Party discipline: why do moderates roll over?
Jennifer Rubin describes a process we’ve all noticed recently, in which moderate Democrats who ought to know better risk their chances of re-election (or actually give them up) in order to fall in line when Party leaders crack the whip:
…[W]hen confronted with legislation their constituents hated and that defied the fiscal conservative line on which they had ridden into office, they readily complied with their liberal leadership, in no small part because they perceived the risk of crossing the president and their Democratic colleagues to be greater than the risk of angering moderate voters. This was especially true for those who would not face the voters this year. (Only Bayh and Lincoln will.)
That’s what happened, all right. Rubin explains their behavior, at least in part, by saying that their fiscal conservatism was probably just a cynical ploy to begin with, rather than a deeply held principle; she refers to them as “phony centrists.”
Although that may be quite true, it still doesn’t explain something I’ve long wondered about: even if a member of Congress isn’t compromising his/her own deeply held principles on the issues themselves—still, why capitulate to the leadership in situations when such an act would amount to political suicide? In other words, what are those terrible threats that Pelosi and Reid (or, if Republicans happen to control Congress, their Speaker and Majority leader) hold over members in the name of party discipline that could override the desire to get re-elected?
Rubin leaves the details of that part of the story out; we are left to speculate.
I suppose it’s possible that some of these members of Congress don’t want the job anymore. But it’s difficult to believe they’ve suddenly grown tired of the power and perks involved, especially for the long-termers among them.
Power and perks involved—now, therein may lie a hint as to what’s going on. The leaders’ threats to uncooperative members probably include loss of influence, and loss of chairmanships and other highly-anticipated and long-promised appointments. If these members of Congress have been safely ensconced in the favored inner circle, they will now be in the reviled outer one if they defy the party. Ostracism is even possible, effective although perhaps not total; after all, despised party traitor Joe Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats.
But still, wouldn’t it be better for these members to stay in Congress, even as pariahs, rather than be tossed out by the voters? Apparently not. If a member of Congress falls on his/her sword for the Party and loses an election as a result, there are probably some might cushy jobs ahead. But those who defy the party powers that be may receive a warning that they are on their own when they leave—or, even worse, that influential people may try to stop them from landing the types of cushy and powerful jobs they’ve come to expect on their retirement (forced or otherwise) from Congress.
If a member does defy the party and votes against the legislation despite all of this, and then runs for re-election, there’s another hurdle: fund-raising. The party holds some fairly heavy purse strings, and can be extremely helpful in the fiscal sense. Even with name recognition, a great deal of money is generally needed to mount a successful campaign these days, and the party can be of immense help—or harm.
There are exceptions, of course. Joe Lieberman did it mainly without party help, as did newcomer Scott Brown. But those were highly visible elections with powerfully motivated voters and a great deal of publicity (Brown received contributions from all over the country because of strong interest in his becoming the 41st vote against health care reform). Others can’t count on similar interest and support.
So ordinarily there’s a huge risk in going it alone. In the absence of strong principles it must hardly seem worth it, and so they go along to get along and hope for the best.
But in the case of health care reform, those “phony centrists” appear to have greatly underestimated the strength of the rage their betrayal would engender in the voters. After all, Scott Brown had not yet been elected. Now they’re fearful that their gamble will not pay off—except, perhaps, in those golden parachutes the party will provide to cushion their landings when they fall.
It’s no surprise that those who seek to control others are most easily controlled.
“In the absence of strong principles” is the root of the problem.
I enthusiastically recommend the superb BBC House of Cards trilogy about a ruthless Conservative Party whip becomes a ruthless Prime Minister.
One of the catchphrases, when something must be achieved in Parliament, is for the whip “to put a bit of stick about.” And that stick often involves the knowledge of past indiscretions, to put it generously.
Politics is a dirty game, though how far that goes I don’t precisely know, but I’m sure there’s some”stick about” that goes beyond falling off the gravy train.
It is true that there are a lot of soft, lucrative landing spots for Democrats–in think tanks, Ambassadorships, in Academia, and as chairman of this or that organization, or government study commission, more, I suspect, than there are for Republicans–to make an easy touchdown on after Congress.
However, I think that a major factor that is operative here is the belief by many members of Congress–perhaps the great majority of them, that their constituents have very short attention spans and memories, are not very smart or aware, and are easily fooled, and that whatever a member of Congress might do that betrays their supposed “principles,” that got them elected, given enough time and spinning, they can fool enough of their constituents to have a good chance of getting re-elected. Those members who have said they are not running for office again have made the calculation that they cannot fool enough voters to get re-elected.
