General politics

[Badsmerf]

They were a loud voice in an empty space. Crying wolf once doesn't mean the second wolf isn't real. That argument doesn't hold weight with me.

 

The Republican Senate refused to put a supreme court justice on the bench, shut down the government for over a month, decide who controls our court system, appoints very controversial cabinet members (Nervous how they react to appointees by a Democrat when the time comes). Is that not tyranny?

 

cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

[TheLeviathan]

 

They were a loud voice in an empty space. Crying wolf once doesn't mean the second wolf isn't real. That argument doesn't hold weight with me.

The Republican Senate refused to put a supreme court justice on the bench, shut down the government for over a month, decide who controls our court system, appoints very controversial cabinet members (Nervous how they react to appointees by a Democrat when the time comes). Is that not tyranny?

cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

 

Well, for one, several of those examples came when they were not in control?

 

Most of those were just dick moves abusing the way our government is supposed to work.  On that front, yeah, there are way too many shenanigans afoot.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think blaming the issue on the structuring of the Senate entirely misses the point. I don't think anyone needs a lecture on democracy vs. democratic republic, but there is a reason that was done.

 

The issue with healthcare is not two senators per state. Nor is that the case with really any issue. The problem is in the way the two parties have decided to carve out power and how neither seeks to govern all. If our institutions are threatened, it's because we've allowed the parties to represent stark dividing lines and they have happily obliged.

 

And here's the thing about that realization: Once you see that, you'll realize restructuring the Senate doesn't really fix the problem.

Ding ding ding.

[Badsmerf]

Well, for one, several of those examples came when they were not in control?

 

Most of those were just dick moves abusing the way our government is supposed to work. On that front, yeah, there are way too many shenanigans afoot.

They've been in control since 2010... Had democrats won back control, Obama care likely would have been amended and very popular by the time he was out of office.

[TheLeviathan]

 

They've been in control since 2010... Had democrats won back control, Obama care likely would have been amended and very popular by the time he was out of office.

 

But what you're talking about are procedural things.  The reason all of htose things happened, and a shutdown was happening, is because we've pretty much killed all notions of etiquette and decorum in the our politics.

 

It's the lasting legacy of Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party: basically the destruction of functional government.  It's a different, but very important, problem IMO.

[Mr. Brooks]

I question the phrase "so much power". Most of your argument depends on removing the larger context and only looking at power disparities in an isolated form. The truth is, if it went the other way the majority would have overwhelming power. The majority, by and large, get what they want in the long run already.

 

I know your post wasn't agenda driven, sorry it's tough to separate how one usually hear this concern brought up. Typically, it's in the cop-out form. So what system are you proposing that would solve the problem you brought up, but also wouldn't turn our form of government into a tyrannical majority?

I don't agree that the majority already get what they want.

I think in some form or another, the majority of people want some form of the following:

Healthcare for all.

Prison reform.

Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana (federal).

Affordable college.

Common sense gun control.

 

I'm sure there are more.

Maybe you're more optimistic than I am, but I don't feel any of these are close to being addressed.

 

As I stated in a response to La Bombo, I don't necessarily know how to fix it. Perhaps larger states remain at 2 Senators, while some of the really small ones only get 1. Then you'd still give smaller states more than their fair share of representation, but not necessarily equal representation.

 

Maybe I'm overreacting to this wall nonsense, but it's really my tipping point on this issue. For something most people don't want, NO border representative (including R's) thinks will help, was promised to be paid for by Mexico, and didn't seem to be a priority when Republicans had all three houses (because they don't actually want it, they just want to use it as a wedge to fear monger against Democrats), to be able to shut down the government for 35 days is where the shark has gotten jumped, IMO.

[Mr. Brooks]

Agreed, and as I mentioned in a reply to someone else whose name escapes me as I make the rounds to the different chess boards, I'm not dead set against restructuring the Senate to somehow reflect voting populations of the states, if/when the time comes.

 

And I make no claim to be somehow above the partisan nature of the battle as it applies to the issues in play that frequently serve as the spark (detonator?) for discussion. Even my caution regarding change is more of a high regard for the law of unintended consequences than it is an unflinching belief that the founding fathers put together a timeless blueprint back in the day.

Paragraph 1: It sounds like we agree there is a line, but disagree on whether it's been crossed yet. Which is totally cool with me.

 

Paragraph 2: I understand that actions have unforeseeable and unintended consequences. And as I said to Levi, this wall nonsense might have me overreacting. Perhaps things will level back out once we no longer have a polarizing bully in the White House. At the moment though, it feels like we've reached a tipping point. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mr. Brooks]

They were a loud voice in an empty space. Crying wolf once doesn't mean the second wolf isn't real. That argument doesn't hold weight with me.

 

The Republican Senate refused to put a supreme court justice on the bench, shut down the government for over a month, decide who controls our court system, appoints very controversial cabinet members (Nervous how they react to appointees by a Democrat when the time comes). Is that not tyranny?

 

cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

Thanks. I didn't even think of their Supreme Court hijacking in my examples. That was unforgivable, IMO.

