And then — then you’ve got trouble. Because the truth is that governing under the American system is very difficult. It’s difficult on purpose. A President, even one with majorities in both houses of Congress, can only propose legislation; he cannot author it, and he has no power other than his ability to rally the people and to convince and cajole legislators, that is capable of enacting his vision. Similarly, a Congress, even if united and with a friendly president, has only limited power to overcome the objections of a president; yes, they can override a veto, but that requires significant support from a minority party, and it happens rarely.
No, the American system requires a president and congressional leaders to negotiate. And once that’s happened, then individual legislators get their say — and unlike the Westminster system, those legislators are free to vote their conscience over party. The system is messy, given to log-rolling and pork, and as pork products, the system creates laws in much the same way that sausage is created — and as Otto von Bismarck first remarked, if one loves laws or sausages, it’s better not to watch them being made.
This creates a problem for partisans of the majority. Do we wring our hands at the pork that will inevitably attach to the stimulus plan? Or do we suck it up, and accept it for the greater good? Do we note issues with appointees like Timothy Geithner, who is being nominated to head the Treasury Department, but appears unable to deal with TurboTax? Or do we keep quiet, hoping that Our Guy Knows What He’s Doing?
It’s easy if you’re a Republican — you attack. And frankly, you should attack. That’s your job. As we on the left were common of noting, it’s important to dissent when one is concerned with the direction of the country. Our nation is built on the idea of dissent as a patriotic act. The First Amendment codifies the idea that it is one’s birthright as an American to speak out against the president when one disagrees with him. One can dissent foolishly — hoping the president fails as a president is, generally speaking, hoping that America fails, and while it’s your right to do so, it’s not something I’d take pride in. But dissenting because you think a policy is ill-crafted, an appointee is bad, a decision by the president is poor? That’s your duty as an American.
And that, my friends, is the lesson for those of us on the left to embrace. Just because our president’s name is Obama and not Bush, just because the congressional leaders are named Pelosi and Reid, and not Boehner and McConnell — that’s no reason for us to follow them blindly, or check off on their every decision with our fingers crossed, hoping they’re making the right ones. Because neither party holds a monopoly on Truth, and neither party is made up of perfect people.
It will be more difficult, yes. And there will times when we want to hold our fire. We must not. It is our responsibility to remember that our government works for us, not the other way ’round — and while it’s easier to attack enemies than friends, our friends need to hear from us no less than our opponents.
Finally, it is important for us to remember this: all of this has happened before, and all of this has happened again. The Democratic Party will, eventually, lose its majority, and lose the presidency. The Republican Party will, eventually, regain the levers of power. It may not happen soon, it may not happen for a generation — but it will happen. It is important for Democrats not to forget this, and to embrace and accept the right and duty of Republicans to assert their ideals, even when out of office. Many of the problems our country have faced these last eight years came from a majority party that seemed to believe they would govern forever, that they had no need to listen to or care about the minority. That a simple, “We won, you lost, get over it” was all the engagement needed.
Today, that majority is the minority, and it is oh-so-tempting to pay them back. But the majority is the minority in no small part because they chose to ignore those who opposed them. If Democrats make that mistake, we will find ourselves in the minority again, sooner rather than later. The President appears to understand that well. We who are his partisans should not forget it, either — and we should thus engage the right as we have, through a battle of ideas and an honest discussion of what will make our country better. For right now, we need that, and badly.
And I in turn find myself in complete agreement with you, Jeff. So look out your windows, everyone, because you may well see bacon on the wing today.
It’s difficult on purpose.
Yup. Efficiency in government (from the political decision-making/policy-making view) was not what the Founders were looking for.
I disagree. You’re advocating a system in which Republicans have some power (when Democrats are in the majority), and then Democrats have zero power (when Republicans are in the minority).
Unless there are binding rules that the Republicans have no choice but to accept — binding rules that give the majority party no choice but to listen to the minority — then all you’re calling for is for the Democrats to play nicey-nice with the Republicans, until the Republicans take power again, at which point they will screw the Democrats over without a second’s thought.
Again, I disagree. They are in the minority because they governed very badly; primarily, because they started an unpopular war in Iraq, and because they supported deregulation of large financial companies when increased (or, really, better-aimed) regulation would have been a better idea.
