A case against polarization

[Ian McColgin]

'Even Worse Than It Looks': Extremism In Congress?
by NPR STAFF
April 30, 2012

Congressional scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein are no strangers to D.C. politics. The two of them have been in Washington for more than 40 years.

They came together in 2006 to write a book about dysfunction in Congress, called The Broken Branch. But their assessment of Congress today is even more dire — so dire, they've called their new book It's Even Worse Than It Looks.

Mann, a senior fellow of the Brookings Institution, and Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), join Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep to talk about the book, which comes out this week.

The book claims that democracy in America is being endangered by extreme politics. From the first day of the Obama administration, Ornstein says, our constitutional system hasn't been allowed to work.

"When we did get action, half the political process viewed it as illegitimate, tried to undermine its implementation, and moved to repeal it," Ornstein says.

Ornstein and Mann make no secret of who they blame for most of the dysfunction in Congress.

"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier – ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition," they write.

Ornstein says some of his colleagues at AEI, which is known as a conservative-leaning think tank, "are going to be quite uncomfortable" with him getting behind such a statement.

"We didn't come to this conclusion lightly," he says. He points out that he and Mann have been highly critical of both parties in previous works. For example, they called the Democrats "arrogant, condescending, [and] complacent" after Democrats had been in the majority for 40 consecutive years up to 1994.

"But for Republicans currently inside Congress, you have a new set of litmus tests and a new outlook that leads them in directions where you can't say that there is such a thing as climate change, you take positions on things like immigration that are simply off the rails, and if you compromise, you are basically defiling what the party stands for," Ornstein says.

"We're not exactly neutral or balanced, are we?" says Mann. But a central message of their book, he says, is that norms of non-partisanship in the media and elsewhere sometimes do "a disservice to the reality."

"It disarms the electorate in a democracy when you really need an ideological outlier to be reined in by an active, informed public," Mann says.

Mann and Ornstein recognize that many people will likely be skeptical of the argument that things in Congress today are so much worse than they used to be.

Last year, Ornstein wrote a piece for Foreign Policy magazine about the 112th Congress titled "Worst. Congress. Ever." He says a lot of people wrote to him and said, "Oh, come on, what about the period right before the Civil War?"

"And I said, 'I'll grant you that. Do you really want to be compared to the period right before the Civil War?' You know, maybe we are better than we were in the period leading up to the Civil War, but that left us with a virtual fracture in our society. We don't want to see that happen," Ornstein says.

Some might argue, however, that a politics of extremes is necessary at times. Solutions are not necessarily to be found in the middle — sometimes we may have to go to the edges to solve our problems.

"I think that's a reasonable argument," Mann says. "I don't believe in a golden mean; I don't believe you find policy wisdom between two polar points. I don't dismiss that possibility, but I look at the platform that's so ideologically based, that's so dismissive of facts, of evidence, of science, and it's frankly hard to take seriously."

Ornstein adds: "We're not against conservatives. Some of our heroes are very, very strong conservatives here. We're not against strong liberals, either. ... The problem is not one that is resolved by just turning it over to one side to do simplistic solutions that are based on more wishful thinking than reality. It's finding that hard reality."

# # #

[Clearly, I'll be getting the book soon. Looks fascinating.]

[Osborne Russell]

The polarization is mostly political, not ideological. It's one strategy to adopt to a winner-take-all game.

In order to make it look ideological, the right has to take extreme positions, such as involuntary vaginal penetration. Outside the political context, the bulk of Republicans would be horrified by such things. They had to be led there by the party propagandists, who believe they have to be progressively outrageous in order to get attention. They're right of course, but to what extent? The limit hasn't been found yet. Sure Santorum got denied, but that's only one failure of one bid to go nation-wide. Several states have been captured by the far right and they will find someone stronger to put forward as President in the coming years.

"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier – ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition," they write.

This is the real deal. It's the little people dreaming of being giant killers. They know the giant is out there because they themselves feel small.

