(politics) Letting the irregular become the norm.

[johnpalmer]

In 1994, the Republicans decided they were going to push all out to take Congress. And among their strategies was to tie up all legislation near the election. "See, the government is useless and messed up - might as well put us anti-government types in charge!"


So the Senate Republicans started filibustering *everything*. Because they could, you see. There's no law against it.

I remember one of Heinlein's books, a young man was, through a ridiculous set of coincidences, forced to become captain of a space vessel because he was the only one who could perform astrogation. The captain, all the ships officers agreed, needed to understand this primary function, or could make crucial mistakes through a lack of understanding.

Well - he was the only astrogator when there were normally two, plus the captain. So he realized he needed a cot in the control room - otherwise he'd get no sleep. He was told that it was a very bad precedent, not exactly illegal, but it Just Wasn't Done. So he had them post the relevant regulations, and then, post his order temporarily suspending those due to the current emergency.

Would a young man with so little experience really *get* the importance of doing something like that? I don't know but I did like the little life's lesson thrown out. Sometimes one really does have to break the rules, but one should do so mindfully, so that it's limited.

I claim that this was the Republicans big, no, huge, mistake in the '94 midterms. They didn't specify that "okay, we'll use the power of the Senate to stop doing the country's business, in order to obtain a partisan advantage - this should never, ever be done, but we'll do it, just this once."

Let's debate whether using one's status as a Senator to partisan advantage is right, or a slimy, despicable, filthy, nasty thing to do later... but you might guess my position already.

Anyway: once you break regulations, without doing so mindfully, the question is now "why can't you do this again? Why was that time so different from this?" And that really is a fair question.

The point is, these things weren't done for a single part of a single year, to help win the mid-term elections. They've become commonplace. Republicans obstructed judicial nominations so routinely, that when they flat out say they won't do their job, for any nominee chosen by the current President, it's no longer really shocking. It's, you know, politics. A bit cold, but why is this such a big deal?

Why indeed?

People have used political power for partisan advantage before. But there's something just flat out wrong when Texas argues "there's nothing about *racism* in our changes to voting laws; we're just trying to shut out *Democrats* from the process; not blacks or other minorities!" It's even worse when that's just a single news cycle story. (And yes, this did happen.)

There's a certain tendency to seek balance, to say "both sides do it!" and it's true that there is no monopoly on corruption, partisanship, or plain old poison-mean with a side of stupidity.

But consider that if enough people follow that natural, human tendency to seek balance, to recognize that there is corruption in politics... well, wouldn't it be more easily possible for one party to get away with (metaphorical) murder, while the other is committing (metaphorical) grand menacing and occasionally assault?

Comments

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith]

It's only a mistake if you tried to do something right and failed. If you do something on purpose, and you succeed in your aim, then it's not a mistake, it's a choice -- even if it's a stupid choice with destructive results. The Republicans meant to cripple government. They didn't really want to do the job; they just wanted to fuck things up. They succeeded. It's a huge problem, and it's getting worse. But it's not a mistake; they meant to do that.

The only thing encouraging about this to me is that, now the Republican party has been on a concerted track for ~40 years, suddenly they're in sight of the train station and appalled by it and jumping off left right and sideways. Apparently Trump is that scary. And that is how bad things have to get before even the Republicans realize that their choices were stupid and destructive.

I figured that out as a toddler, but then I also figured out that fossil fuels were a bad idea and changing the climate could kill everyone. *shrug* Nobody's really listened to me about those either. My activism these days is largely so I can have the satisfaction of standing in the foyer-ever-after and saying, "I fucking TOLD YOU SO."

Re: Well...

[johnpalmer]

Hm. I'll argue about "mistakes" but gently, and only because it can be a broad concept.

Some young folks engage in criminal acts - and while the actions are deliberate, they are mistakes of judgment. So it wasn't an "accident" that they broke into the store to try to rob the safe, and it wasn't an accident when they fought with the owner to avoid getting caught, but if they'd talked out the possibilities with a friend who made them think it through - the owner *might* be there, and if he tries to catch them, the only way to avoid getting arrested *might* be to fight back - maybe seriously injuring or killing the owner - they'd have decided not to.

In that sense, I can see it as an accident. I think I've mentioned before that I think the fossil fuel companies may well have known global warming was real and pushed denialism in hopes of eking out a few more years of big profits before they were on the downslope. I think that was an accident too, *if* it was true.

(That no one has come up and admitted this by now suggests I am being naive, at least about the bigger decision makers. Or maybe loyalty is too strong to overcome via guilt, so far.)

The Republicans don't (I believe) want to cripple government. They just say they do as cover for what they *do* want to do. They want to use the levers of government to help out the big money boys - and saying they want "lower taxes" and "smaller government" and "fewer regulations" is just cover for them. I think many of them don't understand or care about the negative consequences of their actions. For example, they don't know any women who were in tears and contemplating suicide because they couldn't get an abortion - their women-friends could always take two days vacation, drive the 150 miles to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic that performed them, ignore the mandated legal scolding, and come back the next day to have the procedure done.

I could be wrong - I tend to try to see the best in people, to look for reasons why something horrible isn't *as* horrible. So, admittedly, I'm not the best judge. But I do think it's important to see why a person isn't a monster in their own eyes, at the very least.