[PseudoSABR]

This is kind of awesome.  The Nixon Foundation trying to distance itself from Stone.

[ashbury]

Much of that is "derp...me no know how to think about anything but BCBS (or pick your provider) handling insurance. no know if this possible"

 

So that's your condescending way of calling the people surveyed who dislike your option (and me, by extension) a bunch of idiots.

Moderator's note: Guys, the mods don't patrol here minute by minute. Please think before posting "herp derp herp derp" and similar. I don't want to close a thread down.

[Mike Sixel]

The healthcare in this country is an abomination compared to most of the rest of the first world countries. Significantly more expensive, and less effective. Not to mention the millions of children and adults not even covered. Try buying insurance if you are self employed...... Did I mention I used to work in the industry? High up?

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't agree that the majority already get what they want.
I think in some form or another, the majority of people want some form of the following:
 

 

I like your post, but I quibble with this a bit.  I agree that most people do want those things, but their yes answer is sorta like me saying to a group of people at 6pm - "Hey, want to go out for some dinner?"

 

They all say "yup", but as soon as we go one step further than that our agreement completely shatters.  I think a lot of those issue look the same way politically speaking.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

I like your post, but I quibble with this a bit. I agree that most people do want those things, but their yes answer is sorta like me saying to a group of people at 6pm - "Hey, want to go out for some dinner?"

 

They all say "yup", but as soon as we go one step further than that our agreement completely shatters. I think a lot of those issue look the same way politically speaking.

The difference is, in your scenario, there is a discussion, details are hammered out, and you eventually go to dinner, even if not everyone gets exactly what they wanted.

 

I don't feel like we're even close to any meaningful progress on any of those issues.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The difference is, in your scenario, there is a discussion, details are hammered out, and you eventually go to dinner, even if not everyone gets exactly what they wanted.

I don't feel like we're even close to any meaningful progress on any of those issues.

 

Agreed, but that sorta goes back to my original point.  The ratio of Senators isn't the root of the problem.  The hyper partisan nature of our politics is the issue.

[Mr. Brooks]

Agreed, but that sorta goes back to my original point. The ratio of Senators isn't the root of the problem. The hyper partisan nature of our politics is the issue.

Except I can't help but notice that the overrepresented states are the same ones that are opposed to those positions.

So I still think it's both.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Except I can't help but notice that the overrepresented states are the same ones that are opposed to those positions.
So I still think it's both.

 

I guess I can't buy that.  There isn't, even as we speak, a majority of Democrats that support Universal Health Care.  Or any of the other issues you listed except for maybe prison reform. ( And that issue has forward momentum - in a bipartisan way no less)

 

Even gun control can't muster enough Democrats to support it to make sweeping changes.  I just can't buy the suggestion that but for a few too many elected people from the Dakotas (or wherever), that any of those things would change significantly.  Sure, those representatives oppose it, but it doesn't really matter.  The support necessary for those things simply doesn't exist.  In part, I think, because there is no public consensus for how to address those issues.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I hope you don't mind that I broke this out from your post about structural government imbalance.

 

If you were citing the KFF poll with the 71% approval figure of Medicare-For-All, then the discussion should include the rest of that poll's findings. If not, maybe these numbers are worth looking at anyway.

 

When KFF's poll asked if they would favor or oppose MFA "if they heard that it would do the following" (their words, and I'm not ready to debate the likelihood of the unintended potential outcomes):

 

If it "Eliminated private health insurance companies": 37%

If it "Required most Americans to pay more taxes": 37%

If it "Threatened the current Medicare program": 32%

If it "Lead to delays in getting some tests and treatments": 26%

 

 As it stands today, the Bernie model of MFA is the frontrunner on Dem wish lists, and it would eliminate most major coverage components of private insurance within 4 years. So based on just that one intended result of MFA, the polling inverts from two thirds approving into two thirds disapproving of MFA.

 

In other words, even in an example you cite of the majority getting hosed, their wishes are in fact being served by our present system, at least in this one poll. If nothing else I would say that's at least win for the law of unintended consequences in the argument against overhauling the senate to include proportional representation.

I think the conclusions you're drawing from the poll are a bit specious.  1) If most people's wishes were being served by the present system, 71% wouldn't support their ideal version of MFA.  2) While a majority of people agree on the policy goal, it's rare that the same majority would agree on the method of obtaining this goal. 3) I think people would happily trade higher taxes for lower or no medical bills.  

 

In my mind, the electorate should shape the goal (MFA) but legislation should shape how we get there (within input from all ideologies).  

 

What is the argument for having private insurance companies, again?  

[Mr. Brooks]

I guess I can't buy that. There isn't, even as we speak, a majority of Democrats that support Universal Health Care. Or any of the other issues you listed except for maybe prison reform. ( And that issue has forward momentum - in a bipartisan way no less)

 

Even gun control can't muster enough Democrats to support it to make sweeping changes. I just can't buy the suggestion that but for a few too many elected people from the Dakotas (or wherever), that any of those things would change significantly. Sure, those representatives oppose it, but it doesn't really matter. The support necessary for those things simply doesn't exist. In part, I think, because there is no public consensus for how to address those issues.

