5 ms·

I don't think there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. We have a lot of things that ne

I don't think there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. There will always be some number of petty people who don't care what the costs are as long as "their team" isn't allowing the "other team" a win, and those who don't want the federal government doing anything other than war, but when our government shuts down most American's aren't very happy about it. Most have a list of things they'd like their representatives in Washington to be doing for them, and they don't view the obstructionists acting like toddlers preventing those things from happening very favorably. In the end, a partisan pissing match doesn't actually help the American people and our government should be working for us, not sitting on their hands doing nothing while the American people suffer and backslide. As long as election results are entirely divorced from approval ratings congress has zero incentive to work for the people though and they can get away with preventing the government from being functional/useful for anyone but themselves and the people stuffing their pockets.

zmgsabst 2y ago
> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem, as if the only reasonable position is yours. What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing — and when they refuse to agree with you, your agenda can’t happen. While you say “most Americans”, factually, you lack a majority for your agenda: you’re a minority trying to impose itself. That’s democracy.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem It would be, except that I never actually said that. Plenty of people can disagree with me and not be an obstructionist. A person in congress can even vote against something I'm in favor of and not be an obstructionist. Obstructionists are something very different from just being "people I don't like" > What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing No, it's certainly not about "forcing an agenda" it's about functional governance which by necessity involves compromise and a willingness to give and take. It's not even always about "agreeing". An obstructionist will vote against their own policy ideas to prevent letting their opponent get their way. > While you say “most Americans”, I mean most Americans. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. > but factually, you lack a majority for your agenda That's incorrect too. While obstructionists can stand in the way of policies that divide the American public there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists. If we lived in a country where the approval rating of senators indicated their likelihood of getting elected you might have a point, as obstructionists being elected and re-elected would indicate that the majority of the people support them and their tactics. That's not the country we live in however. For just one example, notable obstructionist Mitch McConnell is the least popular senator in the entire country. He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. That's not democracy, it's just what happens after many decades of efforts to weaken democracy and erode the ability of the American people to have a meaningful influence on policy and who gets into office.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    > Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. Those same polls show they believe their own representative is doing an adequate job - which is my point: There’s no “obstruction” there, just frustration that your faction doesn’t have the votes to achieve your desired policy because some groups don’t agree with you. > there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists Policies overwhelmingly favored by the majority of Americans are generally blocked by establishment candidates — at a rate far higher than “obstructionists”. > He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. People he doesn’t represent can’t impact this job — correct. And again, we’re seeing that you’re just upset by democracy itself: that you can’t force representatives on people and accordingly, can’t achieve what you want without their support. Your entire post was nothing but deranged bashing of political rivals when you can’t achieve you policy objectives due to their opposition.
- pharrington 2y ago
  Nope. One example from Mitch McConnell's own mouth, talking about the the Republican Congress created the debt ceiling crisis - "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this - it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    So… because no faction had enough votes, they were forced to compromise to secure a coalition with enough votes? — that’s your idea of “obstruction”? You can just say you don’t like democracy.
    - pharrington 2y ago
      There is a difference between trying to reach a compromise across a different set of ideals, and one party explicitly holding Congress hostage over a routine annual procedure. The first is healthy, functioning government that gets things done. The second is obstructionism that stops things from getting done. Again, from Mitch McConnell - "If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate after next year, none of those things are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper: the guy who is going to make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk." He's the same guy who refused to even start the confirmation process of Obama's supreme court justice pick a year from the end of his term. The GOP rejects compromise as a strategy, and does not even pretend to secure coalitions.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
polski-g 2y ago
> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. California has spent over $100bn to build 1600 ft of high speed rail over a decade. And it wasn't Republican obstructionists who caused that. There are too many regulations.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > California has spent over $100bn to build 1600 ft of high speed rail over a decade. And it wasn't Republican obstructionists who caused that. I'm not familiar with that specific situation. Was it taken to the federal courts and only allowed to happen because of Chevron? > There are too many regulations. I think many people cheering this ruling are just anti-regulation and they care a lot about that without thinking much about how this ruling will negatively impact their lives and the lives of their families. I agree with you though. There really are too may regulations. That will probably always be true. As long as industry and corporations can write self-serving legislation and bribe people in congress to pass it, there will be regulations on the books that shouldn't be there. That said, regulation is the only reason you have safe electricity, clean air, and safe water (assuming you aren't one of the several millions of American's who currently don't have safe drinking water). Regulations, like all laws, are just tools and they can be used to help improve our lives, preserve our health, promote the safety of the American people, and increase our freedoms or they can be used to stifle competition, funnel tax money into the pockets of private corporations, or restrict our freedoms. Like laws themselves (which there are also too many of) it would be foolish to abolish all of them because some of them are bad. We should be paying attention to who is writing and passing regulations and who those regulations serve, then hold people accountable when they don't represent our interests. That's hard to do in our current system where people's votes don't mean much, so we might want to try fixing that situation first but being "anti-regulation" makes about as much sense as being "anti-laws". Laws are a good thing. Regulations are a good thing. Let's just try to make sure they are both serving the public good.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
> I don't there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I know a lot of them. And it's how the system was designed, by the way. Congress was supposed to generally be weak and deadlocked unless an overwhelming majority of people wanted something.
- brewdad 2y ago
  The overwhelming majority of people do want a lot of things. Gerrymandering in the House and the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming and Vermont the same power as California and Texas prevents that.
  - throwaway333444 2y ago
    >> Congress was supposed to generally be weak and deadlocked unless an overwhelming majority of people wanted something. > The overwhelming majority of people do want a lot of things. While the language is close these aren’t the same. Specifically the parent is saying that people need to want the same thing. Claiming that people want lots of things with no consideration of what they are or even how the things are done falls far short of the goal. > the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming and Vermont the same power as California and Texas prevents that. Have you considered that our founding documents/government was structured this way on purpose? It was a major incentive for encouraging small states such as Wyoming to join the union. Without this mechanism for giving smaller states an equal influence relative to other states many would not have joined the union.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      We might do well to consolidate some of the smaller and sparse states from time to time. Otherwise they may sell their souls for any kind of edge over the more populous ones.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
anamax 2y ago
> I don't think there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. You're assuming a lot more agreement WRT "doing their jobs" than actually exists. I want X, you want not X. We both want Congress to "do its job", but what, exactly is that job? Deadlock is when I don't get my way.
- mise_en_place 2y ago
  The European Parliament was able to pass GDPR. Keep in mind the member states were blood enemies for centuries. If they can put aside their centuries long blood feuds to get sh*t done, Congress has no excuse.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > I want X, you want not X. We both want Congress to "do its job", but what, exactly is that job? To govern. That means compromise. Maybe we disagree on X and our representatives decide to do Y instead which doesn't full satisfy either of us. Maybe they pass X which I want while you don't, and in return they pass Z which you want while I don't. It's not as if the idea of a congress that can work together is an impossible dream. The situation today is the exception and not the rule. For all the problems congress has had we're seeing historic levels of dysfunction and that shows in the total lack of productivity https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/118th-congress-track-become-productive-us-history/story?id=106254012 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/118th-congress-track-become-...
dwighttk 2y ago
Everyone likes deadlock when it is stopping laws they don’t like

