Congress, Republicans, and conservatives: so now whatta we do?
In yesterday’s thread we talked about the problems in Congress between the GOP and conservatives. Today I want to highlight part of a comment by “Mark” that goes like this:
“McConnell’s gift is his brutally candid assessment of reality” and the flaw of conservatives is that our overwhelming desire for instant deployment of our principles overlooks the checks and balances that stand in our way. Ironically, those checks and balances are the part of a CONSERVATIVE framework laid out by our Founders. We conservatives act like petulant children who don’t like being told that major obstacles put what we want out of reach, or that smaller steps are the best we can do in the present.
For example in 2013 McConnell knew he couldn’t win the effort to block Obamacare funding. He didn’t want to fund Obamacare, but more importantly, he didn’t want the GOP to reinforce branding as the cruel party of government shutdown. Cruz was a fool to do the shutdown stunt, but it served his personal ambitions at the expense of the appeal of conservatism to the general electorate.
McConnell’s pragmatism needs to be comprehended and not derided in knee jerk declarations of “RINO.”
I’m fairly certain that a lot of readers here would disagree vehemently with Mark. But I think he is correct in his general point that conservatives’ “overwhelming desire for instant deployment of our principles overlooks the checks and balances that stand in our way.” That is something I’ve been writing about for years, although I never said it quite as elegantly and succinctly as Mark does right there.
For example, I keep seeing cries of “get rid of Boehner” and/or “get rid of McConnell.” But other than acting as a conservative pep rally firing up the base, the call to do this lacks some fairly important details such as how it could happen. When last I checked, both positions were elective offices voted on by colleagues, and unless there is widespread support for a challenge it has no chance of succeeding. Conservatives often accuse the establishment wing of the GOP of going for the empty gesture or kabuki theater (often a correct charge, by the way), but they themselves seem to be rather enthusiastic about their own empty gestures and kabuki theater.
For example, I happen to think highly of Ted Cruz: smart as a whip, articulate, bold, and a principled conservative with whom I agree on most issues. But I think his strategy is to appeal to the conservative base with gestures that are doomed to failure while at the same time offending most of his colleagues in the Senate (see this, for example). The reason is that Cruz lacks a power base, and the establishment is called “the establishment” for a reason: they have a power base, and they have the numbers.
That’s why I say that the way to combat the establishment in the Senate is to get more conservatives in there. If you can’t elect more conservatives right away, that means you have to work harder to convince people of the rightness of the conservative cause, raise more money, and expand conservative ideas into the forums of media, entertainment, and academia. If that’s not quick enough for you, that’s too bad, because the others have been playing this game for a long long time. And if you don’t care about winning control of Congress and think it’s a lost cause, then you have to have an alternate approach.
Then there’s what commenter “Jimmy J” wrote yesterday, which I think is right on the money and relevant to the whole question of what to do about Congress. Here’s an excerpt:
I once worked for a Naval Officer who thought like a politician. Whenever an issue or problem came up he would immediately go into this mode of thinking: What will the big brass think, what will SECDEF think, what will my sailors think, how will this be perceived in the civilian world, and the final piece of the puzzle ”“ how can I address this and enhance my career?
It was a new experience for me. I had always been in operating units and our problems usually consisted of a mission and how we accomplished that mission. Except for directions or commands from higher authority, we never gave a second thought to how what we were doing to complete the mission would look to anyone else. That tour of duty (2 years) gave me an insight into how the Pentagon and Washington DC work…
IMO, that is why so much of what we see in our representatives seems so mystifying and horrifying. We see what appears to be a straightforward way to solve a problem, but we don’t see the checklists of donors, lobbyists, friends, other party members, journalists, personal preferences, career enhancement chances, etc., etc. that influence what actually happens.
