA is not supported by the historical record. i went back and spent days reading hearing transcripts, watching c-span archives, etc, etc. and the fact is that the clinton administration was right in the middle of trying to prevent the cftc from regulation otc derivatives.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/2141
p.s. and here are my diaries on glass steagall and fisa, just for the record:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/3828
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/11/75618/7060
zot23
Unfortunately, short of a constitutional convention we are stuck with the overall congressional structure we currently have. The best way to change this system would be to concentrate on the few things we can (and are possible to) do. I would start with pushing for an elimination of the filibuster. In the past, it has been curtailed from 70 to 66 votes, then from 66 to 60. It would be much less difficult to lower it from 60 to 55 (or to get rid of it altogether except in limited circumstances) than to change the entire structure of American elections and politics.
Maybe someday we get to a truly better structure, but for the next few years we are genuinely stuck.
S Brennan
While I think this argument was germane up to 2006, perhaps 2006-08, but certainly not now. The democrats have a super majority and yet they have no desire to enforce party discipline except where it is a benefit in passing/ reviving right wing legislation. See Obama’s action on TARP, FISA, Iraq war funding, Health Insurance bailout, escalating the Af-Pak war, [Tax cuts to the wealthy Stimulus], extending Bush tax cuts and coming soon the destruction of Social Security and Medicare. Like Bush, Obama is passing right wing legislation with ease. So when Matt Y, [who BTW, was a big booster of the Iraq invasion] writes this, he is writing an apologia for Obama. It’s another Obama “if the Czar only knew” Supporter putting a little “helpless Nell” sprinkling on top.
Here’s a man who didn’t make excuses, even though the fates sought to cripple him.
FDR in his in his first moments in office warns in a speech the Republicans left in congress and the Supreme court…work with me or face the US Army, not a revolution, but rather he plans to lead a revolt to “provide for the general welfare”…as was his duty by oath.
Go read it. Go read what a leader does at a crucial moment.
S Brennan
From 07 Dec 08 this blog
[and this is important for the Obama (his hands are tied) crowd]:
“But in the event that the Congress shall fail …I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5057/
tjfxh
Ian: “This is something that many Democrats, especially older ones who came from a more genteel era, or those who some sort of strange genetic disposition to compromise (Obama) don’t seem to get. But Republicans get it in their limbic system.”
Yup. And it leads to the perception that Dems are spineless wonks, lack leadership, and are “girlie-men,” i.e., unable to govern. This perception seems to be about right.
Of course, this doesn’t take into account the effect of bias introduced by the necessity to raise huge amounts of campaign cash for the elite, while supposedly representing grassroots interests.
The GOP, on the other hand, unabashedly represents the elite and uses Straussian principles to bring along the “rabble” by fooling them into voting against their own real interests by voting their “values” instead.
Oh, when are we going to get a decent Democratic Party?
tjfxh
BDBlue, right on the details but misses the major point. Bill Clinton appointed Robert Rubin his Treasury secretary and listened to him over liberals like Robert Reich, who were marginalized. Ruben and his proteges like Larry Summers sold out Main Street to Wall Street, and now under Barack Obama they are at it again.
See Matt Taibbi for the details:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/12/12/on-obamas-sellout-bailout-tarp-rubin-goldman-sachs-robert-bob-tim-geithner-hamilton-project-derivatives-financial-reform-citibank/
bayville
BD Blue, Democrats deserve an enormous amount of blame for repeal of Glass-Steagal.
It was passed by the Senate 90-8 and by the House 362-57 – with a popular Dem President at the time. Dems don’t deserve most of the blame but obviously willing co-conspirators. Let’s not rewrite history, Clinton (and the DLC philosophy) deserves a tremendous amount of criticism for today’s economy.
Cujo359
I’d be happier with the current system if Democrats used it as effectively as Republicans. Unfortunately, they refuse. What’s worse, that disparity just perpetuates the system, because as long as it works for Republicans and not for Democrats, they don’t have an incentive to change it.
lambert strether
I think the key graf is BDBlue’s here:
Exactly. So there needs to be at least some fraction of the left that’s not invested at all in either of the two legacy parties — or at least in electing them, because although they may wear different colored tights in the arena, they all hang out in the same bar after the show is done. To wax metaphorical:
No, the Ds and the Rs are not “the same.” But they are part of a single entrenched system that has managed to place itself beyond electoral acccountability.
Ian Welsh
I make no claim this is the only problem, merely that it is one of the problems.
jo6pac
No, the Ds and the Rs are not “the same.” But they are part of a single entrenched system that has managed to place itself beyond electoral acccountability.
Ahem to that.
BDBlue you forgot the wonderful little lady wendy gramm, she was very hopeful also.