[Ian McColgin]

I agree that those doing the polarizing are not ideological, at least not in a coherent manner. They are an interesting experiment in manipulating the dark side of American populism and combining it with an apparent willingness to 'go nuclear' over almost everything.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Good piece, Ian! I fear the next step might be a "Throw The Bums In Washington Out!! ALL OF THEM!!!" Demagogue able to mass enthusiastic crowds of an uncritical electorate, like Hitler did.

[Rich Jones]

How much of this is caused/supported by 24 hour cable pundits? Fox, Limbaugh, MSNBC all rant and rave their positions. Limbaugh is by far the worse. I find him a true threat to democracy. Elected Republicans who try to defy him are subjected to his vile hate. Weak minded voters are then told to kick them out of office. So, these politians foresake their ideals and, with tails between their legs, submit to tyranny.
Likewise, clowns like Norquist telling Republican politians to line up behind him or face his considerable wrath.
Until we find a way to neutralize the Fox/Rush threat to our democracy, this horrible trend will continue.
MSNBC has it's rant's, but all in all, they follow logic, not hate filled lies and misleading statements.

[BrianW]

As Mark would say... "vote'em all out you sheeple!"

I'm willing to ditch my representatives.

[Norman Bernstein]

As Mark would say... "vote'em all out you sheeple!"

I'm willing to ditch my representatives.

On what basis would you think the replacements would be any different?

[skuthorp]

"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier – ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition,"
Same applies in present Australian politics exactly, sad to say. Our version of the GOP is firmly attached to the 'divine right to rule' principle, if that position possesses any principle at all.

[BrianW]

On what basis would you think the replacements would be any different?

Because... they would be different people?

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

I like polarized glasses.

[Norman Bernstein]

The rather common sentiment usually expressed as 'throw the bums out' is the simple minded, and clearly unworkable, solution that many people still believe is the solution to the problems of Congress.

I disagree.

In any case of an elected representative body, the legislators will respond to the consitions and environment provided by the existing system.... and we've got a system designed to corrupt. When we 'throw them all out', the replacements will only be the same, because the system insures that it will be the case.

The solutions to this problem are exactly the ones that the current crop of legislators don't want, for reasons that ought to be obvious... but if we were serious about reforming the behavior of congress, there are MANY things we could do.... barring, of course, an activist Supreme Court blocking the way.

1) Demand that every legislator put the entirety of their assets in a blind trust during their period of service, and prohibit them from raising any personal money via speeches, books, or other extracurricular efforts during their terms. This weeds out the ones who serve primarily for the purpose of 'cashing in', and insures that their entire focus will be on their jobs, not their wallets. Yes, this would have prevented Obama from releasing his book, 'The Audacity of Hope'.... as well as preventing all the other senators and congressmen who make their fortunes by distributing favors to lobbyists.

2) Prohibit any legislator from working for any corporation or constituent with whom they have had any influence, via their votes, during their terms of service, for a period of five years after they leave office. Replace this with a short term pension which covers their salary for those five years. The object is not to punish them for their service... but to insure that they aren't lining up their economic future while in office.

3) Convert to a publicly financed campaign system. We may not be able to do anything about Super PACs, due to the Citizens United decision, but we can at least do a lot more to suppress the 'wink and a nod' situation we have now, were SuperPAC's don't 'officially' coordinate with a campaign... but for all intents and purpose, they might as well. combined with #1 and #2 above, this will suppress the efforts of big money contributors to buy their legislators via the PACs... if the legislators themselves don't see a potential benefit in being corrupted, then big money will be less inclined to try.

4) Prohibit ALL 'gifts' and other considerations from lobbyists, on an absolute basis.... no more meals, golf outings, flights on private jets, etc. The current system is 'leaky'.

The net effect: to attract people to national service in Congress out of sincere conviction, rather than self-interest.

[Norman Bernstein]

Because... they would be different people?

They will become the SAME people, when they get into office. See post #11

[Waddie]

As a libertarian/liberal on social issues and a conservative on financial issues I don't really have a dog in this fight as neither party has shown much fiscal restraint over the past 20 years or so. And it's only a matter of time before demographics makes the Republican party a permanent minority. Then it will be interesting to watch the Democratic party wrestle with the massive problems facing the nation. It's been a hoot watching California wriggle to and fro under the command of Democrats. Jerry Brown making cuts like he's a Republican in Democratic camouflage.