The behavior is clearly endemic to politics. In that sense both parties are alike, and in fact ALL parties will always be alike, and nearly all politicians will be, as well. The problem is inherent, unavoidable, inevitable, baked in the cake, etc. Conservatives (or those who say they are conservative) are hardly immune, either, and anyone who goes into politics can (and probably will) end up this way even if the person doesn’t start out that way.
So what’s the solution? My attitude towards politics and politicians has long been a practical one. I’ll summarize it as this: don’t expect much, and vote for the ones least likely to do the worst damage. That means conservatives usually; next in line are Republicans. It’s really a rather simple decision most of the time. But it is a frustrating process because it doesn’t advance things very far, or at least it certainly hasn’t up to this point.
In terms of electoral politics, however, I see no alternative. Congress is never going to be composed of a majority—or anywhere near it—of principled people, much less principled conservatives.
What I don’t understand is why so many conservatives focus on rage at Republicans, as though they’re the biggest problem. They’re not. They’re just part of a much much bigger problem. Nor do I understand why so many conservatives say there’s no difference who you vote for, and that both parties are the same. They are not, and although they share many characteristics (as I’ve noted above), the Democrats and the left do more damage in the long run. So why enable them with your vote, or with your abstention from voting?
[NOTE: Also see commenter Eric’s response to Jimmy J.]
So what’s the solution?
there isnt any as we are way too far along for anything the public would do to change it… at best the public will be allowed to hasten it, but they wont be allowed to reverse it, correct it, repair it, or even get valid information to understand it.
I’m more than disappointed with our legislature. Part of the problem as every agrees are the legislators. The other part is institutional. To that end I wish we could make the following amendments to the Constitution:
I. Only an elected legislator can formulate and write legislation. No personal assistance or communication of any kind will be allowed. (Laws are too complex and tailored to specific special interest)
II. An entire bill must be read aloud in its entirety before a vote may take place immediately thereafter.
III. All expenses incurred by a legislator for the execution of his or her duties, including the operation of his or her office, will be reimbursed and treated as ordinary income for tax purposes. (Our legislators have the trappings of wealth without the downside of actually being wealthy)
IV. Each elected or appointed legislator can occupy a total of two terms.
V. The Congress shall always be governed by the Laws of the United States without exception.
I would like one simple legislative victory. Preferable a bill vetoed by Obama and then overridden.
Can anyone think of a single political or cultural or legal victory in the last six years? I guess we won Michigan v. EPA but are there others?
We always lose.
I know this is a national blog but here in NE the death penalty got repealed. Now a petition drive to get it restored. Petition will win, but how did we get to such a place? Republicans abandon the conservative cause and get out maneuvered by the Left.
And so we get distracted on something that shouldn’t be issue and the former Governor completely SCREWS up and BUNGLES KXL. He gets walloped by a single woman in Hastings. So Obama can say, “I’m waiting on Nebraska.” And then the Nebraska Supreme Court writes an opinion that guarantees another three years of delay and the new Govenor does nothing. Defeated by children because some of our so-called leaders are idiots.
Jeff Crump
Here in Nebraska the bills have always been read aloud; a holdover from the days when the Solons couldn’t read.
There have been repeal attempts but they fail because the citizens want to punish the senators.
The real result is that it chews up a bunch of time and since we have 60 and 90 day sessions, it cuts down on the number of bills passed.
I have a simple solution: term limits. but once again, it’s a solution that ultimately requires the people you are trying to limit voting themselves out of a job.
If there is one fatal flaw in the Constitution, it’s that the framers never saw the need for term limits for Congress. It’s amazing the amendment for the presidential term limit passed.
Conservatives rage at Republicans because Republicans are supposed to have at least some principles. The Dems stand for the ever-expanding state, and everything else is secondary to that. They got that way because their constituents, and the media, allow it and don’t keep them in line and honest. There is a sizeable portion of the population that will vote for Hillary Clinton regardless of the fact that she is a vile liar who obviously intends to betray every last one of them in her quest for power. There is an even bigger chunk of fools who believe everything Barack Obama says. It’s pitiful! Republicans are supposed to be better than that. Not Democrats Lite. Not the least worst alternative. Not Apologetically Right. Encouraging political responsiveness by dissenting from the establishment orthodoxy of endless graft and gravy is a good thing.