S Brennan
“I make no claim this is the only problem” – Ian Welsh
Agreed, what follows is wholly and completely owned by Obama…today’s Democratic leadership, high-profile progressives such as Marshall, Ezra, Matt Y, Matt T, Drum, Digby, Walsh and others
“…it is astonishing to see what has been the main reaction to Barack Obama’s escalation…While voicing their “disappointment” with the decision…No, that’s not a joke. The new progressive line on the escalation seems to be this: “We knew all along he was going to do it, so what’s the big deal?”
That has been the chief response from such high-profile progressives as Digby and Joan Walsh. They seem far more worked up about the fact that some people (such as Tom Hayden, Gary Wills, and others) are accusing Obama of “betrayal” than they are about the thousands of innocent people who will die…Digby writes: “I never had any illusions about where he and most of the other Democrats were headed with the “Good War” narrative…It’s true that Obama made no secret of his intent to escalate the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and anyone who didn’t expect him to do so was being willfully blind, or naive.
On the other hand, what these savvy commentators fail to note is that Obama has already escalated the Af-Pak war, earlier in his term — an escalation as large as Bush’s “surge” in Iraq. And obviously, this effort didn’t work; hence the latest “strategic review” that led to Obama’s fateful West Point speech. So although Obama did promise to escalate the Af-Pak conflict during the campaign, he did not promise to keep doing it, over and over, even in the face of obvious failure. Thus it is not inherently “silly” or irrational for an Obama supporter like Hayden or Wills to feel betrayed by this second escalation, and by the transparently specious rationales that Obama offered for it.”
http://www.chris-floyd.com/
jcbhan
good to see yglasias get it. i too have been harping on this fact religiously as well. unfortunately we still have a lot of dems who were around during the 80s, when our institutions were working “well” in the sense that the dems were working with Reagan to humanize a bit his reforms. The republicans have purged their moderates- we haven’t yet. I believe that’s really our job- the activist left needs to support young candidates in particular who have no memory of this era.
I also think its important to keep pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with what the GOP is doing. They are being a smart institutional actor. They are evil, but its not their adoption of parliamentary style politics that makes them so. What’s wrong is the failure of Obama and the Senate leadership to take the uncomfortable steps it needs to discipline its caucus.
S Brennan
“I believe that’s really our job- the activist left needs to support young candidates in particular who have no memory of this era.” – jcbhan
Yeah, that’ll do it…
lambert strether
jcbhan, “no memory”? Wouldn’t “never forget, never forgive” be more appropriate? As a way of ensuring “never again”?
Mandos
The “strange genetic disposition to compromise” is possible a generational one, relating to Sesame Street upbringing and Sesame Street morality that pervades a lot of “liberal America” in my experience. I dunno if this ever happened in the American Sesame Street, but in the Canadian one we had singer Raffi sing:
“It’s mine, but you can have some,
With you I’d like to share with,
‘Cause if I share it with you,
You’ll have some too.”
I’m not saying that this isn’t a good moral. The problem is that it is massively reinforced, without also a reminder of the corollary: that I will have less—that this sharing is not an untrammeled good, but entails a sacrifice.
Oh, by itself, it suffices to create well-behaved children who play nice with one another.
But it’s globally suboptimal to teach children that without also teaching them the moral of expecting reciprocation.
I read and heard lots of people during the election say that they wanted to “end the divisiveness” and bring about Unity. That was part of Obama’s appeal. What many seemed not to consider was that the divisiveness had another side to it, and that one way of ending divisiveness was capitulation.
Mandos
(The corollary is that there is a segment of the American population that has learned the inverse of this: that reciprocation will not be expected, or worse, should not be given to fools willing to part with their money for a good feeling. Either way, the large-scale social expectation of reciprocal friendship is not reinforced or implemented.)
Mandos
This may also tie in with the influence of Christian right. Christianity teaches that the highest form of love is self-sacrifice. For some of the Christian right—particularly “prosperity gospel” evangelicals and the like—Jesus Christ expresses his love for them via his sacrifice in the NT, and the implication taken away is not that they have to sacrifice in commemoration of Christ, but rather that they are to be sacrificed for.
On the other side, the doctrine in certain Protestant sects of being saved by grace rather than works has the psychological implication that self-sacrificial love is the highest form of love.
But a functioning society doesn’t work that way, because we’re not all lambs, nor perhaps should we be all lambs. Love in a functioning society rightly entails a reciprocal expectation of respect.
Mandos
As a child watching Canadian Sesame Street, I cheekily made up my own version of Raffi’s song, because as an eldest child I was rarely ever in a sharing mood!
“It’s mine, so you can’t have some,
With you I’ll never share with,
‘Cause if I share it with you,
I’ll have less.”