” . . . why capitulate to the leadership in situations when such an act would amount to political suicide?”
I think that Wolla Dalbo at least partly answers this question in the above comment.
I think, however, that it also involves being in a rarified world and in being out of touch with one’s constituency. Most recently, Martha Coakley was an example of that; soon, I think Arlen Specter will be evidence of the same. A further example is Nancy Pelosi; while she only needs to answer to her constituents in San Francisco, is it possibloe that she would continue to push her agenda if she really understood the harm she was doing to both her fellow Democrats and to the country at karge?
Then again as Tom notes above, perhaps it’s the absence of strong (any?) principles
Maybe the administration just gives them The Full Chicago: “We know where you live and where your children go to school….”
I’ve lived most of my life in a big city in, at best, a purple state. Here’s how many, if not most, voters look at their congressman: he’s there to get them stuff from the government. If he’s ineffective, i.e., he doesn’t get powerful committee assignments where he is in a position to get them even more stuff, they’ll get somebody else.
As I understand it, the first members of Congress back in the 18th century were, first and foremost, just citizens doing their civic duty–farmers, lawyers and businessmen–who made the long and often arduous trip to Washington to do the bare minimum that was required by that civic duty, and then they returned home to get on with their businesses and lives. One of the major ways things started to go awry was when congressmen started to live permanently in the Washington, D.C. area, and became full time professional politicians.
You must understand that being a Congressman can be very hard work–if you are dedicated, and want to work–but it can also be very intoxicating, you are part of a very exclusive club with a great deal of power; if you are a Democrat, you have a usually fawning press, adulation–generally, everyone wants to be your friend and stroke you, and wants something from you (there is a lot of bowing and scraping going on here), and a staff that will tell you how great you are 24/7 if that is what you want to hear (Congressional staff, by the way, that Congress has mandated are not covered by any of the Federal laws or regulations regarding wages and hours, discrimination, or working conditions)–so Congressmen can hire them, fire them, work them, pay them what they will, you are guarded by a large, dedicated police force, and now work on a Capitol Hill surrounded by steel bollards and other anti-terrorist precautions (that can also serve nicely to keep what Senator Harry Reid has called “those sweaty, smelly constituents,” at their distance), you have great retirement benefits (Congress has voted itself a special compensation formula that is otherwise given only to those who perform particularly arduous and dangerous work like CIA agents, enabling congressmen to collect a higher pension in retirement than the average Civil Service retiree with comparable years of service), great health benefits–notice how members have adamantly refused to be covered by Obamacare if it passes, and the golden parachutes I wrote about above.
Among other amenities, the Capitol Hill complex has its own doctor and medical facility, dining room and cafeteria with discounted food, beauty parlor, barber shop, exercise area, travel office to arrange your travel, and–until the public got wind of it a few years ago–used to have a “gift shop” where members and staff could pick up classy little items tax free, like Mont Blanc pens or watches for a small fraction of retail value, there is free parking close by, generous allowances for staff, a housing allowance–one in DC, one in your district, travel, telephone and mailing allowances, generally nice, if crowded, offices (but get on the wrong side of a powerful committee chairman and you will likely be housed in less than ideal quarters, and find office supplies hard to come by). You have the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office and other agencies to help you or do your research for you, and it is likely that you can get attention paid to any statement you want to make. There is also the party scene, and you will probably get a lot of invitations (according to the Chicago Tribune, Obama hosted one party in the White House every three days, 174 in all, through the end of November ’09 (not counting the 17 or so other Holiday open houses and celebrations that had 50,000 participants). And on and on.
Since the adoption of the 17th Amendment (the popular election of Senators) the Senate has become another tool of the two parties. Senators work for the parties and generally they aren’t particularly threatened, we’ve had some pretty unimpressive long standing Senators these past decades and the 17th has helped them.
When Senators were answerable to state legislators they were answerable to people who wanted their jobs and may have possessed the skills to take it, a far cry from today’s situation.
roc scssrs: yes, sure, but I think that would be overridden if the member of Congress kept that ability, and yet voted to implement something they really, really didn’t want, and which would impact closely and personally on their lives (the current health care bills).
People such as Nelson of Nebraska were imagining that they were retaining just the ability you mention, and yet they failed to understand that voters were angry with them for their affirmative votes on something voters found noxious.
The disgusting part of all this is we can never vote for the best candidate, only the better party. How can I vote for a Blue Dog Democrat, if that really means a vote for Pelosi and her agenda even though the “best” candidate has disavowed the Pelosi agenda?
“”Why do moderates roll over?””
