12 ms·
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them
by dkobia 2y ago
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation.
This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
- yapyap 2y ago[flagged]
- black6 2y agoAlways have been.
- zusammen 2y agoThis is the sad reality of oligarchy. Red/blue culture wars appeal to some people because they would prefer an authoritarianism that at least pretends to have their back 50 percent of the time over rich people (their employers) who have their back 0 percent of the time. No one wants (and I don’t think anyone should want) bipartisanship, not really. Bipartisanship means the rich get everything they want—efficiently. It means the meetings of the club we aren’t in happen on time and no one ends up with a black eye. That’s also an unacceptable outcome. Of course, it can be argued that the outcome we are getting is basically the same thing, but with cheap depressing entertainment and widespread governmental dysfunction. Of course, anyone who thinks voting for any of these right-wing figures will end oligarchy is delusional. Their charisma comes from the fact that, because they hate basically everyone, they also incidentally hate many of the other oligarchs. But nothing good happens when people vote for hate, and none of these pricks will ever end oligarchy since they are all part of it. The Nazis truly did present themselves as somewhat socialist (it was in the name) in the early 1920s to gain their first followers, but as soon as they were in power, they realized they had more to gain by siding with the industrialists and against labor, which is of course what they did.
- intended 2y agoBipartisan efforts are what makes Congress work. It’s this loss that plagues Congress. Bipartisanship is what was jettisoned by the republicans to ensure that they would always be able to blame democrats for the failure of the government. Even during Obamacare, when they adopted a Republican plan, Romney had to distance himself from it. Despite all the efforts for Bipartisan outreach - for all the concessions, the republicans couldn’t stand with the dems. The Dems must always be wrong. Bipartisanship means you have to spend more effort to get more people on your team. Partisanship means you just have to get on board with one party. So how is bipartisanship the problem?
- crawfordcomeaux 2y ago[flagged]
- hammock 2y agoWhy so two-party system?
- drivers99 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law > political systems with single-member districts and the plurality voting system, as in, for example, the United States, two main parties tend to emerge. In this case, votes for minor parties can potentially be regarded as splitting votes away from the most similar major party If a third party grows it will either shrink again as voters realize they are splitting their vote against their biggest common opponent, or the third party replaces one of the two existing parties. Either way, you get two main parties.
- unethical_ban 2y agoI don't normally "this" a comment, but "this"! The most effective single thing to promote a multiparty system is to switch to ranked-choice or approval voting (if staying with single-member districts) or to switch to multi-member districts with some kind of proportional representation. That would be where, say, everyone in Texas votes for their preferred party, and the 34 seats get allocated proportionally to party results. Honestly, implementing Ranked Choice is the best compromise. * Meaningfully improves the ability of minor parties to succeed * Removes the concept of "wasted vote" so that citizens can vote their conscience * Electoral results are more informative of the positions of the electorate * Candidates have to compete more on ideas and policies than attacking opponents * Conceptually easier to understand than other systems * Maintains single-member districts (I don't like this, but I think trying to change the House to multi-member districts is too radical for us)
- nimbius 2y agothis is quite similar to anyone familiar with prussia, berlin and the constituent national assembly of 1845 in the context of the historical power struggle between vichy merchant classes and their royal monarchs during the advent of the steam era. it seems the same play is being made in 2025 at the advent of AI and Tech supremacy as it comes to a headroads with the death of traditional US neoliberalism. Tech is more interested in the monarchy, as was the feudal lords of old, and seeks a neofeudalism while the parliament of our time, the house and senate, prattle on like the Diets and assembly promulgating edicts and regulations that are either wholesale ignored, or gridlocked bike-shedding; fiddling whilst Rome burns.
- marcosdumay 2y agoCan we drop the "tech" prefix from our neo-feudalism? Technology is necessarily a progressive force, and feudalism is necessarily a stagnatory conservative structure. The "Tech Supremacy" group is visibly opposed to technology, and it's reflecting more and more on society as they gain power.
- vacuity 2y ago> Technology is necessarily a progressive force Technology is a tool. It is not a culture or a system. In fact, I think state and corporate use of technology for things like surveillance, censorship, frankly pointless jobs that somehow attract VC money, mass propaganda and social media access, data tracking and advertising and behavior modelling to a T, hypothetical pointless-job-destroying-AGI, etc. that are currently in vogue are part of the conservative structure. Technology means moving, but is this outwards or inwards movement?
