The Triple Whammy of Senators Dorgan and Dodd and Colorado Governor Ritter announcing their retirements from the fray is followed by devastating poll numbers for Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln (no friend to Movement Progressives; down by double digits against any unknown Republican), Barbara Boxer potentially facing an uphill struggle, and on and on. A real shakeout among the Dems.
Of course they're fatalists. Que sera, sera and all that, and they really prefer to graciously accept any crackpot scheme the Rs want to come up with anyway. It's their role and their job in Corporatist governance. The Question is whether their Owners really want the Psychos back in power, and whether anyone is ready for another round of Neo-Conservatist Radicalism.
My bet right now is no. And so what we'll get when the Rs take back the Senate (which looks inevitable) and possibly take over the House as well, is a stall through the rest of the Obama Regime, with nothing actually getting done -- except for certain desired Neo-Liberal Incrementalist tweaks and adjustments to deregulation of finance.
My Prognosticator™ is even giving me a reading that suggests the Health Care Reform bill will never come out of Ping-Pong Limbo, will not be signed, will not become Law.
Anything that doesn't fit the Neo-Liberal program of consolidation of takings and stabilization of governance will be vetoed by the White House or will never emerge from the Sausage Factory. With the Psychos back in charge of the legislative branch, the very idea of "Democracy" will be further discredited in the minds of many. If "Democracy" gets you such a swift return to gridlock and worse, what's the point? Why not go with Autocracy? It works better. It looks better. What's to worry?
It was interesting to see how the Democrats behaved when they achieved their goal of control of both houses of Congress and the White House -- and then a 60 vote majority in the Senate on top of it. They essentially split into two parties, one of which was a simulacrum of the Republicans c. 1959. In other words, Democrats formed the Opposition Party to their own selves. I'd never seen anything like it in politics. The Republican Party itself essentially withdrew into sulking and clowning and sniping from the sidelines, while Democrats did political battle with themselves constantly.
This has been going on for a year, and it's been extraordinarily debilitating. That the Democrats could actually split this way and have such an open struggle within their own caucus for the entire time they have been in power, act as if they were their own Opposition Party, and further, have essentially continued to behave as they did when they were the "Opposition" to Republicans, by graciously agreeing to whatever crackpot scheme the Conserva-Dems/quasi-Republicans wanted -- is really stunning when you think about it.
Which I haven't even wanted to do until recently.
This is merely one of the many indications that our politics is really and truly broken.
I have no love for the Senate. I think it should be abolished or turned into a parking-place for honored and garrulous old farts with nothing else to do like the House of Lords, but we've seen, over and over again, that the Senate becomes unstable when Dems are in charge of it. The House seems to be institutionally more stable, but even there, the Dems, at odds with themselves, can barely achieve a voting majority for significant legislation.
Given the astonishing levels of corruption in both houses, on full and sickening view throughout the HCR "debate", a case can and should be made than neither house represents the People in any case, and the whole sorry show should just be shut down.
We're left with Autocracy, again. Since the People really have no functioning Representative Government, only the appearance of one, it becomes the Job of the Autocrat to be both the embodiment of the State and the People's (Sole) Representative. That was a role that Bush often asserted for himself, especially with regard to Civil Liberties ("I will protect you and defend your liberties!..."), and Obama seems to be able to adopt the same theory of Autocracy himself, though he seems to be reluctant to employ it openly, preferring to let the let the Legislative bodies grind themselves to dust and ensure their perpetual irrelevance.
What happened to cause the functional end of the Roman Republic comes to mind.
One wonders: Can Social Democracy even begin to address this mess?
The Dems may not be in that bad of shape. Dodd's retiring is the proverbial blessing in disguise. The Dems get to field a far more popular candidate, Richard Blumenthal, who will likely win, while Dodd was heading for a loss. Dorgan was looking iffy as well. The GOP still has more Congress critters retiring than the Dems and they're even less popular overall.