Maybe the Republicans made "compromise" a dirty word because to them it represents the proverbial "camel's nose under the tent". Maybe they feel that every time they "compromise" it ends up advancing the Democrat agenda that much further. And then the Democrats come back during the next term and want yet another "small" "compromise", until they get just about everything they want. Why would a Republican, who favors market reform to a nationalized health care system, "compromise" on the health care act when the end result is still nationalized health care? Maybe this same Republican suspects the ultimate goal of the Democrats is single payer nationalized health care, and the Democrat's strategy is to get one "small compromise" after another until that goal is achieved.

In the final analysis, though, the Democrat's will win out, as it's a numbers game. I think then the nation will miss the lack of real opposition, and the Democrat's will have a devil of a time fulfilling the expectations they are inculcating in the general Democratic base.

regards,
Waddie

[2MeterTroll]

I would assume that throwing the whole lot out at the same time would simply kill the country. however: getting rid of the stagnant by voting out all of the incumbents till none of them have any real cronies on the hill, might be a workable solution. From my perspective its the entrenched power that is the problem, Every one of these guys wants to be on the winning team.

probably an artifact of being picked dead last for every competition as children.

[Norman Bernstein]

Why would a Republican, who favors market reform to a nationalized health care system, "compromise" on the health care act when the end result is still nationalized health care?

Maybe because they might finally face reality, and realize that health care is simply one of those things that does not work as an unregulated 'free market' kind of thing? And that every other nation in the developed world realized this decades ago, and as a consequence, have substantially less expensive health care with better results?

'Compromise' means that each side has to give in a little on their goals and ideologies. The AHCA represents a substantial compromise on the part of Democrats, who would much rather see nationalized health care.

What are the Republicans willing to compromise with?

[Osborne Russell]

How much of this is caused/supported by 24 hour cable pundits?

Most of it. These people, who never seemed to have found time to read any history or science, seem to find thousands of hours to listen to broadcasts -- note, no reading required. They are sub-literate, meaning, between illiterate and literate. They can read a stop sign.

Until we find a way to neutralize the Fox/Rush threat to our democracy, this horrible trend will continue.

All you can do in the end is argue and point the way out. It's an individual moral decision to suppress your own intellectual conscience and curiosity, and envy and hate those that don't suppress theirs.

Since they are fundamentally cowards they like to clump together and that's what the broadcasters are selling.

[Waddie]

Norman Bernstein;3396116]Maybe because they might finally face reality, and realize that health care is simply one of those things that does not work as an unregulated 'free market' kind of thing? And that every other nation in the developed world realized this decades ago, and as a consequence, have substantially less expensive health care with better results?

"Maybe because they might finally face reality"; Your "reality", like "truth", may be different to different people.

"health care is simply one of those things that does not work as an unregulated 'free market' kind of thing"; I think a Republican would say, how would you know, it's never been tried.

'Compromise' means that each side has to give in a little on their goals and ideologies. The AHCA represents a substantial compromise on the part of Democrats, who would much rather see nationalized health care.

"who would much rather see nationalized health care"; and there you have it, exactly why Republicans see no point in compromise, because the next term new bills will be introduced to further the country along that path.

"What are the Republicans willing to compromise with? ; A better question might be why should they compromise at all if the end result is the attainment of the Democrat agenda? Is it simply better to go down fighting, since demographics will undermine their status anyway?

If I were a Democrat I would welcome Republican intransigence; it should hasten their demise. But be careful what you wish for......

regards,
Waddie

[Ian McColgin]

I don't think that right wing broadcasters caused the polarized environment. We had about as much polarization in the immediate run-up to our Civil War and there were no broadcasters then, just broad sheets.

It's interesting to see how the South's cause, overtly in defence of slavery, was in the economic interest of only the very small minority of very wealthy southerners who owned slaves in any serious numbers. It's also interesting to note that these conservatives or right of that era kept up a frenzy of popular paranoia that the North was out to get them despite all the compromises that kept abolitionists from legally forcing the issue in the South. This paranoia was somehow fueled by the notion that if a slave-owner could not take slaves to any part of the Union, that was an assault on southern virtue.