Because they aren’t moderates and theres no rolling taking place? Im just sayin…
this is why palin scares them.
the reason their system relies on women, gays, and others traditionally out of the periphery is because it gives such a group an advantage.
by pretending to normalize things around the radicals in those groups, you appear to be fighting for them.
by selecting those whom the world kicks or who believe it does, you get people willing to hurt the system without caring.
since you cant completely normalize things for them, you then control the ability to pull the cards on them and suddenly the world will not like the fringe behavior they ignored before
everyone in the system has bones, and so the system as a unit has something on each. this is their trump card. this is something that revelation would be worse than losing that particular career. as they are collectivists, and go where they are told anyway.
the few that have no bones have fear of having false bones and things attributed to them and having thousands work against them at the drop of a dime.
the system has checks and things to it, like validating believers by their ability to believe and promote nonsese of some sort. everyone like my purple horse (thats actually white)? those that say its a white horse, not purple, get removed. as they are not following the collective they are thinking for themselves and so are not serving the collective.
no system is perfect, and no one ever has the kind of control that people fantasize that is true. its always about moving majorities, and “better than’s”
palin rose up in a small state they werent paying attention to, and she did it by doing the right thing, which the people like her for. so to a collective, what does she then represent?
the threat of individuality. of thinking for yourself, which creates opposition to ends, questions, “distractions”.
Artfldgr,
Sounds like the Borg to me!
Mark Steyn’s answer to your question, with which I concur, is that there were really no blue dogs to begin with. The left views American society as flawed and unjust. A health care takeover permanently changes the political calculus of the nation. Every election thereafter will be fought on who can “fix” the health care system. Such a situation is impossible for conservatives to win since they can never out promise the left. So most liberals and closet liberals would be willing to give up their seats to cement a fundamental change in what they view as an unjust society and which will permanently empower their class as a permanent ruling class.
Look what happened to Lieberman. Anger the Democratic leadership and you’re under the bus and on your own. How many Congressmen have the balls to really go it on their own — with no support, and even active attack and undermining — from their own party.
The deal with the Democrats is simple. You deliver your vote, and the party takes care of you. You advance in rank. You get your desired committeeships. You get financial and logistical hand-holding come reelection time. The other Democrats are your friends. You get invited to their parties. They make life pleasant for you.
Defy the leadership — and all that disappears. Sure, you can stay in Congress if you can get the votes, but don’t expect any help in any way from the party. Do you want your life to become really difficult and lonely? How many Congressmen — especially moderates — are really personally strong to go that route?
Probably not very many. If they had that level of principle, they wouldn’t be moderates, would they?
Ahem…did people forget something here…PELOSI WAS SELECTED AS HOUSE SPEAKER BY THE DEMOCRATS. Yes, those Blue Dogs who profess to be fiscal conservatives voted to place in a position of power someone who was an independently wealthy (married money) socialist from quite probably the most left-leaning district in the US. Plus, with Obama being a hands-off non-manager — he authored no bills while a Senator — it was fairly obvious that he was going to outsource this to the Speaker. The fact that the Blue-dogs were caught off-guard by this arrangement calls into question their basic intelligence.
No, I have no mercy for any “fiscal conservative” that would trust the Obama-Pelosi axis with the treasury. Every single one of them is guilty of incompetence.
An excellent post about something I’ve been curious about for a long time. This is a great case for term limits. It’s hard to build a plush life after politics if you’re only in office foe 8 (or 12) years.
On another note, I’m surprised that like minded congressmen and senators don’t form more pockets/factions to sway legislation. Strength in numbers means it’s less likely that they’ll face any real wrath from leadership and may even enhance their creditability with the voters. The Congressional Black Caucus and the so called “Blue Dogs” come to mind. Of course there are the RINO’s and DINO’s out there gumming up the works as well.
