johnpalmer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
johnpalmer) wrote2016-10-27 09:31 pm
johnpalmer) wrote2016-10-27 09:31 pm
(politics) Letting the irregular become the norm.
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?
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?
no subject
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].
no subject
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*.