Honestly, I don't see the failure as our gov't being paralyzed by Republican obstructionism. This is not the first time in history a minority party has done that, not by far and it's been a very common thing. The failure is on the president. Obama has failed to rally our nation. It's that simple. It's his job to convince the people and the senators. He couldn't do it. He couldn't get the support behind health care reform, and that is his failure. He left it to congress, he didn't sell a plan to the American people, and he didn't show why it appeals to the self-interests of every American. Why should people support it? Never got a great answer. He shouldn't have taken on health care when people were more concerned about jobs. Had he focused on jobs first, turned the economy around, he would have demonstrated that he was in tune with Americans and made them believe he was the right leader - then his health care agenda would have gotten more input and cooperation from Republicans. I mean, can you really blame the minority party for trying to hurt the majority party in the next election cycle? Are they suppose to just roll-over and play dead? That's not how a two-party system works. It's all about battles and challenges...and only strong leadership can unite a divide fraction to act as a whole. That's the president's job. Leadership. Obama failed. I voted for him, and I am disappointed with his performance so far. But it's only 1 year, and he's got 3 more to make course corrections. I belief he will learn and like Clinton, can become a better leader and unite our country. All of us should hope this happens - of any affiliation. Because it's good for the country - but I don't blame Republicans for killing health care as this terrible thing. Sure, I wanted to see it pass, but I thought the priorities were wrong. If Obama wants the Republicans to support him he has to do more than chide them for being partisan in the public eye. It's not working and he's got to dump that strategy.
Actually it is the first time any party has used the filibuster to this extent. There is no doubt Obama bears some blame for how he's handled things. However, it isn't about Republicans playing dead or not playing dead. It's about BOTH parties working toward what's best for the American people. It's fine to disagree that Democratic proposals are what's best, but Republicans aren't proposing anything. Or at least not proposing it and sticking to it. They have co-sponsored bills, but they turn around and oppose the very bills they co-sponsored once Obama approves of the idea and supports the bill. So obviously they didn't really care about the bill in the first place or they care more about politics than working for the people. This act shows both that Obama is willing to accept Republican ideas and work with the opposing party, and that Republicans are just being obstructionists. Furthermore, it seems they actually like a lot of what they claim to hate so much.
Just Say No to Democracy We should be looking for more checks on government power, not fewer. If you've been paying attention to the left-wing punditry these days, you may be under the impression that the nation's institutions are on the verge of collapse. Or that the rule of law is unraveling. Or maybe that this once-great nation is crippled and nearly beyond repair. You know why? Because the 40 percent (or so) political minority has far too much influence in Washington. Don't you know? This minority, egged on by a howling mob of nitwits, is holding progress hostage using its revolting politics and parliamentary trickery. Leading the charge to fix this dire problem is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who advocates abolishing the Senate filibuster to make way for direct democracy's magic. It had better be quick. The populace is fickle. Jacob Weisberg of Slate believes that Americans are crybabies who don't know what's good for 'em, causing "political paralysis." Even President Barack Obama, after his agenda had come to a halt, claimed democracy is a "messy" process—as if that were a bad thing. Actually, "democracy" is not only messy but also immoral and unworkable. The Founding Fathers saw that coming, as well. So we don't live under a system of simple majority rule for a reason, as most readers already know. The minority political party, luckily, has the ability to obstruct, nag, and filibuster the majority's agenda. Otherwise, those in absolute power would run wild—or, in other words, you all would be living that Super Bowl Audi commercial by now. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ml54UuAoLSo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ml54UuAoLSo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> And if democracy is the mob—the "worship of jackals by jackasses," as H.L. Mencken once cantankerously put it—whom does it comprise in our scenario? Depends on how you look at it, I suppose. Not long ago, even before the Tea Party existed, Obama whipped up crowds angry at Republicans with his rosy brand of left-wing populism. He was able to hypnotize adoring masses with his grand and nebulous promises, though he had few new ideas and little experience to back it up. Obama's ensuing coronation—more than 2 million people reportedly showed up for his inauguration—must have reinforced the perception in Washington that nearly everyone was on board. And in its first year, this administration acted accordingly, attempting to transform energy and health care policy, among other things. Turns out, if we believe polls, that Americans changed their minds quickly and in large numbers. And history shows us that generally, unhampered one-party rule doesn't work out for anyone. Then again, today's argument that the ruling party doesn't have enough power is a reflection of a nearly spiritual belief in the wonders of government, not democracy. Though many Democrats advocate for direct democracy—whether it be fighting states' rights or supporting the removal of the Electoral College—it is a curiously selective endeavor. Take the Tea Partiers, who also have attached themselves to "democracy" rhetoric. What, one wonders, will Democrats have to say about the filibuster when Sarah Palin is jamming through her first-year agenda as president? We must be more judicious. We must have more debate before moving forward. The Founding Fathers never envisioned radical policy being jammed through by the majority. Oh, my God, it's actually happening. Those who contend that the ruling party isn't instilled with enough control are worried about politics, not process. And actually, regardless of which ephemeral majority happens to win the day, we should be looking for more checks on power, not less.
