Bad Week

Brian Beutler on the Democrats' bad week. One thing that should be added here is that a lot of Democratic members of congress are unprepared for the new realities of American legislative life because, for the members, those realities basically suck. The days of weak party discipline and relatively low levels of partisan/ideological alignment meant that life as a member of the US House of Representatives was much more pleasant than was life as a member of parliament in Canada or France or what have you. Consequently, a lot of members would like to believe that with the Big Bad DeLay gone they can somehow resuscitate the grand old days of cross-cutting coalitions and free-agent members rather than the dreary business of party discipline and endless legislative trench warfare.

In the real world, though, the causes of partisan polarization are structural and DeLay and Gingrich were just symptoms, or perhaps smart people who understood how to take advantage of the new realities.

Comments

In the real world, though, the causes of partisan polarization are structural and DeLay and Gingrich were just symptoms, or perhaps smart people who understood how to take advantage of the new realities.

Huh? And here I thought they were the evilest villains on the planet. Turns out they're ahead of their time, worthy of emulation . . . almost admirable. Who'd have thunk it?

Posted by southpaw | October 22, 2007 4:40 PM

Exactly. And with President Hillary, the Republicans will once again be even more unified.

However, slightly off topic but, after reading this for a class of mine, I got to thinking of President Hillary's policies. Will her continued support of wiretapping/surveillance state give rise to a more libertarian Republican Party (rather than the law-and-order types now dominating it).

It's depressing that I'm hoping for a Conservative Dem Candidate because it may get Republicans to more effectively oppose policies I despise.

Posted by Chris_ | October 22, 2007 4:44 PM

I do not really understand what is so unpleasant about "being a member of polarized legislative body".

That on daily basis you meet people who are not effusingly polite? My heart breaks...

Posted by piotr | October 22, 2007 5:42 PM

What does "structural" mean in the post? Are you referring to campaign finance rules? Last I checked, the U.S. constitution had not changed recently, so what is this mysterious structure?

Posted by nbt | October 22, 2007 5:57 PM

members of congress are unprepared for the new realities of American legislative life because, for the members, those realities basically suck.
So, congresspeople must simultaneously deal with other people whose mere presence fills them with incandescent hatred and bosses who view them as little more than automatons. Sort of like working in retail.

Posted by guineapigfury | October 22, 2007 6:30 PM

Members of Congress are made far, far more miserable by the constant necessity of fundraising than they are by partisan polarization.

Freed of that relentless, actually structural chore that keeps them from representing (or even, in most cases, any serious interaction with) their constituents, they'd be in a position to form policy alliances with reps in similar districts. And, as a whole, they'd move strongly in a more progressive direction on economic issues.

Posted by Nell | October 22, 2007 6:42 PM

Chris_ muses:

Will [Hillary's] continued support of wiretapping/surveillance state give rise to a more libertarian Republican Party (rather than the law-and-order types now dominating it).

What this sort of thinking implies is a level of intellectual honesty on the Republican side that simply does not exist. Republicans had no problem screaming and yelling about Bill Clinton's "wars" and undermining him at every turn. As soon as a Republican is elected president, they make non-stop high-minded calls to support the president at all times.

Also, did right wing freakouts about Janet Reno's jack-booted justice department (yes, they tried to make nice old lady Janet Reno into some kind of female Hitler) lead to support for civil liberties under Bush?

Chris_, you really need to wake up and smell reality. Yes, you'll see all sorts of "concerns" about civil liberties under a president H R Clinton, most about has honest and heart-felt as the sensitive weeping over poor insulted General Petreaus. And then the next time a Republican is president, all such concerns will magically vanish.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 22, 2007 7:19 PM

One of the structural issues I'd suggest: safely gerrymandered districts.

Ironically a safe district likely breeds job dissatisfaction along with job security.

Posted by Carrington Ward, Queens, NY | October 22, 2007 7:20 PM

Rob Mac,

My post was slightly tongue-in-cheek. The Democratic congress is depressing because they can't stand up to the Republicans on some of this civil liberties stuff. With majorities in both houses and an extremely unpopular president, they still can't get it done. Hillary probably won't get it done, either.

But, maybe Republicans could get it done! If Hillary kept up the warrantless wiretapping/civil liberties craziness, the Republicans would be well positioned to attack her. They'd have the unity (their visceral hatred of Hillary), the politics (with a shift over to libertarianism), and -- like you said -- the political opportunism to make that shift.

So if they want to use their opposition / opportunism for good rather than evil on this issue, it's fine by me. Here's to hoping.

Posted by Chris_ | October 22, 2007 8:27 PM

MY: ...a lot of Democratic members of congress are unprepared for the new realities of American legislative life...

Paul Rosenberg has written a small book on this issue in a series of posts at OpenLeft. It's a complex discussion but one clip that could summarize the thrust of his argument isin this reply he made to a comment,

My opinion of Pelosi is that she's a very good manager for a political context that simply doesn't exist. She comes from a top political family in Baltimore, so politics is deep in her blood. But it's not the sort of politics that we are experiencing today at the national level, and that is a politics that turns certain traditional political strengths into weaknesses. [emphasis mine].

The central issue is the analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of Democrats and Republicans with respect to policy making versus politics. It's a long read over several days of posting, but he's onto something, I think.

The discussion begins with the link below and continues forward:
The Political Duality Of Rep and Dem
by: Paul Rosenberg
Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 06:00:00 AM EDT
http://tinyurl.com/33qegj

The generic link for all of Paul's essays is: http://tinyurl.com/2l9cqb

Posted by mk | October 22, 2007 11:02 PM

mk, that link looked like a good, earnest attempt at understanding. Unfortunately, after scanning down to the first diagram I'm pretty sure that it reveals exactly why the Dems are so fucked -- but not at all in the way this Rosenberg guy intends.

I can assure you that graph theory and "duality" have fuck-all to do with the Dems sorry state. The Dems' sorry state lies in this: They don't believe in **anything**, and most people know they don't, because they don't **fight** for anything. That's it. Rosenberg's production is practically a caricature of Dem wankfests. Dems are better mannered and more diffident than their GOP counterparts, but by now most people have figured out that both camps serve the same master, the economic oligarchy.

Posted by sglover | October 23, 2007 12:41 AM

Tell that to Kent Conrad, working with Chambliss for a more Republican Farm Bill.

Posted by Franz | October 23, 2007 1:14 AM