The analysis by Mann and Ornstein draws striking similarities to those days. Nor is this a phenomenon unique to US society. The European right behaved much the same way in the wake of the "Year of Revolutions" and again in many places in the '30s.

Most non-liberal movements whether of the left or of the right are built on discontent. It just seems that the right is better able to focus its discontent on a non-compromise negative agenda.

[Norman Bernstein]

"health care is simply one of those things that does not work as an unregulated 'free market' kind of thing"; I think a Republican would say, how would you know, it's never been tried.

We have been doing it that way, forever... you can't say it hasn't been tried.

But, if you're satisfied with the way it is now.... and the way it's likely to become, if nothing changes, then what can I say. The net effect of the Romney-endorsed Ryan plan for health care is to reduce the rise of health care expenses by simply deleting more people from it... and reducing what aid there is, for it. Imagine replacing Medicare with a 'voucher' system (Ryan's plan) in which the value of the voucher grows far more slowly that the costs of health care.... eventually, overall health care costs decline, for no other reason than the fact that fewer people can afford it....

...and you think THAT is a solution?

"What are the Republicans willing to compromise with?

A better question might be why should they compromise at all if the end result is the attainment of the Democrat agenda? Is it simply better to go down fighting, since demographics will undermine their status anyway?

Ahhh, I get it. 'We're losing the demographic race, so we might as well jam up the works, and obstruct, for as long as we can."

This is pretty much the same philosophy as the Kamikaze pilots of WWII.

[Osborne Russell]

A better question might be why should they compromise at all if the end result is the attainment of the Democrat agenda?

This illustrates the point of the article. It's a zero sum game; a gain by the Democrats is by definition a loss by the Republicans because the the Democratic agenda is not in the public interest even if it does command a majority.

[Waddie]

Norman; We have been doing it that way, forever... you can't say it hasn't been tried.

Hey, I'm for single payer, but to be fair health care in this country has always been heavily regulated, especially by the states. Some states allow only a couple of providers to operate, and you can't buy coverage across state lines. And it can't be a true open market since it's never had any transparency at the hospital, doctor or insurer level. However, even if it were a true market system, it's probably not the best way to provide health care.

Norman; Ahhh, I get it. 'We're losing the demographic race, so we might as well jam up the works, and obstruct, for as long as we can."
This is pretty much the same philosophy as the Kamikaze pilots of WWII.

Now you got it. Eventually the Democrats will be in full control. It's really just a matter of time. Then the excuse that the Republicans "blocked everything in the Senate" won't wash, and it will be interesting to see how they handle total power. But like I said, be careful what you wish for..... a Democratic utopia might be less than you imagine.....

regards,
Waddie

[leikec]

Hey, I'm for single payer, but to be fair health care in this country has always been heavily regulated, especially by the states. Some states allow only a couple of providers to operate, and you can't buy coverage across state lines. And it can't be a true open market since it's never had any transparency at the hospital, doctor or insurer level. However, even if it were a true market system, it's probably not the best way to provide health care.






Now you got it. Eventually the Democrats will be in full control. It's really just a matter of time. Then the excuse that the Republicans "blocked everything in the Senate" won't wash, and it will be interesting to see how they handle total power. But like I said, be careful what you wish for..... a Democratic utopia might be less than you imagine.....

regards,
Waddie

Political parties evolve, and events tend to shape the electorate in ways that can't always be predicted. I'd not hold my breath waiting for a "permanent" democratic majority if I were you.

Jeff C

[Tom Montgomery]

This mess we find ourselves in is primarily the result of a largely cynical and uninvolved electorate.

Is the cable 24-hour news cycle a big contributing factor to this? You bet. Are the talk-radio demagogues a big contributing factor to this? You bet. My guess is more people are alienated by this nonsense than those who are energized by it.

But the fact is that most Americans do not bother to vote. Those who DO vote rarely or never write to their elected representatives expressing their opinion (whether by snail-mail, email, twitter or otherwise). The people who are really INVOLVED are largely the rabid partisans on both sides. The vast political center (what Richard Nixon characterized as the "silent majority") has mostly opted out of the process entirely.