- marcosdumay 2y agoConservative people just can't create technology. Technology is always progressive. It can be progressive towards any amount of things, good or bad. But conservatism requires not developing it.
- 2y ago
- steveBK123 2y agoThis is the problem with people being OK with executive overreach when "their team" is in power. Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control. Further having our judicial branch become openly partisan while remaining lifetime appointments despite younger appointees with longer lifetimes, is really the finishing touch on this slow rolling disaster.
- lazide 2y agoThat’s why the current administration is going to make sure the other side doesn’t get in power again.
- exe34 2y agoI'm debating on whether they will manage to stir up enough chaos to suspend the constitution, or whether there will be enough independent thought left in the military to oust them when the time comes for new elections - although I can't rule out Russian-style elections, one-man one-vote, and his vote is what counts.
- toolz 2y agoCan we give this fear-mongering a rest? This is his second term, he didn't topple democracy in his first term and everyone made the same arguments back then. If anything the democrats were the party to get rid of some of their democratic process. They didn't even vote on their parties candidate, and no, that doesn't scare me either. Not to mention the democrats had far more private money spent all three times fighting Trump and yet he still won democratically twice and lost once democratically. The system isn't great or even good, but it's still functioning.
- Juliate 2y ago> he didn't topple democracy in his first term Oh, like, he wasn’t really informed nor involved in January 6, 2021? And he never mentioned, several times in 2024 that you Americans wouldn’t have to vote anymore?
- curt15 2y ago>This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. Yet GOP senators were more than happy to claim credit for infrastructure funding that they opposed.
- exe34 2y agoTrump also rubbished the trade deals that he himself signed!
- pjmlp 2y agoMost dictorships started by the people in power streamlining decadent processes and burocracy, by putting into place the new regulations that would improve everything. Until a couple years later on average, a state protection organism gets put in place to check those organisations are working as expected. Eventually, the state protection organism gets a bit carried away on what they are supposed to be checking on.
- kbrkbr 2y agoI don't think so. "Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup, though others have been started by foreign intervention, elected officials ending competitive elections, insurgent takeovers, popular uprisings by citizens, or legal maneuvering by autocratic elites to take power within their government. Between 1946 and 2010, 42% of dictatorships began by overthrowing a different dictatorship, and 26% began after achieving independence from a foreign government. Many others developed following a period of warlordism." [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship (see "Formation")
- pjmlp 2y agoI might be wrong on being most, and eventually they might even be in minority, still some well known across Europe, have started with people that originally were democratically elected deciding that it was about time to change everything from inside.
- throw0101d 2y ago> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship (see "Formation") Maybe worth considering: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup Also "How Hitler Dismantled a Democracy in 53 Days": * https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/01/hitler-germany-constitution-authoritarianism/681233/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive...
- chii 2y ago> Nearly half of dictatorships start as a military coup do you see jan 16 as a military coup? Coz i do. Just because the people involved are poorly equipped, and badly organized, doesn't mean it isn't. We, as a nation, did not punish them hard enough. We as a nation, did not cut the hydra at their head, and allowed it to fester. It is done, perhaps, as a form of peace keeping and appeasement. But history has taught us that appeasement does not work. So once again, those who failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
- hammock 2y agoWas with you 100% until the second half of your final sentence. Can you clarify?
- dkobia 2y agoA bit hyperbolic on my part but I think Trump and Elon are quite a potent combination for the money and media influence they have between them. Members of congress and senators with opposing views are very unlikely to stick their heads up for fear of the immense amount of money that could be used against them in the midterms and beyond.
- doctorpangloss 2y agoMichael Bloomberg could personally fund an entire presidential campaign. There’s a newspaper named after him. How did he wield that power? The real problems with the DNC campaigns are complex. They have a poor model for how to run national campaigns, clearly. All this equities wealth was made under Democrats, including Elon’s wealth, so it’s not so simple as to say, chasing money. There is some consensus that Democrats need to run media personalities instead of experienced politicians. But not enough consensus to move away from demographics-based election modeling. Suffice it to say this thread could be an interesting conversation about anything but has become a magnet for fringe theories.