Former congressman Fred Grandy has a talk radio show in the DC area. He has said that you cannot understand a Congressman’s vote on a given piece of legislation because there is so much behind-the-scenes bargaining. It is wrong to assume the vote is cast based on the legislation itself when it may be just as likely that the vote was cast in exchange for another Congressman’s vote on something else. IIRC, this is why he is a former Congressman.
If this is an accurate depiction of the process it explains why these Senators and Congressmen are so condescending to outsiders, and also why they seem to treat each other better than the citizens they supposedly represent. We have nothing to offer them except campaign checks ever 2 or 6 years – and even then, most of us cannot compete with the larger donors and organizations (like unions, etc.).
physicsguy:
That’s why I didn’t suggest term limits. They won’t vote it for themselves, so it’s another pipe dream.
Cornhead:
The only bill where an Obama veto could have been overridden (and therefore he didn’t veto it in the first place) was Corker-Menendez, because that’s the only one that had enough Democratic support. To override a veto you must have tons of Democratic support. That’s what makes it so very hard.
“In terms of electoral politics, however, I see no alternative. Congress is never going to be composed of a majority–or anywhere near it–of principled people, much less principled conservatives.”
And there’s the rub — utter corruption – and it rubs up against a corrupt people. And yet, and yet… there’s the insistence that voting will change things, maybe, if we vote hard enough, often enough, anything but democratic, and…
Here is the premise, and I believe it irrefutable: it is impossible to maneuver within a corrupt system to uncorrupt it, to reform it. As exhibits 1- A, B, and C — The Great Soviet, China, Vietnam — stand as evidence that systemic corruption will not be voted out, nor will it be reformed, nor will revolution dent it — it can only collapse.
A long quote, but it speaks volumes:
“Having been born into and raised in what was then a reasonably functional democracy it has taken me most of a long lifetime to come to accept that such a thing no longer exists, and to finally throw off my innate unease at the use and the objectives of the terms ‘revolution’ and ‘revolutionary’. Now, having recently tried one last time to bring about a recovery of that old status quo via the ballot box, and having failed abysmally, I am convinced that that avenue is closed and is beyond hope of recovery. (Granting a universal franchise – without consideration as to whether or not significant a significant percentile of the recipients of this gift are set to destroy and replace that system – is simply a neglectfully altruistic way of committing mass suicide.)
At the onset this painful transition of mine presented me with a moral dilemma, a dilemma which prevailing circumstances forced me to acknowledge and then resolve by finally accepting that only one alternative course of action remains open; in all a slow process through which I have had to struggle within myself, bedevilled by beguiling bucolic memories of a more harmonious and homogenous past. Yet, eventually, I came to the firm conclusion that the necessary course of action should not simply be in the form of ‘resistance’, because whilst resistance is often said to be futile, it is much more than that – it is wholly counter-productive in the sense that it only delays the inevitable chaos and thus the post-chaos opportunity for re-birth, and that the longer such an inevitability is delayed the more difficult will be the reconstruction.”
– Guillaume Faye, French scholar and one of the principal theoreticians of the French ‘Nouvelle Droit’ (New Right) in the 1970s and ’80s
Yes, Virginia, there is a French Right. It takes a good deal of wading neck deep through the detritus, i.e., the Communism, socialism, Existentialism, Deconstructionism, but its there.
The National Front is considered the right wing (meaning patriotic, popular, citizen orientated) faction in France.
They are looked down upon by the Frenchies and Europeans. Then again, that is perhaps as good a standard as any.