My father was at the time forced to admit that my response to the song was perfectly logical/correct/true. As I rarely hesitate to give myself credit, I like to think I was also being precocious and prescient. 🙂
The song, with a video of cute doggies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpB3mEXO6rk
Carolyn Kay
>>the activist left needs to support young candidates
Isn’t that what they thought they were doing with Obama? Ha, ha, fooled THEM!
>>‘Cause if I share it with you,
I’ll have less.
Perhaps, in the short run. But in the long run EVERYONE will have more, because the economy is not a zero sum game. Read some Krugman.
But the attitude you express here, Mandos, is exactly what the right wing espouses, which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus preached. I’m not a Christian, but I’m a better Christian in practice than most who profess to be one.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Carolyn Kay
>>many Democrats, especially older ones who came from a more genteel era, or those who some sort of strange genetic disposition to compromise
I remember the more genteel era, and it was a time when the right-wing crazies were marginalized. Their crackpot ideas weren’t discussed in the major media, or given any credence.
It has taken many years of relentless brownshirt tactics against the media by the right wing plus carrots dangled by their bosses to give us a media that consider, as Andrea Mitchell did when she interviewed Al Gore recently, crazy sloganeering by a right-wing opportunist to be equal to his considered study of the climate situation over many years.
And just so you’ll know, I started to realize what was happening as soon as I found out how Newt Gingrich obtained his victory in taking over the House in 1994–by vicious, hateful, swift boat style tactics. So those of us who remember a more genteel era aren’t necessarily the ones insisting that we not fight the hateful tactics.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Lex
I don’t know what the average age of the US Congress is, but i doubt that Sesame Street is to blame. Sesame Street started broadcasting in 1969, so Mandos’ theory might be applicable to politicians who were toddlers then or after. But if that’s the case, they all seemed to miss the teaching of literacy, humor, basic mathematics and compassion.
I think that the issue is far more base than a willingness to share.
chicago dyke
i get annoyed when i consider where we could be if we’d taken the challenge more seriously in 2000. i have accepted that gore himself put a lock down on challenging the bogus SCOTUS ruling, but from that point forward all progressive and liberal groups should’ve united in one aim: true electoral reform and the election of progressives via targeted primary challenges. these work, even when progressive candidates don’t win; cf Spectre. anyhoo, we’ll pay the price for taking a 10-20yr ‘time out’ on developing solutions to our modern challenges, but these particular dems likely will not. tony blair is a much, much wealthier man today than when he started in this biz, i’m just sayin.
there’s so much to do, and if more than a few problems of our blow up at the same time, which is probable if not highly likely, that will almost certainly mean a populist panic resulting in an even more imperial form of government. in this respect, the Left blew it as much as the right fucked it all up. we should’ve used this time strengthening our electoral muscles, making ready for crucially timed battles. we didn’t. instead, there was a lot of techno navel gazing, bitter lamentation making, and chasing after the brass SCLM ring. which not incidentally, has resulted in some people having ‘access’ with a top down centrist preznitcy. which is great for them, for now, mostly. but they will find out that there is no issue, no cow too sacred, to be offered up on the altar of bipartisanship. the moderate is the one who takes it all away, the populist ideologue is the one who rises to power by promising to replace that.
Carolyn Kay
>>from [2000] forward all progressive and liberal groups should’ve united in one aim: true electoral reform and the election of progressives via targeted primary challenges
But that’s not all. That’s not NEARLY all.
We have to consider the impact of the right-wing message machine and develop a way to counter it. How can it be that the vast majority of Americans agree with us on most progressive issues, but consider themselves conservatives? How is it that over and over again that message machine manages to control elections?
How is it that we keep closing our eyes to the most important problem facing us?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Mandos
Oh sure, I totally agree. When I made up that song, I was a three-year-old. My point is that in order to have a functioning society, we need people not only to be willing to share, but be willing to make demands.
What we have now is an unbalanced society where a large part of the population doesn’t know how to make demands, and a large part of the population knows only to make demands and even sees the point of religion itself as ego-satisfaction without obligation.
Mandos
I also doubt that Sesame Street is the main thing to blame. I was using it as an example or bellwether of memes that are attractive to various parts of the public psyche, and how these memes reflect themselves in electoral outcomes.
In countries with a history of a strong left (for instance, France), not only does the population expect to share via government programs, but also to demand from them, at the same time.
A lot of Obama’s popularity stemmed from the Unity meme. Why the Unity meme was popular with his base (not anyone around here, I think) is what I am trying to explain. The Unity meme is the alibi for all the “bipartisan” compromising he telegraphed he would do, and did.
lambert strether
ChicagoDyke writes:
Maybe. Who could have controlled the timer on the battles? And I’m not so sure on the techno navel gazing. The technology is important, especially if you don’t want all lines of communication to switch through Versailles.