6 ms·
> currently the two parties are deadlocked in a power struggle You mean since about 1790? There have always been two parties in congress (minus the era of good
by zanny 9y ago
> currently the two parties are deadlocked in a power struggle
You mean since about 1790? There have always been two parties in congress (minus the era of good feelings) and they have always had opposing ideology, and have almost always blocked one another's proposals.
It is very naive to think the current Republican congress is anything different or new. Their inaction is intentional - they need to pass their anti-citizen legislation they were appointed for when people are not watching them.
It is also somewhat inaccurate to blame it on "deadlocked parties". The factions within them to varying degrees stifle them. The parties aren't monoliths of ideology that uniformly vote the way the chair swings.
If congress isn't passing good legislation, its because the constituent members of that congress aren't a majority good actors. Regardless of color. Regardless of excuses given.
Politicians always act in the interest of someone. Sometimes its themselves. It used to sometimes be for their constituents (because they had to appease them for votes). Today it is mostly for corporate campaign donors. And those donors want the status quo. They don't want the changes average Americans want. The whole point of their buying and owning of politicians is to impede change. Of course a congress filled with men told to maintain gridlock and prevent reform by their masters will do so, and they do it in a way optimized for themselves - by always blaming someone else and taking no responsibility for the gridlock you cause, your base can just keep reelecting you despite hating congress in general. As long as the voters remain ignorant to this con, the business interests get what they paid for - usually corporate welfare.
- mikeash 9y agoThis paper tells a very different story: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... It's true that partisanship and the two-party system have been a fixture of our system from the very early days. But there are matters of degree, and the degree today is at a peak.
- jlarocco 9y ago> You mean since about 1790? There have always been two parties in congress (minus the era of good feelings) and they have always had opposing ideology, and have almost always blocked one another's proposals. That's by design, actually. The goal was never to create a government that can efficiently create a million laws and regulations. The point of having multiple parties is that each of them will block each other and only the laws and regulations that everybody can agree on will actually get through. Unfortunately, politicians have been learning to game the system for ~200 years now, and it's not working exactly as designed. Another big difference lately seems to be that everybody's an extremist because nobody can change their mind or compromise without getting called out in the media for back pedaling or giving up or "working with the enemy" or whatever.
- alphapapa 9y ago> The point of having multiple parties is that each of them will block each other and only the laws and regulations that everybody can agree on will actually get through. Gridlock is part of the design, yes. But consensus or unanimity are not. The simple majority rules, except for the cases defined in the Constitution, such as constitutional amendments. The Senate's filibuster is not how the Senate is supposed to function.
- hyperbovine 9y agoThere is way more money in politics now than there was in 1790. Hell, there is way more money in politics now than there was in 1970. It's the root of all evil, it really is. Name any malady you want of our current system -- at the end of the day I guarantee you it is in some way attributable to somebody buying influence at some point.
- exabrial 9y ago> It is very naive to think the current Republican congress is anything different or new The Democrats are doing now what the Republicans did for the last 8 years. And I imagine in 7 years the opposite will happen.
- allemagne 9y agoThe Republicans control congress and the presidency. With some exceptions, Republicans don't need a single Democratic vote to pass legislation.
- mikeash 9y agoMost legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, which means you need at least 8 Democrats (counting the two independents with them). Legislation which Republicans can pass by themselves is the exception, not the rule. One of the problems they had with their health care bill was that it had to fit into the narrow budget reconciliation rules so that they could pass it with a simple majority.
- allemagne 9y agoYes, a hurdle that Republicans already jumped over for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and don't need a single Democratic vote to do so again.
- mikeash 9y agoConfirmations are quite different from legislation. Most confirmations had already been reduced to only requiring a simple majority. Supreme Court was the only remaining position for which a confirmation still required 60 votes. There doesn't appear to be any movement toward changing the rules for legislation. If they were willing to do that, they wouldn't have tried so hard to squeeze the AHCA under the budget reconciliation umbrella.
- allemagne 9y ago