I think if Trump wins, the Republicans will finally decide that a massive infrastructure investment is a *great* idea, for example. I think they know it's needed - but they didn't want Obama to get credit for it.

I hope that this means if Hillary wins, they realize they can't wait another four years to do some things. And Hillary is (I believe) sharp enough to let them play the game of "see? We beat her! She didn't want X but we got it!" to some degree, to let them save face.

[siliconshaman]

Sliding slope.. once you break one rule, it becomes easier to break another, and another, and so on... most people will baulk at some point, but that usually comes a lot later.

Now America is at the point where you have political parties that are hell bent on getting what they want, and damn the democratic process! We can prove mathematically that the Democratic candidate rigged her nomination, that the electronic voting machines are rigged by both sides] and that the Republican party is ballot stuffing. [and threatening to accuse the Dem's of cheating if they lose].

[johnpalmer]

I think there's a bit more than just "it's easier to break another". There's also the "man bites dog" aspect. I mentioned Newt Gingrich in another context recently - he was known to be a "bomb thrower" who'd say outlandish things. Well, he saw that Rush Limbaugh could say the same things, and even nastier, and get away with it. So he got a lot of people to say those things. And now, to differentiate one's self, one has to go further out there.

This, I think, is what opened the door for Donald Trump. There's an old Simpson's episode where Krusty the Clown explains his vote in favor of the local Scrooge's movie as "what can I say? It moved meTO A BIGGER HOUSE! - oooh, I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet."

Trump started saying the quiet part really loud. And that was what the Republican base was primed for.

I think the other part of his support is just... well, hope. I voted for Ross Perot during his first run, for that very reason. Hope. I wanted to see if the system could be disrupted. I like to think that "my" flirtation was hope is more defensible, because it was in favor of an old fashioned gentleman with great business instincts and strong values.

(He was nearly the richest person in the world at one point (though Gates and Bezos would have overtaken him) - but he wouldn't buy into an investment because the proposal included a *really* sweet car for the person running the business. He said, no, not in the first year; that's for when the company's off the ground and making money; then you've earned it. You can get *a* car, a nice one, but not *that* nice. So other folks bought into it instead.)

The good news could be that Trump might well disrupt things. If the Republicans get blown out, they might have a come to Jesus - no, not a televangelist, *Jesus* - moment. So that's something.

Re: Hillary Clinton rigged the election (or that the DNC did, or whatever) - mathematical proof worries me. I've seen some statistical craziness that really, really bugged me - but Nate Silver is confident that polling is still weak enough that we can have craziness, like, e.g., the Brexit vote.

The major Dems did anoint Hillary long before the first primary, and there was rigging of the process, but I think she learned her lessons from Obama, and planned for the long game. And Bernie Sanders... damn it, the poor guy never had to understand courting African American votes. He was strong on civil rights and the social safety net, and he responded more warmly to Black Lives Matter than Hillary did. But Hillary knew how to do African American outreach... and Bernie didn't. So she clobbered him early in the southern states. And at that point, there probably was an air of inevitability, because Bernie hadn't gotten a fair shake from the press before then... now he had to catch up from *way* behind when people were only just now hearing his name.

*That* kind of rigging? Yes. And I won't say that the DNC or other Democratic Powers That Be wouldn't rig the vote. There *is* corruption on both sides. But I don't think it happened. I think Clinton won an unbalanced election, and it was unfair, because we lefties deserved a balanced election and debate... but I think she won without lawbreaking and ballot-stuffing.

ETA: "Brexit" is just a recent, stunning/shocking polling failure - not an attempt to say anything bad about you or your home. And I reckon you know that, but *just in case*.

[dubhain]

Doing so does two things: First, it sets the sort of precedent you describe. We've done this once, why not do it again? It undermines the rule (and, possibly, the rule of law, depending upon the circumstances.) One presumes said rule was enacted for a good reason in the first place, so....

Second, it desensitizes people to the breaking of said rule, and to an extent to the breaking of rules, period. Before Watergate, it was unthinkable for a president to be tied to corruption (or, for the cynical, to be caught with his hand in the cookie jar, at least.) Now, it's just assumed that a President is corrupt in one respect or another. No big deal.

Similarly, yesterday's verdict in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge takeover trial has sent a clear message to the militia and soveriegn citizen movements: You can take over public lands via force of arms, and threaten people with impunity (if you're White, Christian, and Conservative.) We'll not only see this sort of thing happening again, but we'll see a marked uptic in both sovereign citizen and militia activity. Hell, the militias are already stating they'll be 'patrolling' the polling places, openly armed, under the guise of "keeping an eye on things" and "preventing voter fraud." So now we're looking at armed voter intimidation at the polls, which will have a chilling effect upon our election.

The ripple effects of both the precedent and the public desensitization can sometimes have more of an effect than the initial instance itself.

[johnpalmer]

I'm starting to agree more violently given the events of last Friday, when Comey decided to make a fuss because:
1) he had information that he wasn't allowed to search,
2) that he had no permission to hunt for,
3) with no reason to suspect it contained anything incriminating, but
4) had outsized potential political impact.


And I'd like to think the best of him, but given that he chose to be a nasty scold during his press conference, an oddity for an investigator who had no criminal charges to refer for prosecution, I have to assume he's trying to deliberately put his fingers on the scale.