Whip Counts and why we cannot get some really liberal progress

[nadinbrzezinski]

on the first run... on any major reform.

So how did they get the whip count?

Well the same way the 1965 medicare bill was decided, and SCHIP and Social Security, and any other bill out there...

They knew how to do whip counts. They knew that they did not have the votes, no way, no how for the more "liberal" provisions.

We want one thing... most Americans want the same thing you and I want. and hell we have two models to achieve it... tricare and Medicare...

Problem is that most Americans live on both coasts... then there is all this fly over country where the cold war has never truly ended. And although a whole generation has come of age and they even vote, for whom them are commies boogie man don't work any more, yet these kids are STILL a minority of voters in these places... I mean for them Commies what are those? A new brand of jeans? The problem is that they still have enough folks who still vote for them family values, and protecting the family from them commies still counts and you and I are commies. So until we can get that little problem solved, progress will be slow and whip counts will be what they are. That is rather conservative... if slowly moving in the right direction.

And yes, I had a Political Science Instructor, who was quite the rightie, and a Company man, once explain this to me. As I was very confused as to why the MAJORITY in this country could not exactly get some things passed. As he put it, until you solve the problem of the middle of the country, where Democrats should be Republicans and Republicans are to the right of Atilah the Hun, you got a problem.

As to why our people still vote the way they do... well if you are a democrat coming from oh North Dakota... and you want to keep your seat, you vote rather conservative. It does not hurt who gives money to whom, but by the nature of the beast these people come from very CONSERVATIVE districts, and they VOTE CONSERVATIVE, and no way no how you can get a whip count for a medical reform that includes silly shit like Single Payer or PO, not now. This explains people like Bart Stupak... he is a Democrat, a CONSERVADEM, just as much as Congresswoman Lee who is close to my left. Now I will be honest, if we got around to fixin' them problems in the Constitution that force but two parties... and for some magical reason we had four or five... you think it is difficult whip counts now? Just wait... it will be even more fun. On the bright side, coalitions will make watching C-SPAN far more entertaining. On the down side, due to the nature of the US, I fear the left will be even less able to do things. See them coasts, and protection of minorities and how many seats you get.

Why do you think mostly rural states tend to dictate a lot of how policy gets made?

For the record, that professor was to the right of Atila the Hun, but you know what? He was a hell of a political analyst, and KNEW his stuff. He compared at one point, not that popular by the way, the US Government to the Chinese system at a structural (aka theoretical) level. There are some important differences, but in some ways, it is a mistake, as he explained it, to look at this as two parties. Rather it is easier to look at it as regions. No matter what party a candidate comes from, you can pretty much tell what that person's votes will be by the nature of the district. And this is what a whip count is all about, and why change is so damn freakingly slow, maddeningly slow. The difference is that we actually move faster than the Chinese, when we want to.

And you asked why Conservadems vote the way they do... I just answered it for you... He did, decades ago.

(This was posted inside a thread, but this is important for people to understand)

[w4rma]

1. Not all Conservadems, though. Sen. Carper represents Deleware. He should be primaried. (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. This is a general statement on why RURAL America

has as much power as it does.

Not relating to any particular "democrat" or "republican."

That said, if the nature of that district is very conservative, good luck getting him out through a primary.

That said our system is broken at many levels, and if you asked me we need some sort of Term Limits, what seems reasonable to me would be about 20 years, the equivalent of a career.

[w4rma]

5. Sen. Carper is a U.S. Senator. He represents the entire state of Deleware.

It's not a district and Deleware is pretty liberal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

The whole state, or urban districts?

I am not kidding here.

[Political Heretic]

6. I don't think Washington politics should be a "career."

It should be an act of service.

You serve your 2 four year terms and go back to being an ordinary citizen. Even more so if we had federally funded elections. (never happen.)

What we really need, though I'm not talking about feasibility here at all, just doing some late night dreaming, is the end of our winner-take-all political system.

And a side note - next should be the end of the electoral collage for presidential elections. Electing a national president should, I believe, be about a popular vote. I don't think protecting states power should enter into this specific decision. As Jed Barlett said, there are times where we are 50 separate states and there are times when we are one big nation. Election a president - that's one big nation time. The rest of us won't butt in when a single state elects its own governor and legislature.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. IN the modern reality it is a career

whether you and I think it should not is another matter.

Now a few "lifetime" Senators have done good (see Kennedy) but others have been a disaster, (see Thurmond)

Why we need to have some kind of limits, but you go overboard and you have the problem they have in Mexico (One Term) where Staffers have the power. This way you have some institutional memory, but you also have TURNOVER.

[Political Heretic]

11. Agreed.

Yes, I know I've strayed out of the realm of reality on that one...

[PBass]

12. Sorry but a limit of two terms in the Senate doesn't make any sense.

The whole "lets eliminate professional politicians" impulse is IMO pretty stupid.

HEY, LETS GET RID OF PROFESSIONAL AIRLINE PILOTS AND LET SOME "REGULAR PEOPLE" FLY THE AIRPLANES. (Then maybe we wouldn't have so many flight delays!!!! YEAH!!!)