Neo:
Corker- Menendez is actually a win for Obama. This Iran deal is really a treaty and should have been subject to Senate approval as a treaty. Obama completely flipped it and now we have to get two-thirds to STOP him.
Obama couldn’t get 50 votes to approve the Iran deal as a treaty. Completely out-foxed.
Ymarsakar, The National Front is looked down upon by many Europeans because their leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has made some very controversial comments and is considered anti-Semitic and xenophobic. He’s not just a conservative; he is far right. And in Europe far right has a bad reputation that goes against the more liberal / social views that Europe has had for the past 50 years or so.
This time it is different.
First is that Neo is right in that people who care passionately about politics on both the left and right rage against moderates who they believe are weak sell-outs rather than the pragmatic people who often point out real limits and get stuff done. This will always be the case in any two (dominant) party rep. democracy at almost anytime in the past two centuries.
However, this time it is different. Take immigration which is one of about half a dozen issues that I can make this case. First there is a huge split between what the base believes and what the GOP leadership and some moderates believe and second and more importantly they essentially buy the Democrats framing. They really think members of the base are a bunch of yahoos and bigots.
McConnell & company would be perfectly in fine in a placid decade of the 20th century where their job was to counter the worst fiscal excesses of the dems and bring home the bacon to their constituents, but we live a transformational time.
Like the pre-Thatcher conservatives in the 70s or even the 1930s they are worse than useless, their ideas of managing the decline (70s) or maintaining the illusion of the old status quo as the world transforms around them (30s) is dangerous and nearly ruined the people they claimed to represent.
“What I don’t understand is why so many conservatives focus on rage at Republicans, as though they’re the biggest problem” …
I think it’s the betrayal factor. While we might be disgusted, we generally expect the enemy to be the enemy — and the progressives are clearly the enemy of the Republic. The rinos, have learned the hyperbole, can give a good speech, but – which, politics aside, it doesn’t seem TOO much to expect them to MEAN …yet, as soon as they’re elected, they expose their corruption, and it’s galling since they present themselves as patriots and not parasites.
As long as there are wolf in sheep’s clothing — it seems they can be the greater threat, because undetected.
The National Front is looked down upon by many Europeans because their leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has made some very controversial comments and is considered anti-Semitic and xenophobic. He’s not just a conservative; he is far right.
That’s not the leader.
That’s propaganda point 1.
Propaganda point 2 is that anti semitism is far right or xenophobia is far right, as in a conservative.
The people that push the propaganda points, have no standing to talk about truths until they deal with these issues first.
The Tea Party is looked down upon even by some Republicans, because of similar propaganda control networks.
Right. So capitulation is definitely the best way to approach a losing cause. But if you do it right, you can live to capitulate another day.
Let’s all remember there’s no point in wasting energy or time on using budgeting power to manipulate the minority party’s interests too.
If the GOP ever has 3 branches again, they will do exactly what they did last time – bend to the will of the minority party, and govern from the center, if not left of center, because the media will call them names, and endanger the elections that follow. They will not want to lose power by risking something that’s unpopular in the media, or undo to promote law was previously passed — “law of the land” etc.
There won’t be a cut in any entitlements, and nothing at all will be done to reverse the damage that’s occurring now. The MOST they will do is not pass any laws that make matters worse – but i’m betting they pass several that stink a lot.
Reversing bad policy, cutting entitlements, vacating idiotic and harmful environmental laws that were formulated for purely political reasons would risk giving up the power they just acquired, and staying in power is what’s most important to them.
” instant deployment of our principles”
Really? For 25 years we’ve watched the same GOP establishment which fought Reagan enthusiastically champion bigger government. Conservatives have been nothing if not patient.
“What I don’t understand is why so many conservatives focus on rage at Republicans, as though they’re the biggest problem. They’re not.”
They are because they pretend to be on the side of conservatives and act to neutralize the efforts of conservatives. If the establishment manages to get their man nominated yet again, and Trump runs as a third party, I’ll support him enthusiastically. Yeah, he can’t win as a third party candidate, but I think that destruction of the GOP establishment is the only way forward.