A bad situation.

[Keith Wilson]

I suggest everybody read Mann And Ornstein's article - look here. The title is :Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

They're right.

[wardd]

someone explain the business model that makes a profit with cradle to grave medical care for everyone

[2MeterTroll]

the silent majority seem to be slipping away to the screaming foaming at the mouth wing-nuts. the problem is the majority out there is supposed to be what knocks the politics back to center.

This last election cycle folks where outraged over a country that had gone almost totally fascist; voting for change. Well a little changed, much of the fear is gone but any fundamental change in the country has continued to be non-apparent. IMO At the core of the problem is Education about, access to and direct response from the elected officials. A guy surrounded by security and staff that only lets vetted folks in earshot (most of whom seem to be in his fan club) is not accessible. A form letter is not a direct response. Education about the office held that is lagging by 170 years is not an education.

we no longer have an informed electorate or an educated electorate; one out of two would be a nice change now.

[Ian McColgin]

This thread is about the phenomenon of polarization, not the particular issue of health care finance which has had any number of threads of its own. If anyone has more to say on health care itself, perhaps a thread on that topic would be in order.

[Tom Montgomery]

Thank you, Ian.

If only more thread originators would hold posters accountable to staying on topic.

[PeterSibley]

"health care is simply one of those things that does not work as an unregulated 'free market' kind of thing"; I think a Republican would say, how would you know, it's never been tried.


"who would much rather see nationalized health care"; and there you have it, exactly why Republicans see no point in compromise, because the next term new bills will be introduced to further the country along that path.

regards,
Waddie

Do Republicans EVER look outside their borders other than to plan wars ?

[Waddie]

Thank you, Ian.

If only more thread originators would hold posters accountable to staying on topic.

Too bad, guys.....once you start a thread you don't control it. And the health care topic was only used as an example. Quit being so fascist - you don't run things yet....

regards,
Waddie

[Ian McColgin]

The health care finance reform is an interesting example since the law that was passed was essentially the Republican proposal, mandate and all, from earlier and is not unlike the Massachusetts law that the then governor took such credit for. The law's merits are not so relevant here as understanding why the Republicans have drawn such a hard line on the issue.

[BrianY]

If I were a Democrat I would welcome Republican intransigence; it should hasten their demise. But be careful what you wish for......

regards,
Waddie

meanwhile the country is going all to hell...that's nice. The problem is that neither the dems or repubs...but mostly the repubs IMO...care one wit about the good of the COUNTRY as opposed to the good of the PARTY. Welcoming the Republican intransigence is obviously something that only a Democrat who puts party over country would do.

We're all just fiddlin' away while Rome continues to burn. Call me a lunatic but I beginning to believe ol' TylerD and his talk of revolution.

[Waddie]

The health care finance reform is an interesting example since the law that was passed was essentially the Republican proposal, mandate and all, from earlier and is not unlike the Massachusetts law that the then governor took such credit for. The law's merits are not so relevant here as understanding why the Republicans have drawn such a hard line on the issue.

I thought it was the perfect example, since it is close to what Gingrich proposed back in the 80's, and is like the Massachusetts program. But since it was endorsed and promoted by a Democrat President it was their duty, I tell you, to oppose it with all their energy to the last breath----which they will.

But today I followed an interesting piece of pure politicking by the Democrats. Obama said he wouldn't wait for Congress to act on important issues, and said he has his people on the job every day looking for wrongs he can right by executive order. Apparently he could have ended discrimination on federal contracts by executive order today, but refused to sign it, and now says he is waiting on Congress to pass comprehensive reform....yeah, right.... John Stewart had a field day with it on his program. Can you say campaign issue ?? At the expense of Gays, women and blacks trying to scratch out a living.

Another Democrat issue I just don't agree with is Card Check. Essentially it does away with the secret ballot when voting on unionizing a workplace. I thought the secret ballot, or Australian ballot as it was once called, is a precious part of our American value system. I personally don't think anyone has a right to know who or what I for for, or against, no matter what, no exceptions. There is only one possible reason for wanting to know how someone voted in this "unionizing" circumstance...so union thugs would know whom to pressure. (Now, I don't think all union organizers are thugs, but the ones who favor Card Check are).