I don't know why anybody seriously thinks that legislating is just another job, and that pretty much anyone can do it. It doesn't make any sense. How many years does it take to get really good at a job (quite often many years, actually)

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. That woudl be THREE terms, and if you are really picky

four terms, that would be 24 years, somehow would not be enough? Let alone that this is a career in the civil service AND the US Military?

Or you saying our military and civil service are not professional enough?

[Political Heretic]

20. I do believe he was responding to me, not you.

I think he disagrees with my wanting to limit to eight years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Look at California for a textbook example of why that don't work

it is less obvious than the Mexican House and Senate, but the staffers still rule

[Political Heretic]

29. Ok I'm not familiar with state by state stuff... can you give me some detail on Cali?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. The State of Cali has term limits

People are either termed out at eight or twelve years. Regardless, since that happened power has moved from the legislators, who are here today, and gone tomorrow, to the staffers who know the ins and outs of the place.

Now if you had 20-24 years MAX for service, in BOTH houses, well a few Senators don't do more than two to three terms, that is max 18 years... and same in the House. What it would force is turn over, but keeping enough of an institutional memory to keep the real power in elected officials.

Mexico is an extreme example by the way... why right now they are thinking of term limits at twelve years not two... but in the Mexican House and Senate there is no structural memory, every one if for themselves, since they do not answer to anybody once elected, and the staffers have the real power.

Oh and it was late I had to go to bed

[Political Heretic]

18. Here's why I disagree.

I don't believe we need "professional politicians." I believe that just translates into "belway insiders" which hurts - not helps - social progress.

What we need is a citizen government. I have what it takes to serve in the U.S. Senate. So do you. So do most Americans. It's the arrogant assumption that only the "elite" can do the job or know what's best or know "how things work" that is the problem. How things "work" right now sucks eggs. The more are representatives ARE or reflect ordinary families the better off our society would be.

[Political Heretic]

3. We never took a count.

You keep talking about whip-count. I was never talking about single payer, other than to acknowledge my compromise by still being willing to support insurance reform long after single payer was off the table (since it was never on the table.)

We never took a whip count on legislation with strong price regulations, or that addresses the chief was that insurance companies screw over policy holders (claim denials and accusations of fraud). And if you want to talk about whip-counts, the votes were there in the house for a public option, and the votes were growing daily - just five away - from there for PO through reconciliation. It was leadership that perpetually killed hopes of a PO. Not a lack of votes.

Had leadership been as ferociously behind a public option as there were just passing this bill, given the amount of fierce hardball they were willing to play - you have absolutely no ground to claim the votes weren't there. We never tried.

But aside from that, I was STILL ready to support insurance reform without a PO. But endless deals with industry and removal of nearly all regulatory oversight - none of that was tested by a whip count. It was just DONE. Most of it was done to appeal to Republicans, which we DIDNT GET.

You only care about whip-count. Great. Next time, let's fucking have one.

Furthermore - aside from all of that, the answer to this problem is not to say "we don't have the whip count" and go home. If there was ever a greater cry for finally finding the courage to stand on ethical principle of social and economic justice and VOTE OUT corporate capitulators and VOTE IN representatives that honestly stand with poor and working class families - this would be it.

Instead, it sounds to me like you are saying, "deal with it" as though all we should ever hope for us a Democratic Party that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the financial elite.

I can't stomach that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. You are possitive they didn't?

I could not and would not bet on that.

It only shows you do not know how DC works (and why it is as dysfunctional as it is by the way)

And I mean this about NOT knowing how DC works and how DC counts votes in the House and Senate.

I don't care about Whip Counts, and I am willing to pressure to get things done, but I am cognizant that if in the end they don't have the votes, we in the coasts may want pink tutti elephants dancing to the tune of the Nutcracker, it ain't gonna happen.

So my job is to pressure not just DC, but also people in that fly over country and convince them that it is in their best interests to get those pink tutti elephants dancing to the tune of the Nutcracker. Like it or not, THEY have as much to say about this as I do, and their reps are not going to vote MY way until they believe THEIR people want that.

Thirty years, you betcha... all social fights in this country are generational... and this is different from others HOW?

Oy vey, this is basic Poli Sci, as in EXTREMELY BASIC US Political Science. We call it, protection of the MINORITY.

[Political Heretic]

17. Here's how its different

We don't have thirty years to wait.

We're in the last states of late-capitalist empire. The middle-class is withering as income splits into a tiny percentage of haves and a huge serfdom of have-nots. The trend starting in 1980 of productivity exploding and decoupling with wages which have remained stagnate (flatling in the middle class and declining among the poor, adjusted for inflation) is simply unsustainable. Nor us our crippling unchecked debt.

You can't maintain a functioning "first-world" society when your richest Americans pay an effective tax rate on average of 11.5% (as of 2005, re: Government Accountability Office, also reported in the Christian Science Monitor) - less than what many middle class Americans pay.) That's a flip-flopped system that is unsustainable. We're bracing for the effects of the commercial real estate market fallout, yet to hit. We're lagging behind our top twenty industrialized peer nations in virtually every indicator I care about...