The Constitution as it was envisioned, is the best government ever...on paper. If you really believed those nutty Enlightenment ideas today, you would be branded a subversive anarchist. For good reason. And chances are, if we actually had true limited government as the Constitution describes, the US infrastructure would be even more fragmented. Rich states would be richer, poor states would be poorer, and multiple civil wars would be much likelier. Thankfully, we had Lincoln to save us from that, and that pretty much killed any idealism about what the Constitution means, or what the freaking original founders wanted it to be. It also meant Southerners got medical care and public schools. At gunpoint. Limited government is against human nature, because ultimately, people don't want to be free. They want security, financial or otherwise. If the Tea Party really believes in "freedom" and "limited government" and needs to rally around a narcissistic matriarch, they should be reading Emma Goldman, not Sarah Palin.
True the founders didn't make it so that nothing could be passed but made it difficult. That said they left it to the House and Senate to make their own rules and as Sam Fisher's wikipedia reference shows they were aware of the possibility of things like filibuster making it difficult to pass legislation. I think the history and their own thoughts on the matter from the Federalists Papers it was their intent to make it very difficult. How that applies though to our current situation I don't think it can be said that what the Republicans are doing is defying the will of the Founders but I would say that given the nature of how our country has developed that perhaps the idea of an extremely limited and balky Federal government might not apply.
I never disagreed with you that the Republicans are surpassing what the Democrats did or that the Republicans were unprecedented in the use of the filibuster. For that matter whether I agreed with the Republicans use of it. I don't but accept that the rules are there and overall I agree with having those rules. That doesn't mean that they aren't abused. The fact remains though that the Democrats when in a minority used the threat of filibuster and other Senate rules to attempt to stymie the majority. From what I recall of the debate that then many of you complaining about the Republicans where very much for defending those Senate rules. You are certainly free to declare victory on your own terms but as noted your own source material contradicts you. Would you care to elaborate?
You bring up some good points and the weak Federal government as outlined in the Constitution of the time of the Founders would lead to many problems. That is why I think rather than try to argue that the Founders didn't want all sorts of checks on power and legislation, when clearly they did, is how much does that vision apply to today. At the sametime though I don't think the ideals of the Founders are completely irrelevant. The idea of checks and balances is a great idea and I don't think we should change the rules by which we make legislation. I certainly agree with the frustration when a minority party uses those rules to stymie the will of the majority but parties change and just as 4 years ago the party in power now was the minority things can always change. Even without changes in party dominance I don't think in principal it is a good idea to run roughshod over minority opinions. We live in a plural society and compromise is necessary to build a stable society. The only way we can guarentee that minority opinions are considered is through legal tools that allow that.
On the flipside, the Founders gave the Senate the authority to change the rules as it saw fit, and as it has done multiple times over the decades. So, arguably, changing the rules when the Senate is dysfunctional was part of the Founders' vision.
I suspect the Founders would have been happy to live with those problems, while few of us today would. Of course they wanted checks on power. They designed a government that was designed to be weak and ineffectual on purpose. It works great for a small nation, especially a post-colonial agrarian one, not so well for a major world power. I'm sure their argument would be that the US was never meant to be a major world power. That would prevent most of the conflicts of interest of having a limited government, because other than common currency, most of the issues voters would have would be at a state level. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the Constitution, but I think the direction we've taken as a nation for 150 years has little to do with it. If we want to be a nation that takes center stage in the world, it has a cost, and I think that cost is the kind of liberty described by the Constitution. I don't think you can have it both ways. The political partyless, uninvolved in world affairs United States that Washington talked about is not the one you live in. Every majority party in power as long as I can remember complained about their limits of power and tries to vote themselves more. It's understandable, and perfectly reasonable, unfortunately. They can defend it and say they are fighting for their principles, for the common good, for their district, (and for their campaign contributors) and are "only doing their job." Well, this gets back to my "can't have the cake and eat it" argument, and the way the US is now, it neither has the power to affect real change that any majority elects by mandate, nor can it safeguard personal liberty in the Enlightenment-era Constitutional sense..