At this point, I do not think working harder to convince people of the correctness of conservative ideas is going to work. Nor is it going to happen, given the media propaganda, biased education and all the people on some sort of dole nowadays. I fear that change will happen only when people reach a tipping point of frustration because we are committing national suicide.
Linda P:
Could be. I certainly don’t think that convincing people of the correctness of conservative ideas has a chance of working all by itself. But you know what? Most people don’t even know what conservative ideas are.
It’s true. Prior to my post-9/11 interest in politics, I was fairly well-read in the MSM sort of way, and I had absolutely no knowledge of what conservative principles were all about.
Randy:
Just the idea that you think 25 years is such a very long time shows your impatience.
Randy:
Voting for Trump 3rd party would not destroy the GOP establishment. It would establish Democratic dominance and marginalize both the GOP establishment and the conservatives. What makes you think it would empower conservatives? Why would people listen to conservatives more? If the GOP establishment becomes less powerful, it does not follow at all that conservatives become more powerful.
Cornhead:
Have you not read my posts on Corker-Menendez? What on earth makes you think that Obama or SCOTUS would treat the Iran deal as a treaty? There is no way to force that to happen, and Corker-Menendez gave Congress a tiny bit of power in a situation where they had absolutely none.
Linda P., “I fear that change will happen only when people reach a tipping point of frustration because we are committing national suicide.”
We are committing suicide, but in such slow motion that the voters that count, the moderate LIVs (yes, elections are won by the votes of those LIVs in the middle), won’t notice until they are standing in a soup line. And that will be too late.
That said, the downward sloping path has been going on for a long time. In the 1970s it appeared that the end was not too far away. I was expecting TEOTWAWKI, but Reagan came along and the sun came out again. Then Gingrich and a Republican Congress managed to wrestle Clinton into a balanced budget. The years 1982 to 2001 saw an explosion of wealth and well-being for the U.S.
That was followed by Bush’s contested election and 9/11, which allowed the progs back into the game. The GWOT, the dot com collapse, the mortgage bust, TARP, porkulus, and Obamacare have all eaten away at the fiscal soundness of the nation, without which our wealth and standard of living cannot be sustained.
In the 1970s there were few conservative voices. My primary source was Bill Buckley and National Review. Today we have a plethora of conservative voices and organizations, but the key to changing things is to somehow engage those swing voters – the moderate LIVs – to vote for conservative representatives on the national level. Interestingly enough, on a state level, conservatives are winning. We are in better shape at the state level than we have been in a long time.
So, I try to take the long view. Maybe we can change things. At any rate I’m not going to quit trying. I’m old and my energy is falling, but I can still write and talk and work for conservative candidates. We all need to quit griping about RINOs and do whatever we can to help elect good people. Sometimes those people will be RINOs, but they are still much superior to progs.
Can anybody imagine how much better the last 2 1/2 years would have been with a President Romney? RINO or not, we would have a Keystone XL pipeline, no “nuclear deal” with Iran, a more muscular response to ISIS, and possibly some reform or repeal of Obamacare. Just those few things would make a huge difference. Whenever you think about sitting out or voting third party ask yourself how things would have been different if McCain or Romney had been elected.
“Can anybody imagine how much better the last 2 1/2 years would have been with a President Romney? RINO or not, we would have a Keystone XL pipeline, no “nuclear deal” with Iran, a more muscular response to ISIS, and possibly some reform or repeal of Obamacare.”
I’m sure that all of us can imagine it. We would indeed have a Keystone pipeline as big oil would welcome it. There would be no nuclear ‘deal’ with Iran BUT Iran would still be pursuing nukes and getting progressively closer, as prior sanctions NOT having stopped them demonstrates. The ONLY thing that will stop Khomeini is a credible threat of immediate military force.
