How moderation got taken off the map
Måndag, 1. Mars 2010  5 kommentti(a) |
 Toby Archer
forskare The leader article in the past week’s Economist magazine asks “What’s gone wrong in Washington?” This is a fair question: Barack Obama, elected less than two years ago with, by US standards, a good majority and with his party also having a majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives has been unable to pass health care reform – his domestic policy priority. When the electorate in 2008 clearly voted for Democrats over Republicans, why is it the Democrats can not pass their flagship policy? In part this is because of the odd procedures of the US Senate where the filibuster rule, that allows the minority to ‘talk out’ legislation stopping it from passing, has in recent decades made super-majorities necessary. 60 out of 100 senators need to vote in favour of (proposed) legislation in order to avoid the filibuster threat. With Republican Scott Brown recently having taken the seat previously held by Democrat Ted Kennedy, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Before it was desirable to have some Republicans vote with them to show bipartisan support for legislation, now it is vital – but there is no bipartisan support. The House shows the same lack of willingness to find bipartisan solutions; Republican representatives who have co-sponsored legislation with Democrat colleagues have subsequently voted against their own initiatives, aware that if they vote with Democrats, this would be used against them by primary challenges when they stand to be reselected as their party’s candidate in their district. This is the dilemma facing moderate senators as well who do not want to be outflanked on their right in their own states. What accounts for this polarization in Congress? Whilst the various states of the US have become increasingly polarised between Red and Blue, this isn’t the whole story. The issue of “re-districting” or gerrymandering also plays a central role. In many states, what constitutes an electoral district is not decided by a judge or some independent expert panel using census data, rather it is a political deal stitched up between the parties. This leads to ridiculously shaped electoral districts that have been mapped purely to encompass voters who favour one party over the other. This creates large numbers of very uncompetitive districts where only the representative of one party will ever win. Hence the political fight takes place within the parties over who gets to stand, and not between the parties. Within the parties, activists hold sway - be they special interest groups or simply just the most politicized and committed individuals, meaning the Democrats become ever more ‘liberal’ as Americans would say (i.e. left-leaning) and the Republicans pick ever more conservative candidates for their safe seats. The result of this process seems to be legislative gridlock
in Washington,
and ever more disillusionment on the part of the electorate. Increasingly it looks as if the only possible way to get healthcare reform through the Congress would be for the Democrats to use the Reconciliation process in the Senate - a rarely used procedure that allows the passing of a bill with a simple majority. This procedure was used by the Bush administration to pass its early tax cuts, but using it destroys any claim to a bipartisan approach that Obama has struggled to find. Expect more partisanship and brutal politics as a result. Inläggen representerar skribenternas egna åsikter |
Keskustelu (5 kommenttia)The Constitution states that the House and Senate can set their own rules, it makes no mention of the filibuster. So the filibuster and the supermajority needed for cloture are political issues, not constitutional issues. 1.) I never said that the filibuster option was mentioned in the Constitution, but that you considered it odd. I said the Senate has "odd procedures", please read "odd" as 'unusual' or 'interesting' if you prefer. Cloture, the filibuster, and the reconciliation of budgetary legislation are all interesting in that they differ from the simple idea of votes in which a simple majority passes or rejects a motion. Of course all democratic systems have their individual differences like this - but it just happens we are all learning about reconciliation and the history of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate currently. "People heard his message and the majority voted for it. It is therefore interesting to ask why, in that case, he hasn't been able to pass it?" |
Osallistu keskusteluun |
E-post
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Delicious
Mera
Scriv ut
Dear Mr.Archer
There are a few points I would like to draw to your attention to. You are absolutely correct in your observation concerning electoral districts. There are many of these districts that are entirely uncompetitive, I believe one that captures this mindset is the one district in N.Carolina, it's shaped like a long pencil with two blobs on either end just to make sure it elects an African American.
This kind of gerrymandering as you asy, ensures that the Dems and Repubs, who cut these deals, assures themselves safe seats. All-black districts and rich liberals and Jews = Dems district, middle class and lower middle class (gun-totin trailer parks) = Repubs district. It's one of those ugly side-effects from the civil rights era. So you're right, the current system is hideous. It guarantees incumbency, so that nothing changes until the entire system breaks down.
The solution is for the development of geographic districts, and not caring whether we elect blacks, hispanics, laotians, etc., but since the Democrats look at everything through the prism of group rights, and race, I doubt change will be in the immediate future, which is too bad, because there is a desperate need to abandon the stupid policies of political correctness and choose one man, one vote, and be colorblind in everything, but it won't happen before the system collapses, and people choose to move beyond race oriented group policies. (Namely the Dems).
For the current president to present himself as a bridge between this political dilemma, he has surely chosen to opt for the policies of the failed past, with Chicago-like politics (mean and ugly back room chicanery) being the hallmark of his administration, future generations will have to implement these badly needed changes.
Now, where health care is concerned, you ask "why is it the Democrats can not pass their flagship policy?" The reason being that most Americans were not familiar with the politics of the man they were voting in favor of, they believed him to be a moderate, transitional president, not the far-Left leaning socialist that he showing himself to be. Why people are up in arms over health care, hence the town hall outbursts and rallys, is that they were left clueless about a man the Main Stream Media failed to vet.
Thankfully the US Senate does in fact have the right to filibuster (which you oddly label ...odd) any legislation that comes its way, so nothing, especially something as far-reaching as this helath-care legislation, cannot be rammed through just because one party has a one person majority. I hope you're not in favor of raw democracy, because that would place you at odds with the US Founding Fathers, who built the US Constitution to safeguard the US Republic, not a democracy, because a democracy, especially one that's led by statists, leads to tyranny.
The "gridlock" you're referring to in Congress, is in fact a GOOD THING, for the US Consititution safeguards the people's right to protest any measure through their elected officials, to stall, say no, filibuster, drag their feet and hold on, until elections are held every two years to ensure a shift of balance in power. That's the fundamental difference between US and European parliamentary politics.
That there is deadlock, dissension, outright hostility between the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches, is a healthy sign that the US Constitution is healthy and working. In the end, its the people's vote that decides what policy is correct, and will be corrected in the future, not elitist politicians. The reason why the media and electorate are not harping on the points I raise, is that they are largely ignorant of the US Consititution. Those who are ignorant of it, point to "gridlock" and battles between the three balances of power, as being something bad. It's not.
As for the Reconciliation Process, it's a method used by both sides of the political aisle, but never in such a case with such far reaching implications. The US President, while a Senator swore that health care would never be decided by such a meaure, well now we know that he lied, and on repeated occasions. You point to polarized/politicized, drawing the line in the sand politics as being bad. The US Constitution differs with your assessment. When the Republican Party was the party of NO during the slave years, being in stark opposition to the Democratic party, it was a good thing that they were.
With socialized health-care, the Democratic party, with Pres.Obama leading the charge, are seeking to fundamentally rearrange the relationship between the US citizen and the state, in a way never imagined by the US's Founding Fathers, and I believe if they were alive today, they would be the loudest voices in the room shouting for a filibuster and telling the people to get their politicians to drag their heels. That's the way the US system of government, resting upon the US Constitution (the greatest human document ever crafted) was designed.