And Democrats — at least, most of the most powerful Democrats — supported them in these goals. It’s true that they didn’t listen to Democrats, but even if they had listened, why assume it would have made any difference?
There’s a reason Democrats have just elected someone who has been in politics only 12 years; anyone with long-term power would have been implicated in at least some of Bush’s disasters (think of how much Clinton’s vote for Iraq hurt her in the primaries).
Democrats will win re-election, or lose, based mostly on how well or poorly they govern. Listening to Republicans will not help them govern well. And giving charity to people who will never, ever offer any in return is no way to have power when Democrats are eventually in the minority party.
And Democrats — at least, most of the most powerful Democrats — supported them in these goals.
Therein lies the problem.
This is such an excellent post.
It is essential to our system that the rights and voice of the minority (whoever it may be from time to time) not be silenced. One of the things that drove me crazy about the invasion of Iraq is that the Democrats, who should have been the loyal opposition, just pretty much rolled over and played dead. NPR of course broadcast the debate live, and I listened in horror as one Demo after another said in effect, well, whatever the President wants.
I’m in California, and one of my senators is Barbara Boxer, someone I’d never paid that much attention to, but that day Barbara stood up and said, “I’m a mother and a grandmother, and I’m not opposed to all war, I’ve voted for wars, but this is madness,” and from that moment she’s had my undying loyalty. Just for being one of the few who made sense.
Would it have come out differently if the Demos had done their job? Maybe, just maybe. It would have been worth a shot. I’m not at all willing to write the minority voice off.
So I hope the Repubs wake up after the shock of their total repudiation and speak up and keep us honest.
If you’re referring specifically to the UK’s House of Commons, then MPs are free to vote according to their consciences in “free votes.” Other votes are “whipped” and vary from one to three-line whips. MPs can and do rebel against their own party on occasion.
Last time the Democrats won the NY State Senate—not when they fucked over homosexuals, before that—they changed the rules to increase the power of the minority party, because in the NY State Senate, that usually is the Democrats. In Congress this is even more important, because neither party has a “tradition” of being in power.
On substantive issues, I agree with Amp. The “political center” of America, with the notable exception of individuals actually inside the American power structure, are not really centrists. They actually have no political ideology and will swing their vote because they really do not have an political intellectual foundation that leads them to believe that either the left or the right is more likely to be correct. In future elections, they will reward or punish the Democrats not based on how centrist or leftist their policies were, or how much they did or did not allow the minority party to shape policy, but on whether or not the policies of the Democrats “worked”: Do I have a home? A secure income? A safe neighborhood? Health care? A secure retirement? Etc.? If we Dems / progressives sincerely believe that our policies will more likely lead to these outcomes, then the way to secure the electoral future for Democrats is to enact as many of these policies as possible.
But on everything other than substantive policy, Jeff is right. One-party rule inevitably leads to corruption, and the more power they have the more corrupt they become, and the more likely they are to be run out office both for the simple reason that the voters sometimes get fed up with corruption itself, and because policy created by a corrupt process is inevitably bad policy. California is a SOLIDLY blue state, but we have had a Hollywood star Republican governor for 5 and a half years because the as-centrist-as-they-come Democratic governor we had in 2003 led a one-party state and had become completely corrupt.
So here’s my suggestion: Give the minority party in Congress broad and deed “sunshine” powers, but little else. Let them subpeana anyone they want, force answers to any questions they ask, and have access to review any documents they want. Let the Republicans SEE everything, but do not give them the power to STOP anything. Anytime they get a whiff of corruption, they can go yell to the press Give them the power to do their patriotic duty to weed the corruption out of the governing Democrats. And hopefully, the Democrats will as a result have less overall corruption and produce better policies leading to better outcomes that will get them re-elected. (Or at least get new, different, and less corrupt Democrats elected, which is of course the small detail that makes it hard for CURRENT politicians to support sunshine policies.) Giving the Republicans such “police powers” over the Democrats may give the Republicans many short-term political victories, but in the long-term it would be good for the Democratic party, progressive causes, and the entire United States of America.
But recall that (hah, I wrote “Sen. Obama” – well, he was my Senator so I figure I should be excused) President Obama has said a number of times that he wants to work in a bipartisan fashion. If you’re going to do that someone’s go to make the first move, and it’s going to have to be from the party in power.
It’s not going to be easy, for sure.