7 ms·

GOP and Dems have been nearly evenly matched for years in Congress now. There was no prospect of dramatic legal overhaul i.m.o., let alone any new Constitutiona

GOP and Dems have been nearly evenly matched for years in Congress now. There was no prospect of dramatic legal overhaul i.m.o., let alone any new Constitutional amendments. Graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...

intended 1y ago
This is also not how Congress works as meant to work - deadlocked yes, but not a deadlock driven by partisanship. Republicans get primaried for supporting Dems. This creates the reality which is sold in their information and news networks. Dems always have bad bills, and see - no Republican is supporting it.
- pjc50 1y ago
  Dems have oddly bad party discipline. Obviously any D voting for any R should be immediately expelled, and yet this doesn't happen. They've not yet got serious.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Obviously any D voting for any R should be immediately expelled Why? If we had a couple more Manchins and Sinemas right now, you know what we'd have? A majority.
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      The question is whether you have more of them in addition to the rest of the party, or instead of some members of the rest of the party. 4 machins in the same number of seats would really make it impossible to do anything.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > 4 machins in the same number of seats would really make it impossible to do anything One, we did a lot with one Manchin and one Sinema. (To the degree the former had concerns, it was well-founded ones over the inflationary effects of the Inflation Reduction Act.) Two, not doing anything beats the status quo. A weak majority would be a check on the executive. We’re paying the price for ideological purism.
  - intended 1y ago
    You would think so, and that would be a reading of the American Legislative machinery which is incorrect. Simplifying: Congress was never meant to be deadlocked on simple party lines. It was always meant to have people figuring out ways to work together, even at the expense of the party, but in favor of their constituents.
    - isleyaardvark 1y ago
      That dynamic is essential to any stable democracy.
  - the_other 1y ago
    Party discipline contributes to the decline of democracy. It reduces the representation of opinions down to whomever sets the party line. Better than party discipline would be more effective intra-party debate, discussion, consensus processes etc. It's probably slower than line enforcement tho'.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      I agree in most other times. But in current dire times of this constitutional crisis, a bit of discipline is necessary. We gotta resist wherever we can and slow down process until the people can speak.
      - tekknik 1y ago
        There is no constitutional crisis, stop gaslighting as if the dems do not stop attempting to force their ideals then you will see more of this “constitutional crisis” as you call it.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    This would drive partisanship, probably the most immediate problem in the US and beyond. I am not from the US but the impacts of similar perspectives are sadly more and more widely spread. If you cannot accept an idea because it was brought forward by a political competitor, you lack the necessary detachment to make good decisions. Sometimes party discipline is sensible for political pragmatism, but in all other cases democracy is the better solution. It should be handled with care.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      Rejecting this philosophy wholesale and labeling it as explicitly anti-American is the sensible political pragmatism at this point. Partisanship is only something to be concerned with when you're dealing with functioning political parties. In America, I think the bare minimum for a political party should be that it believes in the ideals of America: a government by and for the people. MAGA is not that, it's an explicit rejection of the ideals of the American revolution. Fundamentally they have a vision for America run by a king who has absolute authority over state, congress, and the judicial system. There's no meeting of the minds that can be had with such a perspective, our forefathers figured that out and started the American Revolution over it.
      - tekknik 1y ago
        I accept this philosophy, as this is the correct way a functioning democracy operates. Independents and Republicans are tired of the riots, the attempts at forcing ideals (such as forcing the use of pronouns, forcing deviation from one’s religion). Maybe get rid of the crazy ideas, stop spending so much money and focus on american citizens before foreign citizens and you’d have more people on your side.
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        [flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > This is also not how Congress works as meant to work - deadlocked yes, but not a deadlock driven by partisanship Yup. We let the pointers take precedence to the point that that they don't actually point at anything, we just like how they look.
BrenBarn 1y ago
And they're still nearly evenly matched and Trump is still doing what he's doing. The Democrats could have done all the same stuff Trump is doing, but for good instead of evil. The problem is that the Democrats are not willing to accept that the system is entirely broken, so they keep clinging to a belief in "institutions" that they think will somehow magically protect us, when in fact those institutions are destroying us.
- watwut 1y ago
  You can not destroy democracy and rule of law for the good. By definition, you are destroying democracy and rule of law. Even if you believe yourself to be good, and Trump and MAGA are under that illusion, you are doing something horrible. Democrats could not do it. If they had done it, they would be as bad as Trump is now.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    The point is that what we have now (and what we had before Trump) is not democracy and is not the rule of law, and Trump's actions show that, because those actions are taken within that system. We have been living for a long time under the illusion that our governmental system was democratic when it never was, it was only due to coincidence and luck that it appeared that way. When I say "do the same stuff Trump is doing" I mean use similar methods to create a system that actually supports democracy and the rule of law.
    - staunton 1y ago
      Havimg "democracy and rule of law" isn't a question of yes or no, it's a matter of degrees on several only partially aligned axes. Something like that can slowly shift. You make it sound like "our democracy was never perfect, so obviously we always just had a mad emperor all along"...
      - BrenBarn 1y ago
        Sure, it's a matter of degree, but I think recent events have shown that the actual guardrails we have are significantly less than what we thought we had. It's like, if you built a bridge to carry 10,000 tons because you need it to carry 10,000 tons, and then it turns out it's starting to fall apart under 5,000 tons, it doesn't make sense to me to say that you should just fix it so it securely holds 5,000 tons, or if it breaks just restore it to hold 5,000 tons. You need to rebuild it so it can do what you need it to do.