ReplyDeleteMy guess? The Dems lose 5 Senate seats and retain that chamber. In the House, they lose 25 and retain that chamber as well. In the House especially, this will mean very little change in the dynamic, as most of their losses will be Blue Dogs.
I also agree with your view about the need to rid ourselves of the Upper Chamber. That and the electoral college.
Beyond that, was wondering if you've written recently about wages and the incredible growing gap in America. CEOs going from 43 times the rank and file in 1980 to 500 times today. Any ideas what to do, if we ever could institute social democracy?
I'm thinking the NBA could be a model of sorts. Owners are required to set aside a pretty big chunk of their gross for the players. I'd like to see that across the board in America, except for small businesses under X number of workers. They deserve a bit more flexibility. But things have really gotten out of hand, and the blessed market will not regulate itself or rein in its excesses on its own. We need some outside force to make them rein it in.
Hope all is well.
Hey Cuchulain:
ReplyDelete(I love the way people who've never tried to pronounce Irish mangle your handle...)
I agree that from a horse race standpoint, the various adjustments and retirements and whatnot in the Congress are not "that bad". As we've seen demonstrated over and over again, the current Dem majority doesn't mean that they'll actually use it the way FDR used his or LBJ used his.
Which party holds the majority doesn't matter as much as who is pulling their strings. And that ain't us.
The Rs are much more politically adept at keeping their base entertained and energized, no matter that they don't govern in accordance with their wishes. The Dems have a long history of what Digby calls "punching hippies," but what it means is denying their base even the rudiments of courtesy, let alone a place at the table. In any case, both parties have gotten into the habit of governing contrary to the public interest and the public will. The Rs, though, are smart enough to keep the masses at bay by throwing them bones from time to time. Dems can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept...
Interesting idea regarding using NBA practice as a model for coming to grips with the widening economic chasm. Americans need to be convinced, first, that the chasm needs to be bridged at all.
Did you know the Teabaggers are planning a General Strike? Why yes, yes they are! Not, of course, to protest the vast gulf between the 1% and everyone else, no. To protest "giving" the Wrong People health care.
How did things get so screwed up?
Yep. Cuchulain is roughly pronounced cu-hoo-lin.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a kid, I thought it was cu-chu-lain. It's long been my intention to learn to be fluent in Irish, like Flann O'Brien, but I haven't gotten around to it.
Oh, well. Someday.
Teabaggers going on strike? Going Galt, perhaps? Yes, things are damn screwed up.
But I do have to give them credit for their energy and drive. We on the left could use some of it. To be sure.
BTW, speaking of left/right stuff. I was surprised to hear a BBC announcer describe the social democrat party of Portugal as center/right. Looked it up on Wikipedia and they confirmed it, but said the name was misleading. A conservative party, really.
"Social Democrat" is used primarily as a lefty designation, correct? There is democratic socialism as well, which I suppose is a bit to our left. Perhaps a larger embrace of socialism than our own conception? I think the best form is balance. I feel no compunction simply using private sector success for social welfare gains and a larger Commons. I want a much, much larger Commons. But I'm guessing the numbers could get dicey if too much of an economy is state run. It might make funding that larger Commons tougher.
Again, I think Scandinavia has the best mix in existence, but I think America should go even further with it, push the boundaries even more. Not one penny spent by the government that wasn't for the Commons, for the people. All contracts going toward that end. And when possible, the government goes direct and deploys a non-profit alternative.
So, a bit of a dance between public and private. The public pushing the private to be the better citizen. The private helping fund the greater good, etc.
Anyway . . . Another interesting thing about Portugal. They have a pretty good mix of parties holding seats. From left to right. America needs that too. From socialists, to left-liberals, to liberals, to moderates and centrists and righties, etc. Though I could actually live without the righties.
;>)
But we need diversity and fresh, untainted energies. We need a half dozen or more parties vying for a place at the table. Instead we have Centrists and wingnuts.
I'd rather live in Europe.