- phkahler 2y ago>> The real problems with the DNC campaigns are complex. They have a poor model for how to run national campaigns, clearly. The DNC didn't even have a primary last election. They just propped up Kamala and said "here's our candidate" and expected the sheeple to vote for her. Meanwhile one of their best candidates was kicked out of the party a while back and is now Trumps DNI. And if you want to say "they didn't have time" well that's because they figured it was OK to leave a declining old guy in office beyond his sell-by date - yet another poor choice by the DNC.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
- JKCalhoun 2y agoGridlock, disfunction, and completely incapable of governing are a bit loaded, but other than that, a slow moving legislature was a feature built into the system — not a bug.
- dylan604 2y agoI don't think they are a bit loaded at all. What have the last several congresses done that has actually helped the populace?
- drawkward 2y agoThe most notable things I recall in the last few Congresses were Mitch McConell stealing a SCOTUS appointment, the failure to remove Donald Trump from office (twice!--once for inciting an insurrection in front of the eyes of the world; it was literally televised) for political gain, and the voting down of Republicans' own immigration bill (again for political gain). Thats what happened. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
- kelnos 2y agoThat... doesn't seem to answer GP's question at all?
- drawkward 2y agoTheir post seems to have been edited.
- dylan604 2y agoMy post was not edited. While your post didn't directly answer with examples of what good they did as asked, I felt your response was apropos in recognizing the spirit of the question and provided the most relevant accomplishments.
- 2y ago
- buttercraft 2y ago> legislative gridlock and dysfunction Isn't this a direct result of "no compromise" policies on one side of the aisle?
- mrguyorama 2y agoRight, democrats were ALWAYS looking for compromise. Hell, democrats have to compromise with their own party! If you doubt me, simply go read votes from the past 20 years, and compare it with say 1960-1980. Republicans do not cross the aisle anymore. The interesting part is that at some point republicans had so propagandized their voters against the very concept of governance that "Elect me to office for the next 6 years and I promise nothing will get done" was a decades long strategy that worked! The more republicans obstructed, including preventing republican voters from getting things they claim to want, the more republicans got voted in. For decades now, republicans that compromise with democrats have been primaried by less collaborative republicans. Imagine a judge getting elected for insisting they will never hear another case! None of this should be controversial, republican politicians have literally stated this as their goal and promise.
- throwway120385 2y agoThis even happens at a local level. I witnessed a Republican county councilor who was beginning to work with a local community on a serious issue they were having with their ferry. She got replaced with someone who wants to obstruct and cut in all cases, which serves as an object lesson for anyone else on the council with an at-risk seat. For some reason the people who keep saying government doesn't work are working very hard to make government not work.
- dboreham 2y ago> For some reason Fairly obvious what that reason is. It's the same reason Putin supports Trump -- if you yourself are threatened by something (democracy) then you need to go make that thing a joke.
- diputsmonro 2y ago
- mmusson 2y agoPower abhors a vacuum.
- frugalmail 2y agoSo your interpretation of "give the elected official oversight" is that "checks and balances" and "democracy" are "mere suggestions". You're mistaking: - bureaucracy with democracy - checks and balances with a neo-priesthood But hey, who needs a functional government when you have a neo-priesthood to keep things 'holy'?"
- cyberax 2y agoBureaucracy is what happens with _any_ large system. It's unavoidable, and the best you can do is to build institutions that know how to manage it.
- SantalBlush 2y agoAnd bureaucracy isn't always bad. State and federal bureaucracies are probably largely responsible for protecting the 2020 US election from fraud and interference.
- frugalmail 2y ago[flagged]
- skippyboxedhero 2y agoIt is telling that you have that interpretation of executive power but not the same of regulatory power. As proof, this isn't an American problem, it is nothing to do with the US constitution or "gridlock". In most English-speaking countries you have seen: massive increase in power by unelected officials, the vast majority of these officials have identical political views and operate with a political agenda (to be clear, at no point did anyone ask whether this was legal, whether these were "strongmen"), and this effect has paralysed government function in every country. Even worse, this appears irrespective of clear limits. For example, the US system of political appointments of judges is clearly a bad idea, the incentives are awful, the results are predictable. But the same issue with judges overriding elected officials is occurring in countries where selection is (in theory) non-political. The reason why is simple: there has never been a greater difference between the lives of the rulers and the ruled. The reason we have democracy is to resolve this problem. But the US is a particularly extreme case of this: if you look at how government operates in the US, what is the actual connection with people's lives? The filth and decay in US cities is incredible given the amount of government spending...the answer why is simple: the spending is for government, the people don't matter. Also, US-specific: it is extremely strange to characterise the US as a system of checks and balances if you look at actual real world political history rather than some theoretical imaginings of someone in the late 18th century. Checks and balances have always been dynamic. The reason why the outrage is so vitriolic (and the comparisons to Hitler so frequent...imagine if Hitler fired civil servants or changed regulatory policy, definitely the worst thing he did) is because the people being hit are the people who believed they would always be safe from oversight.
