http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/a_question_for_david_broder.html?hpid=opinionsbox1A question for David Broder: Who's to blame?
I'd be genuinely curious to know how David Broder would answer the following question: How much are Republicans to blame
Broder has a column today entitled: "The Senate, running on empty." He says the real problem is "the absence of leaders who embody and can inculcate the institutional pride that once was the hallmark of membership in the Senate." And:
Its best leaders have been men who were capable, at least on occasion, of rising above partisanship or parochial interest and summoning the will to tackle overriding challenges in a way that almost shamed their colleagues out of their small-mindedness.
Many forces -- from the money chase, to the party realignments, to the intrusiveness of 24-hour media -- have weakened the institutional bonds of that Senate. But it is the absence of the ethic embodied and enforced by its leaders that is most crippling.
Jon Chait dismisses this diagnosis, arguing convincingly that the problems are institutional and historical. But for the sake of argument, let's assume leadership is the problem. Shouldn't we say which leaders are to blame?
The words "Mitch McConnell" don't appear in Broder's article. The words "Harry Reid," however, do appear in passing, when Broder writes that Reid "threw in the towel on energy legislation." Broder points to this as another sign of Senate dysfunction. But he doesn't say anything about the lockstep GOP opposition to energy legislation that was partly responsible for forcing Reid to throw in the towel.
Yes, Republicans said Dems were to blame for GOP opposition to energy reform because Dems didn't do this, that or the other thing. Maybe Broder agrees with this. Maybe he thinks Republican opposition was indefensible. The point is, he doesn't say.
Look: There's evidence Republicans pursued a pre-conceived strategy designed to deny Obama bipartisan cooperation solely to prevent Dems from winning major victories, and to grind the Senate to a halt to make Dems look like ineffective leaders. Never mind the fact that filibustering is at historic highs. McConnell himself all but copped to this strategy, telling Adam Nagourney that it was "critical" for Republicans to remain unified against health care reform because if it were bipartisan, the public might be more inclined to support it.
More recently, McConnell said he'd be willing to compromise during the next cycle, but only if Obama decides to change course and pursue a "center right" agenda. That doesn't sound like a real compromise offer. Does it?
This is the sort of thing that should outrage Broder, given his nostalgia for a more collegial time. If Broder has railed about this in the past, he certainly doesn't do so with any regularity.
Maybe Broder doesn't think Republicans are mainly to blame for the current state of affairs. Maybe it's all Dems' fault. Fine: If that's the case, let's hear it, and let's hear why. The point is that the Senate's dysfunction is an enormous problem that could conveivably have an impact on the fate of our planet. It's fair to expect a columnist with the institutional knowledge Broder possesses, and the respect he enjoys, to take a real stand on who's really to blame for what's happening.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