The Democrats aren't as bad as the Republicans, but they play some games, too.

Sorry about the thread drift....

regards,
Waddie

[Ian McColgin]

Those are issues about which one can argue, disagree, vote upon, and live with the result. Or are they? The polarization we see is the astounding plethora of issues - nearly anything Obama ends up agreeing with - that the Republicans are willing to stop the government over. That's why the whole "super-majority" bit.

To some extent absolute opposition is built into our system, like the presidential veto but while that needs a super majority to overcome, we now see in the Senate the minority parlimentary devices to have a super majority to even get a measure on the floor, to even talk about it.

It's not the individual issues. None of these is the end of civilization as we know it. It's the absolutist demand of "our way or no way."

[John Smith]

How much of this is caused/supported by 24 hour cable pundits? Fox, Limbaugh, MSNBC all rant and rave their positions. Limbaugh is by far the worse. I find him a true threat to democracy. Elected Republicans who try to defy him are subjected to his vile hate. Weak minded voters are then told to kick them out of office. So, these politians foresake their ideals and, with tails between their legs, submit to tyranny.
Likewise, clowns like Norquist telling Republican politians to line up behind him or face his considerable wrath.
Until we find a way to neutralize the Fox/Rush threat to our democracy, this horrible trend will continue.
MSNBC has it's rant's, but all in all, they follow logic, not hate filled lies and misleading statements.

Leads me to a couple of questions: First did anyone catch Maddow on Meet the Press discussing women getting less pay?

How does anyone hate Obama enough to vote for Romney?

[John Smith]

On what basis would you think the replacements would be any different?

I would guess it depend who is replaced by whom.

One of the problems in congress today is those who replaced members.

This gets back to the FOX et al lies. We have had a significant number of bills pass the House under Pelosi only to die in the senate, not for a lack of a majority vote, but for the lack ofa 60 vote majority. We've had bills in the senate where 57 - 59 democrats have voted FOR them but fell to the filibuster, and the democrats are somehow at fault for these bills not passing.

Meanwhile, we have seen republicans running states and what their "smaller, less intrusive" government looks like. I am unable to understand some of their positions, other than their religion is perhaps more important than our constitution. Obviously their pledge to Norquist is more important than our constitution.

I don't think it's a partisan observation, but an honest assessment of the facts, that leads me to say today's republicans scare the hell out of me.

[Garret]

Without 2 (or more) parties that are willing to talk to each other & compromise, the US will be a far worse place to live in. We need a debate from differing viewpoints.

I put a lot of blame on the Norquist pledge - but even more, the willingness of the folks who signed it to tie their hands by taking an absolute position. IMO, that's simply wrong.

[Osborne Russell]

But since it was endorsed and promoted by a Democrat President it was their duty, I tell you, to oppose it with all their energy to the last breath----which they will.

What is this duty that requires them to oppose that which they favor?

[skuthorp]

government, as opposed to Government, is the responsibility of the electorates representatives, that is their job, not to be spoilers, nay-sayers, obstructionist to any of their rivals policies without compromise or proper care. Ideology has become policy, those who seek power at any cost are in possession of the levers but not operating them.
In my blacker moments I envisage voting out every sitting member regardless of party for three elections in a row to break the party system and force, in our case, parliament, to operate as it was designed to.

[Waddie]

What is this duty that requires them to oppose that which they favor?

Their duty to oppose ANYTHING favored by Obama, even if they at one time favored it themselves. And in this environment, Democrats felt they had a duty to oppose Bush on each and every issue. Democrats are now continuing policies they criticized Bush for; like drone attacks, extending the debt ceiling, etc. That is now the primary role of the opposition - to throw bombs... it doesn't have to make sense.

regards,
Waddie

[tigerregis]

Loyal Opposition is to ensure The Government remains true to a constitution. Their role is not to impede legislation; their job is to "improve" it.