intended 1y ago

This is also not how Congress works as meant to work - deadlocked yes, but not a deadlock driven by partisanship. Republicans get primaried for supporting Dems. This creates the reality which is sold in their information and news networks. Dems always have bad bills, and see - no Republican is supporting it.

pjc50 1y ago
Dems have oddly bad party discipline. Obviously any D voting for any R should be immediately expelled, and yet this doesn't happen. They've not yet got serious.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Obviously any D voting for any R should be immediately expelled Why? If we had a couple more Manchins and Sinemas right now, you know what we'd have? A majority.
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    The question is whether you have more of them in addition to the rest of the party, or instead of some members of the rest of the party. 4 machins in the same number of seats would really make it impossible to do anything.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > 4 machins in the same number of seats would really make it impossible to do anything One, we did a lot with one Manchin and one Sinema. (To the degree the former had concerns, it was well-founded ones over the inflationary effects of the Inflation Reduction Act.) Two, not doing anything beats the status quo. A weak majority would be a check on the executive. We’re paying the price for ideological purism.
- intended 1y ago
  You would think so, and that would be a reading of the American Legislative machinery which is incorrect. Simplifying: Congress was never meant to be deadlocked on simple party lines. It was always meant to have people figuring out ways to work together, even at the expense of the party, but in favor of their constituents.
  - isleyaardvark 1y ago
    That dynamic is essential to any stable democracy.
- the_other 1y ago
  Party discipline contributes to the decline of democracy. It reduces the representation of opinions down to whomever sets the party line. Better than party discipline would be more effective intra-party debate, discussion, consensus processes etc. It's probably slower than line enforcement tho'.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    I agree in most other times. But in current dire times of this constitutional crisis, a bit of discipline is necessary. We gotta resist wherever we can and slow down process until the people can speak.
    - tekknik 1y ago
      There is no constitutional crisis, stop gaslighting as if the dems do not stop attempting to force their ideals then you will see more of this “constitutional crisis” as you call it.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  This would drive partisanship, probably the most immediate problem in the US and beyond. I am not from the US but the impacts of similar perspectives are sadly more and more widely spread. If you cannot accept an idea because it was brought forward by a political competitor, you lack the necessary detachment to make good decisions. Sometimes party discipline is sensible for political pragmatism, but in all other cases democracy is the better solution. It should be handled with care.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    Rejecting this philosophy wholesale and labeling it as explicitly anti-American is the sensible political pragmatism at this point. Partisanship is only something to be concerned with when you're dealing with functioning political parties. In America, I think the bare minimum for a political party should be that it believes in the ideals of America: a government by and for the people. MAGA is not that, it's an explicit rejection of the ideals of the American revolution. Fundamentally they have a vision for America run by a king who has absolute authority over state, congress, and the judicial system. There's no meeting of the minds that can be had with such a perspective, our forefathers figured that out and started the American Revolution over it.
    - tekknik 1y ago
      I accept this philosophy, as this is the correct way a functioning democracy operates. Independents and Republicans are tired of the riots, the attempts at forcing ideals (such as forcing the use of pronouns, forcing deviation from one’s religion). Maybe get rid of the crazy ideas, stop spending so much money and focus on american citizens before foreign citizens and you’d have more people on your side.
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        [flagged]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> This is also not how Congress works as meant to work - deadlocked yes, but not a deadlock driven by partisanship Yup. We let the pointers take precedence to the point that that they don't actually point at anything, we just like how they look.

BrenBarn 1y ago

And they're still nearly evenly matched and Trump is still doing what he's doing. The Democrats could have done all the same stuff Trump is doing, but for good instead of evil. The problem is that the Democrats are not willing to accept that the system is entirely broken, so they keep clinging to a belief in "institutions" that they think will somehow magically protect us, when in fact those institutions are destroying us.

watwut 1y ago
You can not destroy democracy and rule of law for the good. By definition, you are destroying democracy and rule of law. Even if you believe yourself to be good, and Trump and MAGA are under that illusion, you are doing something horrible. Democrats could not do it. If they had done it, they would be as bad as Trump is now.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  The point is that what we have now (and what we had before Trump) is not democracy and is not the rule of law, and Trump's actions show that, because those actions are taken within that system. We have been living for a long time under the illusion that our governmental system was democratic when it never was, it was only due to coincidence and luck that it appeared that way. When I say "do the same stuff Trump is doing" I mean use similar methods to create a system that actually supports democracy and the rule of law.
  - staunton 1y ago
    Havimg "democracy and rule of law" isn't a question of yes or no, it's a matter of degrees on several only partially aligned axes. Something like that can slowly shift. You make it sound like "our democracy was never perfect, so obviously we always just had a mad emperor all along"...
    - BrenBarn 1y ago
      Sure, it's a matter of degree, but I think recent events have shown that the actual guardrails we have are significantly less than what we thought we had. It's like, if you built a bridge to carry 10,000 tons because you need it to carry 10,000 tons, and then it turns out it's starting to fall apart under 5,000 tons, it doesn't make sense to me to say that you should just fix it so it securely holds 5,000 tons, or if it breaks just restore it to hold 5,000 tons. You need to rebuild it so it can do what you need it to do.