Well the Blue Dogs may or may not be actual moderates, and in a very real way it may not matter, because their impact is about the same either way. The bigger mystery to me is why any voter, Yellow-Dog Democrat heritage and southern-to-his-core though he be, would ever vote for a Democrat at all if he’s paying any attention. It’s been pretty clear for a good many years now where the national/DC Democrat party is and where it’s moving, a blind man could see it in a minute. I heard a while back that Rahm Emanuel is due the credit for the tactic of recruiting and running moderate-to-conservative Democrat candidates in areas where conservatives are likely to win, and then when they get to Washington the party-discipline screws could be put to them, probably in the good cop-bad cop maneuvers neo describes. Matt LaBash did a piece in The Weekly Standard back during the 2008 campaign that left me scratching my head. It’s a profile of a southern Appalachian (in the event, southwestern Virginia) Dem activist who works hard to corral conservative Democrats from that area–keep them loyal to, and voting for, the Democrat party. The guy came off in the piece as genuine enough, and I wondered why the hell he would work so hard to support a party that’s clearly opposed to the things he and his people want:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/245uswoq.asp
It’s an interesting piece, but it doesn’t answer–or really even ask, as I recall–the questions we’re thinking about in this thread. The odd thing is that these questions are the only ones that really matter on the subject: Why do moderate/conservative Democrat congressmen roll over for the liberal national party? And why do people continue to vote for them? Another question that arises is that, if the Blue Dogs are bought off in exchange for loyal party votes and then being defeated in the next election cycle, what’s next? Will the ploy be undertaken again in the same districts and states, with a new, second round of conservative Democrat candidates being fielded? How many times do these wizards think they can run this grift? In fact, how many times do they think they will NEED to run it? Maybe they think this last cycle was the Big One, the Revolution, and they won’t NEED to run it again.
> in those golden parachutes the party will provide to cushion their landings when they fall.
All the crooked charlatans tossed out of office will get exactly the long-term job they’ve been angling for all along — lobbyist.
Anyway, the Game is a-foot. I’m just not sure we’re clear about what the Game IS.
Steve Ducharme,
It’s even harder to build a plush life after politics if you are stripped of the perks, retirement set-ups, pensions, and health-care plans that are presently a matter of Congressional statute.
I remember–most of us probably remember–when Newt Gingrich trotted out that Contract with America, which a lot of people then thought was responsible for the Republican wave in 1994. I don’t doubt that it was a factor, but I think the House banking scandal and Jim Wright’s lucrative publishing deals were larger factors, feeding public disgust with entrenched corruption.
Those are the things that need to be dismantled, those awful perks and life-time set-ups for ex-members of Congress. How do we get people into office who will vote to tear down a system that is so transparently self-serving? It’d be like asking the Pope to publish an ex cathedra encyclical that dismantled Vatican City–which would give new meaning to the term “Papal Bull.”
What would happen if an entire crop of freshman congressman just flat out represented their district from day one… you know.. like their supposed to? Would they get squashed as a group? Maybe. But the fact is that they’d likely keep getting re-elected and given time they would gain a seniority and one day they could call the shots and chair the house appropriately. Yeah I know but a guy can dream.
Term limits, and kill the percs and bennies. Level the playing field as far as retirement income and health care are concerned. The only people who would run for office would be those who truly want to serve. Like many above, maybe I’m just a dreamer too.
The idea of “voting for the best candidate” is an absurdity. You know nothing about any candidate. All “information” is lies, except party affiliation. That is the only piece of information you have, so you should always vote for a party.
As Limbaugh says, so-called moderates are intrinsically unprincipled, and Steyn is right that there were no Blue Dog Democrats.
Sounds like the Borg to me!
maybe the borg were invented by looking at progressives. just as the klingons were some fantasy version of vikings, borg would be the end results of a long chain of thinking.
feminism and its destruction of family, and securing for women the liberation from child birth and rearing.
equality through better electronics and subsumation of individual mind, goals, thoughts, and lives.
the inability for progressives to make moral choices as to what is and isnt a good idea. like how far do we meld machine and man? do we use it only to replace lost function, or do we use it to extend and enhance function? the first is self limiting to what man could do naturally, the second puts one on the same path of new socialist man and an endless series of improvements, till you get to where?
[want to read about eh cube satellites we have now? the question isnt whether that leads to borg, its whether that is a salient point, or just a shared fact, like putting on trousers]
progressvism, socialism, communism, feminisms, goals were worked out and taken up as more worth of personal goals, and promoting regressive states is their way of not being afraid of the future (while still being greedy and fascinated for certain toys from that future).
borg have no art, why have art? art is really for individual experience, not the perverted thing they now do (a la a certin soviet state). no pets, but remember pets are bougeoisi (which is why china seeks to kill them under any excuse). games, toys, recreation, are all wastes to them, all about individual experience, motiviation, and joy.
and those things are competing powers with the state. all competing powers are cancers to be cured, subsumed, or destoroyed…
family is a power, personal love between people not of the party is a power (you do things for loved ones you would not do for strangers), pets, interests, religions other than the great prophet marx, pleasures other than those granted directly by the state, property…
borg is what a socialist state becomes eventually if one extrapolates their goals to end results. even the fact that the borg exist by stealing other technology as they cant invent, a wholly individual act. they have no entertainment, no economy. like russians who have been under full socialism, and even americans under a lot of partial socialism, we stop breeding. (so as in the last century, real imperialism, like recent grabbing of georgia, becomes once again a way to make up for deficiencies caused by lack of capital, and lack of imagination)
the system created by the people takes on a life of its own, and like a crowd of people at a concert pushing a giant ball around… it keeps going never touching the ground as there is always a set to support it, and so it lives connected and apart from the whole with its own needs that make all below it subjected to the capricious needs of that nature.