- croemer 2y ago> imagine if Hitler fired civil servants He did. It's called "Gleichschaltung", we learned about it in school. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgtyvcw/revision/4 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgtyvcw/revision/4
- skippyboxedhero 2y agoYou completely failed to understand the context of this point (unsurprisingly). Every government has fired civil servants. The worst thing that Hitler did was not fire civil servants...he got up to some other stuff later that was worse. Also, quoting a resource for children does not do you much credit. Quote an actual source if you are going to do it.
- throw0101c 2y ago> This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. Some articles which were written a few years ago, but were re-upped recently: > In a presidential system, by contrast, the president and the congress are elected separately and yet must govern concurrently. If they disagree, they simply disagree. They can point fingers and wave poll results and stomp their feet and talk about “mandates,” but the fact remains that both parties to the dispute won office fair and square. As Linz wrote in his 1990 paper “The Perils of Presidentialism,”[1] when conflict breaks out in such a system, “there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved, and the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate.” That’s when the military comes out of the barracks, to resolve the conflict on the basis of something—nationalism, security, pure force—other than democracy. * https://slate.com/business/2013/10/juan-linz-dies-yale-political-scientist-explains-why-government-by-crisis-will-just-get-worse.html https://slate.com/business/2013/10/juan-linz-dies-yale-polit... > Still, Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, “there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved.” The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: “the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate.” * https://archive.is/https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed https://archive.is/https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/amer... When it has come to presidential systems, the US has been the exception as most others with something the same have not worked out over the long term.
- bagels 2y agoI'd rather have gridlock than Hitler.
- chii 2y agoHitler was popular before he became famous as "hitler".
- davedx 2y agoCompletely incapable of governing is quite some hyperbole. IRA Act, CHIPs Act that got a TSM fab up in record time on American soil, Operation Warp Speed. This kind of rhetoric really just feeds the beast.
- toxic72 2y agoThe CHIPS and Science Act is a U.S. federal statute enacted by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden on August 9, 2022.
- Animats 2y agoYes. A good example is immigration policy. Setting immigration policy is an enumerated power of Congress. The executive branch has no say at all. Congress failed to revise immigration policy when it got out of sync with facts on the ground. That led to the current mess. The last attempt to overhaul immigration policy was in 2006.[1] Arguably, this was more workable than what we have now. It combined tough enforcement with a path to citizenship. It had supporters from both parties. The House and Senate did not agree on terms and no bill was passed. So, instead of reform, we had weak enforcement, now followed by strong enforcement. What we have isn't working. We need something like that bill now. Has anyone introduced a comprehensive reform bill in Congress? No, as far as I can see from reading through the immigration bills in the hopper. The current bills are either minor tweaks or PR exercises.[2] Beat on your congressional representatives. We need an immigration law that works. It's Congress' job to argue over how it should work, and to come up with something that, when enforced, still works. We don't have that now. Immigrants are screaming about being deported, legal residents are screaming about being caught up in raids, and farmers are screaming about losing their labor force.[3] This is the moment to do something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Refo... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-bills-republicans-congress-donald-trump-2024448 https://www.newsweek.com/immigration-bills-republicans-congr... [3] https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2025/01/27/business-leaders-urge-immigration-reform-trump-administration https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2025/01/27/business-lead...
- kelnos 2y ago> This is the moment to do something. How so? I don't really have any confidence that the current Congress (regardless of which party we're talking about) could agree on anything but what you pointed out -- minor tweaks.
- tippytippytango 2y agoThe people are intuiting this. I think the next election cycle will see a left wing strongman put in. That one will do damage after cleaning up the damage from the current one. So we’ll yoyo back and forth between strongmen to get shit done because the legislative is useless. Because it’s better to yoyo between extremes than to sit in stagnation. We need some reform or we’re going to be stuck on this roller coaster for a long time.