I believe that our economic and political system is unsustainable - just like every other empire of history - and that our own negligence, arrogance and excess is speeding our collapse.

So I don't think we have thirty years to wait.

It's not that I don't understand how basic political science works (there's that arrogance again) - is that count or no, I don't think we have that much time left.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. When the Empire collapses

I expect this country to go the way of... the USSR... for the reasons I stated. The Rural States will blame the coasts for the failure... and so it begins.

So at that moment in your section of the country you can build your utopia....

Alas that will be the end of the LONG TREND of this country and the kind of event that breaks that.

but at that point we may be talking of five to seven successor states... not the United States.

And I know we are not living in the late stages of capitalism, because what we are living under is NOT capitalism... I wish we were... quite frankly. I mean Smith hated things like monopolies and recommended they be broken regularly. But since we live in consumerism, that is another story.

By the way, the other possible result is a nice, nasty, short or long, really don't matter, since I know I won't like it either way, civil war... but hey, that is outside of the reality of how DC currently works.

And right now that is what you and I have to work with. If the country breaks apart, good luck building utopia... me will just hunker down, as that will be all but pleasant, no matter how many wet drams the Freepers have about that, as well as a few round these parts.

[Political Heretic]

30. Trust me, I have no illusions about the likelihood of utopia out of the ashes :(

Related to something you said....

"but at that point we may be talking of five to seven successor states... not the United States."

Yes, but I have long held the suspicion that one of the greatest impediments to a more socially and economically equitable society is that we're simply too damn big to have the sensitivity to context required for any real shot at justice and fairness...

If you'll just take a walk with me out into political-philosophy land, away form what's realistic or isn't for a moment - your thought about that, at least in theory?

I've wondered that for a long time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Well I wish I could issue a few ostraca to a few

legislators on BOTH sides of the aisle mind you.

As to size, I don't know. There are the advantages of economies of scale, at least in theory.

In practice we have the natural evolution of Empires, and this is what we are seeing and living right now.

[Political Heretic]

31. I'm not sure where to stick this comment but: I've really enjoyed these exchanges tonight.

Turned out to be interesting and enjoyable.

[nemo137]

4. Adding to this problem is the cap on seats in the House.

When you have only 435 seats, rather than 1 seat per every X population, you get a deforming effect where urban areas are underrepresented compared to rural areas. I'm all for expanding the number of seats in the House.

[Political Heretic]

7. I wish we only had a House.... or a Parliament

Yeah yeah... States blah blah blah.

Over and over again the U.S. Senate stands as a buffer between the will of the people and government. It's also the most entrenched establishment and the most detached from constituents.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. That is by design

not accidental.

There was a time when Senators were not elected by the way, but APPOINTED... so we have seen some reforms. Why I said the Constitution has a few ahem problems. Good luck reforming them. It will take an Amendment... and nobody I know off will vote for these changes.

[Political Heretic]

21. I do understand this. Please don't think I don't understand history or political science

...just because I think something different would be better.

Right, as far as your second sentence - we're screwed on most of this stuff. But we better figure out how to effectively work around it because I don't feel like we have an infinite amount of time left to make a course correction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. That is the reality we have until that changes

[Political Heretic]

28. Yes.

I'm focused on that change part. I imagine you are too, not trying to question that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. And let's not go into the Senate

two seats per state... hence Wyoming gets over represented vis a vis oh California.

[Political Heretic]

22. I hate the Senate.

I can think of so many historical example where the U.S Senate has functioned as gatekeeper between the people and the change it demanded.

So many things go and die in the Senate... its mind boggling.

EDIT - hell even look at this health reform process. I would probably have supported the House bill, though I would have still bitched about its shortcomings.

[4lbs]

19. The House isn't usually the problem. It's the Senate.

The House passed a public option last year.

It's the Senate that is scared of a Republican filibuster so they dropped the PO from their version of the bill.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. That is because they shoudl make them fillibuster

lets see how many versions of the White Pages they can read...

[4lbs]

27. I agree. I can't remember the last time the Senate Democrats forced Repukes to actually

filibuster.

Unfortunately for us, just the mere threat sends shivers down the spine of the Senate Democrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. There was a gentleman's agreement back in the 80s

on both sides not to do that any more.

Those inside the beltway agreements that are really bad since they go against the grain of why certain mechanisms were put into place.

[Radical Activist]

14. Another reason it was dumb for Democrats to give up on rural America in the 90's.

After '94, the Clinton-era party was too busy chasing soccer moms to talk about rural issues and economic populism.

The basic problem for most of rural America is that conservatives are the only ones who show up to play. The local TV and newspaper are conservative in most of the country. There's syndicated conservative talk radio and nothing liberal. There might be a struggling progressive organization in the nearest town of over 200,000 people but nothing where they live. Progressives don't operate in most of middle American and when we do we stupidly play defense instead of going after Republicans on economic issues.

We have to stop funding groups that operate out of NYC, DC and California and start supporting groups that operate where it will make a bigger difference.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. This is not about strategy

and this little lecture was given to me well before the 1990s, how about 1984?

This is about the nature of the country, and why he said, the nature of the district is far more predictive than the letter behind a name.