there are other ways to live, and by allowing socialism inside we have accepted that there are no other ways to live.
homogenization of thought seems to be a desease causing thing in man. that without conflicting ideas and notions of living and nature, we settle on almost any idea and follow a long chain of baby steps to normal behavior in what others would realize was pathological.
how else do we get rational thought to things like human sacrifice whithout indicitng the wrong criminal (some idea and not the minds that thought it)?
without this more natural state, we regress into the kind of thing that the stamford experiment showed. the focus on a goal combined with the absolution of responsibility as your following goals from above, creates the inability to measure your behavior against rational thought and perspective. you lose perspective. you get wrapped up and caught up and even 100 million worked and starved to death does not become too much as there is a goal to meet.
I do think an important factor contributing to the problem is the creation of the Professional Politician. It can be seen on a (somewhat) smaller level here in California–which is completely dysfunctional. Back in, I think, the ’60’s, there was a push to make legislative salaries sufficiently high that legislators would not need other sources of income. This, supposedly, would erase the motivation for corruption. It created Professional Politicians who have now run California into Fiscal Hell.
why do moderates roll over?
Because if they actually had a backbone, they wouldn’t be called moderates?
I always recall something George Will said about Moderate Republicans many years ago: ‘They possess all the blazing candle power of a firefly.’
Worked for me then; works for me now.
“moderates are intrinsically unprincipled”
“why do moderates roll over?
“Because if they actually had a backbone, they wouldn’t be called moderates?”
So the only viable position is far to the right?
Both of the above statements are categorical. No acknowledgment that while many moderates have no principles other than self-interest, some moderates just see both sides of the issue.
Or is it a case of ‘truth’ residing solely upon one side?
So, essentially 50% of the people are ALWAYS wrong on EVERY issue?
And if so, when all truth is claimed to rest with one side… then upon the other side of that coin, rests fanaticism.
People often have mixed motives but speaking categorically, ‘Moderates’ are moderate for one of 5 reasons, 3 of which are negative, 2 of which are positive:
They have no principle other than self-interest.
They mistakenly place principle in service of pragmatism, placing the ‘cart before the horse’.
As pragmatism, should always be in service of principle.
Some people understand that and while principled, also realize that it’s always pertinent to
ask the question; Is our goal achievable and if not, in the interests of gaining some ground, what amount of compromise is possible before reaching the point where it becomes counter productive and antithetical to principle?
Many moderates buy into the “Narrative” with unthinking acceptance of what they’ve been taught. See: Can Republicans Govern? http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/can-republicans-govern
They see both sides of the issue and they seek, however imperfectly, to resolve the issue.
Example: yes, people ‘should’ strive to be productive and self-sufficient and that ‘value’ should be inculcated into the young. No, it is not reasonable to assume that if we ‘privatize’ Social Security’ everyone at retirement age would be able to ‘afford’ retirement. Some people would be unlucky in their choices, as a society do we essentially say to those people, the ‘unlucky’ elderly, “Well, it sure sucks to be you…”
To some degree, entitlements exist because some people really need them and if we wish to actually be a civilized and compassionate country then some level of entitlements shall always exist.
Which is not to say that entitlement spending isn’t completely out of hand. It most certainly is out of control and fiscally unsustainable. That said, some entitlements are necessary. Voila, both sides of the issue acknowledged.
Moderation may be for monks, but unrestrained excess, sooner or later, takes a society over the cliff’s edge.
I’ve long pondered this.
It’s two different problems for two different camps. The Democrat moderate and the Republican moderate.
I do believe Snowe and Collins and other ‘moderate’ Republicans are acting on principle. They like journalists want to help people. Snowe didn’t sit there in the Health care meetings to do anything but do what she could to help people. She is misguided on economic issues and she has deeply held beliefs that nobody can knock her for on other issues. Economic issues are factual in nature for many people. But Snowe believes she is trying to help ordinary people and gets lost in the argument if somebody tried to persuade her otherwise.
This SEEMS to be the case with Lincoln and Bayh and other moderate Democrats.
I actually feel sorry for ‘moderates’. The only problem is that moderate Democrats do vote with their party more often than not. This is the same with ‘moderate’ Republicans.
I cannot knock moderates usually except that they are lost on the facts many times.