- lenerdenator 2y ago> This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions. Well... most of them are.
- aaronbrethorst 2y agoMistaking a well-funded, highly coordinated project that started over 15 years ago[1] for 'those clowns in Congress are at it again!' is a huge part of what has prevented us from digging out of this crisis. [1] e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
- j2kun 2y agoThis is the key point. This dysfunction was _by design_. The Republican party has been working on this since Nixon was impeached. Through redistricting, Fox News, and changing politics to "warfare" by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk, through McConnell stonewalling Congress and refusing to hear judicial nominations. The Democrats are complicit by trying too hard to play by the rules and take the high road, but it's not a fair comparison of culpability in the slightest.
- hsuduebc2 2y agoOr this opened opportunity for dictator to arise. I wonder which of these two commonly happened in the past.
- mmooss 2y ago> the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. They governed well enough until January 20. > This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions. Creating gridlock and dysfunction is an intentional (and well-known) strategy to create a strongman. Most of the gridlock and dysfunction are on one side. You can call that partisan but even they oppose even the most simple, inescable issues such as paying debt. Back under Obama, the GOP in Congress openly said that their goal was to make government a failure under Obama.
- kelnos 2y agoThis is the thing that drives me nuts, especially when someone smugly trots out the "Democrats and Republicans are the same" nonsense. Even when Republicans are in power, Democrats don't resort to blatantly obstructionist measures to mess with a Republican administration. Democrats don't refuse to consider judicial nominations because "it's a presidential election year", and then hypocritically rush through a SCOTUS appointment right at the end of a presidential term. Sure, they do things like vote down a debt ceiling increase when it's paired with some completely unrelated legislation that they don't agree with. But when the power balance is reversed, Republicans will vote down a debt ceiling increase if it's not paired with some completely unrelated legislation that they want. (I wish there was something in the constitution that required that each bit of legislation be single-topic. Certainly that would still be open to interpretation. But I think at the very least it would eliminate the more obvious examples of abusive brinkmanship.)
- reubenswartz 2y agoThe "strong" man and his allies are the ones that crippled the legislative branch, except for tax cuts for the rich and appointing unqualified SC justices. There was bipartisan (Republican-ish) immigration legislation with enough votes pass until Trump told people to vote against it, because he knew that he could blame the problem on his opponents and many people would believe him. Note that none of this would be possible with Citizens United and dramatic media consolidation in the hands of a few oligarchs. ;-(
- ncr100 2y ago(NOTE: Largely reposting a Robert Reich bit of writing in the Quoted areas) FIRST Interesting how, if true, the GOP Political class is now beholden to Musk: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxTKZoZe_AzdNF8w7X0HO19w6xxH5rGinI?si=EKXk41C2K9m6VlNR http://youtube.com/post/UgkxTKZoZe_AzdNF8w7X0HO19w6xxH5rGinI... > Congress is supine because Republicans are in charge, and Musk has also become Trump’s hatchet man — threatening Republican members of Congress if they deviate from Trump. > Iowa’s Republican Senator Joni Ernst was firmly set against Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense until Musk hinted that he’d finance a primary challenger to Ernst, who’s up for reelection next year. Presto: Ernst supported Hegseth. > Indiana’s Republican Senator Todd Young expressed concern about the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be director of national intelligence until Musk tweeted against him. A besieged Young spoke with JD Vance, who arranged a call with Musk. Presto: Young announced he would back Gabbard. > Musk warned Republican lawmakers in December that he was compiling a “naughty list” of members who buck Trump’s agenda. He also pledged shortly after Election Day that his political action committee would “play a significant role in primaries” next year. > A Republican senator told The Hill that Musk’s wealth makes primary threats “a bigger deal.” SECOND And Interesting how some Media, Wa Po in this case, coincidentally blocked Paid Advertisement advocating an Anti-MUSK Political takt. > Musk’s financial and political power have been enough to intimidate even the mainstream media. An advertisement set to run in The Washington Post yesterday calling for Musk to be fired from his role in government was abruptly canceled, according to Common Cause, one of the groups that had ordered the ad. When asked why the Post had pulled the ad, the Post said it was not at liberty to give a reason.