As for ISIS, the simple and brutal truth is that the American public won’t support the use of American ground troops in Syria and Iraq, followed by long term occupation, which is the ONLY thing that will stop ISIS.
There is little support in Congress by Republicans to substantially reform, much less repeal ObamaCare. Demonstrated by the fact that of 51 Republican Senators… ONLY three; Cruz, Lee and Mike Crapo of Idaho voted to attach an amendment defunding Planned Parenthood to a must pass highway bill. Since Iowa Tea Party Joni Ernst’s bill to defund Planned Parenthood is NOT attached to “must pass” legislation, it stands no chance of passage and is merely political cover. When she and other Senators claiming to be ‘conservative’ could have voted for an amendment with a shot at actually defunding Planned Parenthood, they sat on their hands. A perfect illustration of why voting for a Romney is simply voting to take slow acting poison, rather than the dems guillotine. And also why, voting for RINOs supports the charge that the Republican Party shares culpability for the current state of affairs. Thus, having no credible alternative to what progressives offer.
Which is why, when the SHTF, the majority of the public will NOT vote for liberty and conservatism but will double down on progressive socialism.
We hate and fear cynical manipulative non-ideologues when they are skilled Democrats. We should remember that when one of those guys is on our side.
Perhaps if we felt the Boehner and McConnell were simply better at this we would like them better. If we believed their assessments of when to cut our losses and when to make a sudden grab, we might shrug it off that they are not core conservatives. I always said that if Ted Kennedy had been from Wyoming he would have been conservative.
Steven Hayward at Powerline has a great post on the McConnell/Cruz struggle. The Senate Leader has a lot of objectives in play at once — I think I would prefer more consistency and clarity, but the added complexity serves purposes that seek to hold GOP senate seats. See http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/07/cruz-mcconnell-and-the-ex-im-bank-the-sequel.php
“Just the idea that you think 25 years is such a very long time shows your impatience.”
You’d have a point if, during these 25 years, the GOP didn’t champion bigger government, if they did actually pass “progressive” measures while they were in power to show that they were compassionate conservatives (not those knuckle dragging southern racist hicks), if they weren’t so consistently transparent in their contempt for real conservatives. It’s no wonder the progressives are patient, they make steady gains even when the republicans run things.
Randy:
That’s not the way progressives look at it.
They did not consider the Reagan years a time of steady gains on the political front, nor much of the Clinton years, when the fainthearted among them must have thought liberalism was dead.
I even remember reading many articles to that effect at the time.
Progressives never lost heart.
I always said that if Ted Kennedy had been from Wyoming he would have been conservative.
That’s like thinking KKK Kleagle Byrd would be conservative cause he’s Southern.
The US would have had keystone pipe up until Hussein decided to pay ISIL to bomb it to death, yea.
As for conservative traitors, there’s a new meme around the internet called the “cuckservative”.
Meaning, a cuckhold, slightly different from a RINO due to the context.
“They did not consider the Reagan years a time of steady gains on the political front, nor much of the Clinton years, when the fainthearted among them must have thought liberalism was dead.”
But yet, with much help from the Bush and Son, they did make steady progress. Which is largely my point, in many ways having people like Bush run the party is worse that letting the democrats win, because at least when the democrats win the republican put up a token fight to the liberal agenda from the administration. When the liberal administration is run by a republican, republicans on the hill go along.
Assistant said:
“Perhaps if we felt the Boehner and McConnell were simply better at this we would like them better. If we believed their assessments of when to cut our losses and when to make a sudden grab, we might shrug it off that they are not core conservatives.”
Yes. I have said this before to claims that republicans leaders are just being shrewd. Their strategery can’t be as poor as it seems, I conclude that their objectives are different than stated.
@Ymar – well, Byrd was, at first. He always adopted the colors of whatever tribe fed him the most.
A conservative Democrat, what kind of nature preserve would that be like?