I cannot knock them like the Barney Franks, Chuck Shumers and the Reids and Pelosi’s.
I can fully understand why politicians vote for ‘programs’. What I can’t understand is the inability for politicians to see how their votes on taxes, fees, and regulations destroy jobs and businesses.
Used to be I did not believe in term limits. The Constitution established that based the idea that we got the government we voted for and deserved.
That has changed with the passing of time and my observation of Congress. The other day I could not sign a petition fast enough to put on the ballot a measure invoke term limits.
Not that it will matter because if it does pass the measure will be of course be taken to court and struck down.
The problem is now I wonder if I have turned into an immoderate conservative and now am just as bad as the rest of them….sort of “we had to burn down the village in order to save it”.
If you look back at the society and culture and its ethical and moral standards at the time of the Revolution and up through, perhaps, the Civil War, I think that you can see a gradual then, around WWI or WWII an accelerating decline in ethical and moral standards; we pride ourselves on being more educated and more “nuanced” in our views compared to 18th century America, but what others may call sophistication or “nuance” I see as degeneration.
In the case of our Congress, this gradual, general degeneration has produced many members of Congress today who increasingly seem to see themselves more as a ruling class, which has its own particular interests–often opposed to those of their constituents or the long term health of the country–than as the servants and representatives of the people, fulfilling a role limited by the Constitution as written.
“We the people” have, in some sense, come full circle, back to the King and his Ministers (Obama, his Czars and Cabinet members) and the English Parliament; people and institutions who seek to rule us, who–despite what they may say for our consumption–really care little for our wishes and aspirations, as they impose more and more taxes and seek more and more control over us, and we already far less free, and free from government interference and control than the American colonists of 1776, far from the shores of England.
Hallmarks of all this “progress” (generally thanks to History and Antonio Gramsci) is the general decline of morality and ethics–public and private, and the vanishing of the idea of “civic duty,” the general destruction of the plain meaning of words and standards, the advent of the professional politician, and their ever higher pay and expanding perks–i.e. the “Gravy Train,” and the development of what might be called a “Congressional culture” that has seen more and more power accumulated by a small political elite–elite in the sense that they have been elected, not in the sense of education or intellect–that has become increasingly divorced from the public, and sees them only as a means to the end of their reelection.
Paralleling this has been the expansion of government, and the gradual transformation of what had been a society of generally self sufficient producers–makers, into a society increasingly made up of dependent, whining victims–takers. I note in this context that 38% of citizens currently pay no income taxes and that this percentage–if Obama & Co. have their way–is slated to increase to 49%; bread and circuses indeed! Remember, if you will, the video of ecstatic women exiting an Obama campaign rally, who exclaimed that–thanks to Obama–she wouldn’t have to pay her apartment rent or fill her gas tank anymore.
It must also be noted that the skill set necessary to get elected is not the skill set needed to be a good legislator–“paging Mr. Obama”–and that we live in the age of the two minute attention span and the immediate, not the long term view, political correctness and propaganda, not education, and of the increasingly a-historical, innumerate, and functionally illiterate college “graduate”–the ideal candidate to be easily fooled and led. But, the surface is not the depths, regurgitation is not knowledge, indoctrination is not the same as investigation, cunning is not the same as wisdom, “rap” is not a symphony and fevered intensity is not clear thought.
It seems to me that there is also a great bubble surrounding many members of Congress, who apparently often talk only to activists and other like minded members, and who apparently believe their own propaganda in the MSM, so that–judging from the statements coming out of Congress and the White House–they increasingly live in an alternative universe, one that is swiftly diverging from the real one.
Thus, we have Obama yesterday castigating those who “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk” on “fiscal responsibility,” Harry Reid calling citizen Tea Party protesters “evil doers,” and Pelosi saying that “by hook or by crook” Democrats are going to cram Health Care Reform down citizens throats, no matter how widespread or what their objections might be; Congress’ own form of “water boarding.”
It will not do to just eject this repellent crew from the Gravy Train, the Gravy Train itself has to be dismantled as do the tracks, and a return of our entire political system to something approximating its roots, morality and outlook has to be undertaken, or the Train will just appear again–no doubt now called by some innocuous name like “dietary supplements train,” will be just as crowded as ever, and headed towards the same destination.
Artfldgr,
I wasn’t being sarcastic in bringing up the Borg, I recognized the parallels, too.
I especially like your analogy of the large ball at the concert: always another set of people to pass it along.