[Ian McColgin]

Actually, it's simply false to say that Democrats felt a duty to oppose Bush 43 on everything. There was a massive threat of fillibusters in one area - Bush court appointees - but seven D's and seven R's made a deal that thwarted that idea in exchange for the R's not attempting to change the fillibuster rules. Needless to say, it's now the R's that like the easy virtual fillibuster. When Obama was elected the R's hit the ground running with obstructionism on an unprecedented scale which, given natural Democratic Party diversity, they could push even when the D's had a bit over 60 senators.

It really is different now and it really is one party doing it.

[Osborne Russell]

Their duty to oppose ANYTHING favored by Obama, even if they at one time favored it themselves. And in this environment, Democrats felt they had a duty to oppose Bush on each and every issue. Democrats are now continuing policies they criticized Bush for; like drone attacks, extending the debt ceiling, etc. That is now the primary role of the opposition - to throw bombs... it doesn't have to make sense.

1. Yes, it does.
2. In what environment, created by whom?
3. Continuing a policy is not the same as initiating it. I don't like a pink bathroom but I'm not going to switch to orange halfway through. My objections to pink were not heard at the time the decision was made. That does not . . . can you dig it . . . does not mean that I was in favor of pink all along. Viewing the situation RATIONALLY . . . ahem . . . the best use of scarce resources is to finish painting and move forward, or should I not say "forward"?

[Waddie]

Osborne Russell; Continuing a policy is not the same as initiating it.

Whoa, Hoss, your boy doesn't get a pass by saying, "he started it..". Sometimes continuing a policy you strongly opposed as the opposition is worse than initiating that same policy. It is the height of hypocrisy. At least the person who initiated it believed in it. It is well within the current administration's power to end things like drone attacks, which they were critical of before, but have now expanded. Obama didn't have to sign the extension and expansion of the Patriot Act. Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator during the Bush administration, but then requested that Congress raise it under his administration. Could it be that raising the debt ceiling was necessary no matter whose administration it is, and to oppose it, whether a Democrat or Republican, is simply opposition bomb throwing.

regards,
Waddie

[John Smith]

Their duty to oppose ANYTHING favored by Obama, even if they at one time favored it themselves. And in this environment, Democrats felt they had a duty to oppose Bush on each and every issue. Democrats are now continuing policies they criticized Bush for; like drone attacks, extending the debt ceiling, etc. That is now the primary role of the opposition - to throw bombs... it doesn't have to make sense.

regards,
Waddie

Democrats, as I recall, did not oppose Bush on everything he wanted to do. Not like this.

Anyone who puts party loyalty above country ought to be voted out.

[wardd]

i've recently come to realize that the filibuster should be gotten rid of or modified to time limited device, say a week or month

as it is now the party using the filibuster can use it to stymie the party in power so the party in power is not judged on it's policies

i think it's time to let the party in power enact it's policies and be judged on them come election time

[Ian McColgin]

The fillibuster could be fixed with a simple return of the Senate rules to the time when a fillibuster took actual talking. Like in the days of Wayne Morse opposing the Vietnam war. And the fillibuster is over when no one is left talking, as in when they run out of steam. This modern fillibuster by announcement that one is thinking of intending to contemplate the idea of a hypothetical fillibuster is totally for wimps.

[leikec]

Actually, it's simply false to say that Democrats felt a duty to oppose Bush 43 on everything. There was a massive threat of fillibusters in one area - Bush court appointees - but seven D's and seven R's made a deal that thwarted that idea in exchange for the R's not attempting to change the fillibuster rules. Needless to say, it's now the R's that like the easy virtual fillibuster. When Obama was elected the R's hit the ground running with obstructionism on an unprecedented scale which, given natural Democratic Party diversity, they could push even when the D's had a bit over 60 senators.

It really is different now and it really is one party doing it.

Good post.

The democrats aren't pure as the driven snow on this, but the republicans are indeed guilty of "obstructionism on an unprecedented scale."

Jeff C

[wardd]

i bet the republicans change the filibuster next time they are in power

[johnw]

The question is, why has polarization gone so far? It's not the pundits. We've had these conditions before.