Attempting to repeal Obamacare aside, congresspeople typically don't make a habit of pursuing bills that they know have no chance of passing. It's a waste of political capital.

I wouldn't necessarily equate these things not being pursued by Democrats, with a lack of desire.

[TheLeviathan]

Attempting to repeal Obamacare aside, congresspeople typically don't make a habit of pursuing bills that they know have no chance of passing. It's a waste of political capital.

I wouldn't necessarily equate these things not being pursued by Democrats, with a lack of desire.

I also wouldn't blame the Senate's structure for that. Much more likely it is the result of a myriad of factors lead by what motivates politicians most: will it help me stay in office. As healthcare is a glaring example of: people say they want something fixed but then turn on it almost instantly once an attempt is made.

[stringer bell]

Not all low-population states are rural and conservative. Blue states Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii have either one or two representatives. Add in Maine and New Hampshire and there are six states easily winnable for Democrats. Currently 11 of the 12 Senators from the above states are Democrats and Hillary won them all. The six states are about as overrepresented in the Senate as Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. 

 

By my count, there about 20 lean-blue states and close to 25 in the lean-red column, with the rest being tossups It is a tough hill to climb for Democrats, but the reality is that ten years ago the Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate. Republicans have had a better strategy and better luck since and it would be difficult for Democrats to flip the Senate without help from Trump and the Republicans.

 

IMHO, Republican greed and hypocrisy have opened the door for Democrats to reclaim the legislative branches including the US Senate. Republicans have corrupted processes, procedures and policies for political gain and public opinion is turning against them. 

 

Yes, the US Senate seats are not allocated democratically, but that doesn't mean it has to be a body representing the white and wealthy.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not all low-population states are rural and conservative. Blue states Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Hawaii have either one or two representatives. Add in Maine and New Hampshire and there are six states easily winnable for Democrats. Currently 11 of the 12 Senators from the above states are Democrats and Hillary won them all. The six states are about as overrepresented in the Senate as Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. 

 

This is a pretty excellent point.

[biggentleben]

 

What is the argument for having private insurance companies, again?  

 

Just don't try to say that in any sort of humorous way. At all.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But what you're talking about are procedural things. The reason all of htose things happened, and a shutdown was happening, is because we've pretty much killed all notions of etiquette and decorum in the our politics.

 

It's the lasting legacy of Newt Gingrich and the Tea Party: basically the destruction of functional government. It's a different, but very important, problem IMO.

Yep. We haven’t villainized Gingrich nearly as much as we should. He made a concentrated effort to consolidate power at the top levels of the party instead of allowing a mix of ideologies, which creates a loosely-woven party platform, which is NECESSARY in a two party system. If you only have two options, you need to have dissent and flexibility in those two options. A California Republican should be as or more liberal than an Alabama Democrat but that’s no longer the case. The lines are stark and consistent across the country.

 

We can bitch and moan all we want about the Dubyas and Trumps of the world but really, history is going to look back at Gingrich and McConnell as two of the most destructive forces in American democracy. They’ve done such damage that Congress has become ineffectual and therefore, we’ve needed to push more and more power to the executive branch just to keep the country partially on the rails. It’s a domino effect that could ultimately break this country.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 They’ve done such damage that Congress has become ineffectual and therefore, we’ve needed to push more and more power to the executive branch just to keep the country partially on the rails. It’s a domino effect that could ultimately break this country.

 

Yup, I don't even remember hearing the term "executive order" until recent history.  This is the root cause of most of our significant political ills.  

[ashbury]

Yup, I don't even remember hearing the term "executive order" until recent history.  This is the root cause of most of our significant political ills.  

Your being unaware of executive orders is the root cause of trouble?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246

 

I don't know how the numbering system works but LBJ issued #11246.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Your being unaware of executive orders is the root cause of trouble?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246

 

I don't know how the numbering system works but LBJ issued #11246.

 

No, I just mean they became more a part of the political process.  And maybe I'm wrong, it appears FDR was the most noteworthy user.  

 

Has their purpose changed at all?  I feel like their use now has more to do with bypassing congressional dysfunction.....

[ashbury]

Has their purpose changed at all?  I feel like their use now has more to do with bypassing congressional dysfunction.....

Like FDR had no disputes with Congress.

[PseudoSABR]

[ashbury]

That's some fine alliteration Mike Green put together. C what I mean?

[Mr. Brooks]

Speaking of ol Mitch, at least now they're admitting it:

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doesn’t think Election Day should be a federal holiday because that would give Democrats too much power.

 

McConnell took to the Senate floor Wednesday to rail against HR 1, the sweeping anti-corruption proposal House Democrats have put forward as their first bill in the majority. Among many other measures, it proposes making Election Day a federal holiday and encourages private sector businesses to do the same.

 

McConnell, who calls the bill the “Democratic Politician Protection Act,” sees that as a “power grab.”

 

“Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work ... [on Democratic] campaigns,” he snarked on the Senate floor. “This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? ... A power grab.”