It reminds me of the error in the Santayana quote (people who haven’t learned history reliving it). Our entire lifetime is a learning experience; no matter how much history we learn, we are all condemned to relive history in some way. Thus, always a new subset of people to keep the ball from touching the ground
The other day I could not sign a petition fast enough to put on the ballot a measure invoke term limits.
I used to think that too, but we have them here in CA, and we see the downside. Specifically, termed out legislators are totally unaccountable; they’ve got nothing to lose. Moreover, they spend their lame duck period feathering their nests for their legislative careers by sponsoring sweetheart deals for industries/ unions/ other organizations who may, by great good fortune, happen to be looking for someone with just the skill set of the outgoing legislator.
I’m afraid that there is no simple, mechanical solution. Voters need to come up for air, vote out the wastrels, and retain such good legislators as they can find.
“”Moderation may be for monks, but unrestrained excess, sooner or later, takes a society over the cliff’s edge””
Goeffrey Britain
With all due respect Geoffrey this is getting awfully close to one of Obama’s signature strawman arguments. Who are these people so excessive that they wont support a floor of decency for those who truly need it? Even the most far right person i can think of doesn’t suggest that.
As far as moderates go, one could suggest the mess we’re in now came from their compromising ways. Without them we’d either have everyone paying his fair share of taxes or only the top 5 to 10% of earners paying all of them. Only one scenario of which society would quickly discover is sustainable. Thanks to moderation and avoidance of “extremes” we’re darn close to 50% pay the taxes and resolution nowhere in sight.
The problem with seeking moderation can be that all too often compromise degenerates into splitting the difference. Splitting the difference rewards staking out and intransigently defending an extreme position to make the midpoint between views closer to your desired result. This “grab the blanket and roll over” approach differs from compromise, where ideally each side gives up something it legitimately desired in return for something else it desires even more.
“Thanks to moderation and avoidance of “extremes” we’re darn close to 50% pay the taxes and resolution nowhere in sight.”
This leads to my favorite Tea-Party sentiment:
No Representation Without Taxation!
IOW, only those who pay income taxes have the franchise. QED (Not quantum electrodynamics)!
SteveH,
“As far as moderates go, one could suggest the mess we’re in now came from their compromising ways.”
One could indeed make that argument and with more than a little validity.
In my comment, perhaps I should have made clear my view that the moderates practicing moderation for the positive reasons I mentioned are in a distinct minority.
I estimate perhaps one in 4 do so for positive reasons. Which is not to say that they are not sincere, many are sincere, just mistaken.
Those who get ‘the cart before the horse’ by mistakenly placing principle in service of pragmatism or who are caught up in the unchallenged premises of the “narrative”, i.e. the ‘progressive’ republicans and moderate democrats are ‘blinded’ by their own assumptions. And it’s the assumptions such as those underlying the Narrative, which prevent them from understanding just how misguided they are…
However, categorically labeling moderates as unequivocally unprincipled, as some appear to be at the least implying, if not outright claiming to be fact is to effectively maintain that 66% of the population is completely wrong about everything.
I find such an assertion unsupportable.
“”is to effectively maintain that 66% of the population is completely wrong about everything.
I find such an assertion unsupportable.””
Goeffrey Britain
I wonder what percentage of German citizens were dead wrong in 1939? Soviet citizens through most of the 20th century? The fact of the matter is 66% of the people don’t have to be stupid. Just ignorant of factual information, thanks to the 1% political class controlling the narrative through false information.
Ostracism is a powerful weapon. Anyone who has moved from “The Left” to Moderate or even “The Right” has felt it and intuitively understands the costs.
My inadequate two cents; allow me to profess a profound ignorance of how it is that so many have proved so craven, could it be we just do not understand the group dynamics that allows the moderates to be pushed around by the fanatical? The fanatic admittedly has an advantage; his position allows no compromise whereas a moderate is always looking for it. But that suggests an amazing amount of moral weakness on the part of so many. Do we have not only a megalomaniac and sociopath as President but a party of good Germans to go with it?
Responding to those who say that moderates are in effect, dim. Plaese tell me why I should be swayed towards either party.
I’m a strong fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I say let gays marry and smoke all the pot they want to on their honeymoon after dropping their sister off at the clinic for her first trimester abortion. I’d be a registered democrat if they would just stop worshiping Keynes and try a little Hayek.
So where’s MY candidate because he/she certainly isn’t to the far right or far left. My motto is let me make a f##king living first and THEN you can talk to me about social engineering. I’ll lend an ear to a moderate but like most of you I won’t trust him to stick to his principles any more that I trust me to stick to mine.
