We don’t really care how things get done in Washington.
In the weeks since Democrats were thumped in the Midterm elections, a lot of pundits have spilled a lot of ink over the whys and hows of the Republican Party’s resurgence.
One of the narratives that’s been echoing — even President Barack Obama has touched on it — is the notion that Americans don’t like the way things get done in Washington.
In theory, we’re disgusted by the sausage-making, by the backroom deals, by the arm-twisting and the partisanship that define our nation’s capital.
Jon Stewart, the arch-pundit of the left, embraced this idea just before the election, throwing a supposedly apolitical, nonpartisan Rally for Sanity on the National Mall.
But the truth is that American politics have been ugly since America was born.
And yes, we all complain about attack ads and the amount of money washing around in the system. But is that really what sways our votes?
Heck no.
Americans have a long history of voting for the candidates who capture their passions and their aspirations. Secondarily, they want politicians who will get things done and make their lives better.
In this election, Republicans were rewarded for embracing the frustration and anger that many of us feel, about our jobs, our economy, and the general direction of the country.
In voting for change, Americans set aside any mamby-pamby concerns about process. After all, this victorious class of Republicans is doggedly, unapologetically partisan.
And it was their Supreme Court slate who approved changes in our election laws that allowed a flood of anonymous money into the political system.
John Boehner may possess many virtues that Nancy Pelosi lacked, but bedside manner and lofty political ethics aren’t among them.
His allies have never made a single gesture toward bipartisanship or can’t-we-all-just-get-along compromise.
And voters didn’t care one bit.
Good for them, I say, because that’s not how American politics works. We live in a society divided by serious issues, as well as deep regional and cultural flashpoints.
If we talk about those things honestly, it’s going to get noisy and ugly. Those distinctions are the life blood of democracy.
And we embrace conflict in the political arena, because it’s a heck of a lot better than the other forms of conflict that human societies use to resolve their differences.
Democrats, meanwhile, continue to flirt with the idea of making Washington a more collegial, love-thy-neighbor place for one reason:
They feel vulnerable and they don’t have a set of clear philosophical principles shaping their policies, and so they want to blur distinctions between themselves and the GOP.
This is especially true for Democrats serving in red states and more conservative House districts. Many are deeply ambivalent about their party’s more urban, left-leaning approach to society’s problems.
But I suspect that most Democrats know the truth: They lost not because they weren’t friendly or bipartisan enough, but because people thought the other team could do a better job.
To win back the House, Democrats should lay out their own policy ideas, describe them passionately, and work to convince voters that their plan for the future is better.
Republicans, obviously, will fight and scrap to convince us that the opposite is true — and that’s the way it should be.
I’d suggest that people who want a quieter, more tea-and-crumpets flavor of politics should move to Canada. But the truth is that things can get pretty nasty there, too.
Your thoughts welcome.
Tags: politics
Actually, the first thing I would love to see is Congress and the Senate vote to drop their health care and pensions before they do anything.
After that, they can go play golf or hook up with prostitutes.
The problem with partisanship and political philosophies is simply that they are based on Utopian notions of how society works. I don’t know how many free market advocates say in response to criticisms of the problems it has caused in the past by saying “But it’s never been fully implemented.” The notion is that if we could ever get to a pure capitalist or a pure socialist (depending on whether you are the right or the left) society then people would become perfect within that system and everything would work out. NOT!
The reality is that there are two extremes of economics, Darwinist survival of the fittest capitalism and socialist “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. At either extreme someone is getting short shrift so what happens is that all economies exist somewhere on a line between them that mixes elements of the extremes. Because people will never be perfect we have the other dimension of society, “control”. Control is the balance between libertarianism and authoritarianism.
When you have parties that are committed to the ideology of their party, you get the kind of battles we see in Washington, fights to push a particular philosophy in all its aspects. What we need in Washington is a group of pragmatic people who look at the problems of the country and determine, without reference to a particular ideology, what needs to be done. I think that Obama has tried to do that but has gotten damn little cooperation from the partisans, particularly those on the right. I say that with more than a touch of irony since most of the folks in Washington, including Obama, are on the right. The difference is a matter of how far right.
I’m not looking for tea and crumpets. Are crumpets any good? I’ve never had one. I am longing for a bit of pragmatism and representatives who can listen to others and recognize that the the only correct approach to our problems is the one that works for the maximum possible number of our citizens. A bit of doubt about one’s own infallibility is the foundation of wisdom.
Actually, here in Canada, the flavour (notice the “u’ in “flavour”) is not so much tea and cumpets as it is Tim Horton’s and bagels (maybe with the exception of Victoria, B.C.).
According to a CNN poll only 1 in 6 consider the recent election a mandate for Republicans. More likely they will settle for gridlock. As for the anger and frustration a lot of that will disappear as unemployment drops or as people become more realistic about how quickly things will return to “normal.”
Gridlock has political costs also.
When the parties do work together it is because they have a goal of getting something done for the people who got them elected; not because they want to get along.
I think that there have been statesmen and women who have risen above this however and really thought about the calling of what is best for the nation above their political futures.
War is a good example. Ending the wars we have now would be something that the entire nation would rejoice over it is something that both parties could work together on as most people would be happy about the end of those wars at this point.
We have real problems that need to be solved and solved quickly. Meanwhile there are guys who will be taking the reins of government who believe that many of those problems aren’t real because God made a promise to Noah.
Watching a national news program about the China economy last night on 10 Albany, one thing stood out for me.
The main advantage China has is it isn’t a democracy. Not being a democracy is an advantage?
Yes because everything doesn’t need to be discussed and debated for ever and ever. In China, if something needs to be done it gets done. Need a road? Build it. Need a high speed train? Build it.
We spend so much time debating everything, compromising here, there and everywhere, eventually reaching a point where if something is done it is only half done and no one is happy. Then we go back and try to fix what was done, and still no one is happy.
While we are going through all this “art of compromise,” we waste time and money.
I’m not saying we need to get rid of democracy but I am saying we need to recognize its weakness because if we don’t, we will continue down the path of dividing and conquering ourselves without any help from China.
Darrel and Dede both were good at reaching across the aisle…look where it got them.
Americans want something different than we have, even if they don’t know what they’re likely to get.
In two years, it’ll be Dems saying, “How’s that hopey-changey thing goin’ for ya?”
IMO the first thing that needs to happen to an effective Federal Gov’t is to scare the living bejezzus out of them! You need to put the fear of God and the Republic into the slime bag, one way, plastic haired, oh so smug politicians, bureaucrats, minions, staffers, etc. Cut their benefits and retirement to real world levels, refuse to let them sit in Washington, bring them home and let them teleconference, hold them responsible for the state of the Nation. Same at the State level.
Is there a mechanism to do this? No, they vote themselves raises and benefits and don’t give two hoots about the folks back home till it’s election time.
Good luck America.
Did you hear about the newly elected congressman who opposes the health-care bill but is outraged that his government health plan wont start immediately? Seriously.
One only need look at the disgusting backroom political deals, corruption, conflicts of interest, corrupt political bosses, retribution (in terms of office resources and member items) against dissident and minority caucus members, lax ethics laws, party line votes, and geographical bias that occurs in Albany to “care how things get done.” Overall, Washington functions much better than Albany and it’s time we started holding more of our state legislators accountable.