Posts Tagged ‘obstructionism’
Lunatics and Asylums
Via Steve Benen, I see that Paul Krugman’s column today addresses a particular concern of this blog over the last few months, the long-term consequences of a GOP “taken over by the people it used to exploit”:
In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.
In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.
That a radicalized GOP will degrade to permanent minority status but still retain enough power to obstruct constructive legislation is certainly a concern. But the bigger concern, as I’ve written a few times before, is that eventually the Democrats will have bad luck and the logic of the two party system will propel the Palinized Republicans back into power—at which time the lunatics really will be in charge of the asylum.
Quick Links
Quick links.
* At a newly revitalized Bitter Laughter: 73% of American Medical Association doctors want a public option.
* In the New Yorker, two takedowns of GOP insanity and obstructionism.
* Wal-Mart: actually not so great. Via MeFi, which includes a bonus link to a nice take-off on Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced capitalism is indistinguishable from socialism Soviet-style state capitalism.
* Also via MeFi: The New York Times’s Toxic Waters: “A series about the worsening pollution in American waters and regulators’ response.”
* And the thing from my lists I most enjoyed reading today just happens to be online: Thomas Pynchon’s “Is it O.K. to be a Luddite?” (UPDATE: My drive towards procrastination compelled me to write a brief HASTAC post on this.)
By 1945, the factory system — which, more than any piece of machinery, was the real and major result of the Industrial Revolution — had been extended to include the Manhattan Project, the German long-range rocket program and the death camps, such as Auschwitz. It has taken no major gift of prophecy to see how these three curves of development might plausibly converge, and before too long. Since Hiroshima, we have watched nuclear weapons multiply out of control, and delivery systems acquire, for global purposes, unlimited range and accuracy. An unblinking acceptance of a holocaust running to seven- and eight-figure body counts has become — among those who, particularly since 1980, have been guiding our military policies — conventional wisdom.
To people who were writing science fiction in the 50’s, none of this was much of a surprise, though modern Luddite imaginations have yet to come up with any countercritter Bad and Big enough, even in the most irresponsible of fictions, to begin to compare with what would happen in a nuclear war. So, in the science fiction of the Atomic Age and the cold war, we see the Luddite impulse to deny the machine taking a different direction. The hardware angle got de-emphasized in favor of more humanistic concerns — exotic cultural evolutions and social scenarios, paradoxes and games with space/time, wild philosophical questions — most of it sharing, as the critical literature has amply discussed, a definition of “human” as particularly distinguished from “machine.” Like their earlier counterparts, 20th-century Luddites looked back yearningly to another age — curiously, the same Age of Reason which had forced the first Luddites into nostalgia for the Age of Miracles.
Abolishing the Filibuster
Matt Yglesias has a good post explaining why it’s not merely special pleading when liberals and progressives argue to abolish the filibuster after making use of it during the Bush years when we were in the minority. (It’s especially not special pleading on Matt’s part, who, if I remember correctly, opposed the filibuster even when it was saving us from unbridled Bushism. He was more or less wrong then—we needed it badly—but he’s pretty much right now.)
As Matt notes, the filibuster has moved from a comparatively rare measure of last resort to the first option on the table, leading to a widening perception that it does or should take 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. There are three plateaus on the chart: the Reagan/Bush years, the Clinton-and-then-Bush-2 years, and the post-2006 pre-post-Bush environment. We can draw two conclusions from this:
1) Republicans are driving this movement, as the leaps in intensity correspond to moments of Republican Party weakness (the 1990s, 2006-2008);
2) there are way too many filibusters nowadays.
What we need to do, of course, is abolish the Senate entirely. But failing that we need to weaken the filibuster significantly. As a procedural loophole it can function as an important minoritarian protection, as it did against the ideological extremism of the GOP over the last decade—but it can remain so only in a context in which it is not being used routinely. Either the Republicans reign in the obstructionism or the Democrats reign it in for them.
Meanwhile, no one outside the Beltway cocktail circuit has any use for the Republican party.