The Progressives’ Narrative is one of the most pernicious, destructive things ever to have been devised against this great country. I am constantly astonished that conservatives have taken so little trouble, all the way back to its devising, to challenge it. One of the most effective, and in my mind most moving, counters to it is found at the end of Atticus Finch’s final summation to the jury in To Kill a Mockingbird. This summation by itself has always made me scratch my head at the reverence in which many liberals hold this wonderful book–I wonder, do they really understand what it says? Anyway, I think the end of Atticus’ summation is worth quoting in full–please forgive the length!
“One more thing, gentlemen, before I quit. Thomas Jefferson once said that all men are created equal, a phrase that the Yankees and the distaff side of the Executive branch in Washington are fond of hurling at us. There is a tendency in this year of grace, 1935, for certain people to use this phrase out of context, to satisfy all conditions. The most ridiculous example I can think of is that the people who run public education promote the stupid and idle along with the industrious–because all men are created equal, educators will gravely tell you, the children left behind suffer terrible feelings of inferiority. We know all men are not created equal in the sense some people would have us believe–some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because they’re born with it, some men make more money than others, some ladies make better cakes than than others–some people are born gifted beyond the normal scope of most men.
“But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal–there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court. It can be the Supreme Court of the United States or the humblest J.P. court in the land, or this honorable court which you serve. Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.
“I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system–that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality.”
“”So where’s MY candidate because he/she certainly isn’t to the far right or far left.””
Steve Ducharmee
When i look at the political landscape i see far left and center right to choose from. Far right would be a gay basher, increased jail for pot possesion and banning all abortion. I can’t think of a single prospective conservative likely to be elected that fits any of those.
I contend most fiscal conservatives by definition just wish people would pull their own weight and THEN we’d be more likely to have grownup discussions about social issues. People demanding their pet social change while the big issues go unnattended aren’t grownups.
“I contend most fiscal conservatives by definition just wish people would pull their own weight and THEN we’d be more likely to have grownup discussions about social issues.”
In a nutshell yes. That sounds about right.
“I wonder what percentage of German citizens were dead wrong in 1939? Soviet citizens through most of the 20th century? The fact of the matter is 66% of the people don’t have to be stupid. Just ignorant of factual information, thanks to the 1% political class controlling the narrative through false information.”
Thank goodness we have this internet thing. Now we can either break down the walls of media control!!!… errr.. or we can just find our own echo chambers… our own private “confederacy of dunces”.
just throwing this out there-Legislators in the Texas State legislature only meet every other year unless called into special session. too bad we dont have that on the National level…….
“I wonder what percentage of German citizens were dead wrong in 1939? Soviet citizens through most of the 20th century? The fact of the matter is 66% of the people don’t have to be stupid. Just ignorant of factual information, thanks to the 1% political class controlling the narrative through false information.”
Implying that our country is presently as ‘hoodwinked’ as German citizens of the 1930’s and Soviet citizens were is somewhat problematic.
But for the sake of discussion, if that is true, you also imply that if citizens had ‘factual’ information they would think differently. And of course, to at least some degree, they would. Certainly fiscally, that would almost certainly be true, economics may not be a science but its basic principles are established beyond dispute.
On the social and political issues however I believe you would find less agreement, and that would be so even if conservatives controlled the information.
There will always be a spectrum of opinion on issues, neo-neocon alluded to it with her prior post regarding her ‘rule of thirds’ or, as I suggested, a simple bell curve suffices to illustrate the basic diversity of opinion upon any issue. That would be so, even if information were as fair minded and objective as we all wish it were.
Whatever the issue you’re always going to have people who think on the left and the right and, people stuck in the middle, wavering back and forth, listening to each side and, because each side frames the argument according to their own premises, finding each side momentarily persuasive.
Few possess the interest, time and discipline needed to integrate the two sides in a way that is consistent with principle. Just look at how the founding fathers struggled mightily in that hot, sweaty summer of 1789, trying to balance competing views. And if they had trouble doing it, perhaps its understandable that we would as well.
Yes, a majority of opinion may at times, simply reflect the popular whim, unconnected to the reality of the situation, but in general, if every issue has two sides, just as does a coin, yet there is another surface…the edge. Which is as viable as either side, yet the most difficult surface upon which to rest the issue, while also being the only surface that allows each side equal ‘representation’…
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/13/some-house-dems-wonder-whether-obama-wants-them-to-lose/
The above appears rather interesting.
You can’t expect these clowns to get a job in the private sector except as lobbyists.
They’re lazy, dirty, and have no clue
If they’re out of the Congress, they’re unemployed.
They need influence to get what good jobs they can qualify for.
I cannot comment on members of Congress but I always thought Obama’s real calling was used car salesman.