zmgsabst 2y ago

> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem, as if the only reasonable position is yours. What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing — and when they refuse to agree with you, your agenda can’t happen. While you say “most Americans”, factually, you lack a majority for your agenda: you’re a minority trying to impose itself. That’s democracy.

autoexec 2y ago
> I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem It would be, except that I never actually said that. Plenty of people can disagree with me and not be an obstructionist. A person in congress can even vote against something I'm in favor of and not be an obstructionist. Obstructionists are something very different from just being "people I don't like" > What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing No, it's certainly not about "forcing an agenda" it's about functional governance which by necessity involves compromise and a willingness to give and take. It's not even always about "agreeing". An obstructionist will vote against their own policy ideas to prevent letting their opponent get their way. > While you say “most Americans”, I mean most Americans. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. > but factually, you lack a majority for your agenda That's incorrect too. While obstructionists can stand in the way of policies that divide the American public there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists. If we lived in a country where the approval rating of senators indicated their likelihood of getting elected you might have a point, as obstructionists being elected and re-elected would indicate that the majority of the people support them and their tactics. That's not the country we live in however. For just one example, notable obstructionist Mitch McConnell is the least popular senator in the entire country. He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. That's not democracy, it's just what happens after many decades of efforts to weaken democracy and erode the ability of the American people to have a meaningful influence on policy and who gets into office.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  > Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans want congress to work and they don't like the government shutdowns obstructionists cause. Those same polls show they believe their own representative is doing an adequate job - which is my point: There’s no “obstruction” there, just frustration that your faction doesn’t have the votes to achieve your desired policy because some groups don’t agree with you. > there are also situations where a policy has majority support but is still held up or prevented by obstructionists Policies overwhelmingly favored by the majority of Americans are generally blocked by establishment candidates — at a rate far higher than “obstructionists”. > He has no reason to stop being an obstructionist though, because how the people feel about him doesn't impact his ability to keep his job. People he doesn’t represent can’t impact this job — correct. And again, we’re seeing that you’re just upset by democracy itself: that you can’t force representatives on people and accordingly, can’t achieve what you want without their support. Your entire post was nothing but deranged bashing of political rivals when you can’t achieve you policy objectives due to their opposition.
pharrington 2y ago
Nope. One example from Mitch McConnell's own mouth, talking about the the Republican Congress created the debt ceiling crisis - "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this - it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  So… because no faction had enough votes, they were forced to compromise to secure a coalition with enough votes? — that’s your idea of “obstruction”? You can just say you don’t like democracy.
  - pharrington 2y ago
    There is a difference between trying to reach a compromise across a different set of ideals, and one party explicitly holding Congress hostage over a routine annual procedure. The first is healthy, functioning government that gets things done. The second is obstructionism that stops things from getting done. Again, from Mitch McConnell - "If I'm still the majority leader of the Senate after next year, none of those things are going to pass the Senate. They won't even be voted on. So think of me as the Grim Reaper: the guy who is going to make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk." He's the same guy who refused to even start the confirmation process of Obama's supreme court justice pick a year from the end of his term. The GOP rejects compromise as a strategy, and does not even pretend to secure coalitions.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

polski-g 2y ago

> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. California has spent over $100bn to build 1600 ft of high speed rail over a decade. And it wasn't Republican obstructionists who caused that. There are too many regulations.

autoexec 2y ago
> California has spent over $100bn to build 1600 ft of high speed rail over a decade. And it wasn't Republican obstructionists who caused that. I'm not familiar with that specific situation. Was it taken to the federal courts and only allowed to happen because of Chevron? > There are too many regulations. I think many people cheering this ruling are just anti-regulation and they care a lot about that without thinking much about how this ruling will negatively impact their lives and the lives of their families. I agree with you though. There really are too may regulations. That will probably always be true. As long as industry and corporations can write self-serving legislation and bribe people in congress to pass it, there will be regulations on the books that shouldn't be there. That said, regulation is the only reason you have safe electricity, clean air, and safe water (assuming you aren't one of the several millions of American's who currently don't have safe drinking water). Regulations, like all laws, are just tools and they can be used to help improve our lives, preserve our health, promote the safety of the American people, and increase our freedoms or they can be used to stifle competition, funnel tax money into the pockets of private corporations, or restrict our freedoms. Like laws themselves (which there are also too many of) it would be foolish to abolish all of them because some of them are bad. We should be paying attention to who is writing and passing regulations and who those regulations serve, then hold people accountable when they don't represent our interests. That's hard to do in our current system where people's votes don't mean much, so we might want to try fixing that situation first but being "anti-regulation" makes about as much sense as being "anti-laws". Laws are a good thing. Regulations are a good thing. Let's just try to make sure they are both serving the public good.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

> I don't there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. I know a lot of them. And it's how the system was designed, by the way. Congress was supposed to generally be weak and deadlocked unless an overwhelming majority of people wanted something.

brewdad 2y ago
The overwhelming majority of people do want a lot of things. Gerrymandering in the House and the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming and Vermont the same power as California and Texas prevents that.
- throwaway333444 2y ago
  >> Congress was supposed to generally be weak and deadlocked unless an overwhelming majority of people wanted something. > The overwhelming majority of people do want a lot of things. While the language is close these aren’t the same. Specifically the parent is saying that people need to want the same thing. Claiming that people want lots of things with no consideration of what they are or even how the things are done falls far short of the goal. > the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming and Vermont the same power as California and Texas prevents that. Have you considered that our founding documents/government was structured this way on purpose? It was a major incentive for encouraging small states such as Wyoming to join the union. Without this mechanism for giving smaller states an equal influence relative to other states many would not have joined the union.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    We might do well to consolidate some of the smaller and sparse states from time to time. Otherwise they may sell their souls for any kind of edge over the more populous ones.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago

anamax 2y ago

> I don't think there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. You're assuming a lot more agreement WRT "doing their jobs" than actually exists. I want X, you want not X. We both want Congress to "do its job", but what, exactly is that job? Deadlock is when I don't get my way.

mise_en_place 2y ago
The European Parliament was able to pass GDPR. Keep in mind the member states were blood enemies for centuries. If they can put aside their centuries long blood feuds to get sh*t done, Congress has no excuse.
autoexec 2y ago
> I want X, you want not X. We both want Congress to "do its job", but what, exactly is that job? To govern. That means compromise. Maybe we disagree on X and our representatives decide to do Y instead which doesn't full satisfy either of us. Maybe they pass X which I want while you don't, and in return they pass Z which you want while I don't. It's not as if the idea of a congress that can work together is an impossible dream. The situation today is the exception and not the rule. For all the problems congress has had we're seeing historic levels of dysfunction and that shows in the total lack of productivity https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/118th-congress-track-become-productive-us-history/story?id=106254012 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/118th-congress-track-become-...

dwighttk 2y ago

Everyone likes deadlock when it is stopping laws they don’t like