Liberal policies require supermajorities, conservative policies require control of one body -or less

[andym]

The American political system is currently set up such that destruction is far easier than creation. But the current debt crisis shows that destruction is far easier than even maintenance of the status quo.

To do anything positive, like creating public health care requires the President, the House and 60 votes in the Senate. To shut down government or refuse to raise the debt only requires control of one chamber (or potentially the Presidency if a veto can not be overridden). And apparently it only takes a dedicated core group of supporters equal to or greater than difference in members between the majority and minority party in the House (like the Tea party congressmen) to block action, which translates into destruction. Blocking action (such as raising the debt ceiling) by conservatives threatens the progresssive safety net, and the Tea Partiers are on the verge of "victories" that will destroy the American safety net.

The threat of utter destruction associated with failure to raise the debt ceiling or a shutdown can be used to destroy valuable government social programs, research, regulations etc. So if the new conservatives are anti-government anarchists, as the teapartiers seem to be they have all of advantage of the system on their side.

This is not a system where it will be easy to do anything progressive. Now it looks likes its a system where it is difficult to even maintain progressive policies already in effect for years.

The road to any new progressive legislation appears to be a daunting one. The only hope is that progressive thought is able to vanquish that of the conservatives in public discourse. It does not seem to be happening though. Quite the reverse, as conservative talk radio and Fox and friends seem to dominate. I think the future of progressivism and the USA itself may lie in our ability to wield influence over the public. Only question is how best to do it? I am not sure sites like DU and Kos are the answer. Books? Films? Youtube?

However, the road to maintaining progressive legislation like Medicare or SS requires the invocation of powerful pro-safety net public feeling and outrage over its possible dismantling. This requires all of us and especially our political leaders to publicly defend the safety net in the strongest terms possible.

[treestar]

1. have to agree, the right has that advantage

They are trying to tear down; easier than to build. Makes it easier for them in every way.

[William769]

2. Maybe to implement, but not to continue them

If you can't contine them, thats just fucking poor leadership.

[andym]

3. Actually it appears that there is no difference between implementation and continuation

as long as one group so despises the federal government that its near destruction is acceptable, at least in the short term.

[AlinPA]

4. Yep. And republicans control the Supreme Court, the House, and the Senate where the filibuster

really means control.

[Melissa G]

5. I disagree.

Dems could do what repubs have done. We could be just as aggressive getting our agenda through. We could scatter shot all our policies in an assertive manner. We could have them fighting our changes in so many places it would make their heads spin.

We just have not.

As a matter of fact, we have a president and DLC leaders who have been pushing their agenda in some areas like fracking and 'entitlements'. There needs to be more difference between the parties. We as a country and our elected leaders have moved too far to the right.

[andym]

6. Could you give a specific example as a roadmap to how Dems could have done anything similar the GOP?

I don't see how Dems could have done what the GOP is doing (except possibly for the several months in 2009 when there was a pseudo supermajority in the Senate (however, I don't think that Lieberman (I) should be counted a reliable vote)-- which makes my point anyway. There was not a supermajority of progressives or moderates who sympathize with progressive causes.

Under any other circumstances, the GOP can kill any progressive bill, as long as they think they withstand take the consequences.
They have no problem with this kind of behavior either-- witness the number of Presidential appointments that still have not been filled! How many progressive bills died in the Senate in 2009-10? Just another filibuster in the Senate to the GOP-- their heads don't spin, they laugh.

Now, the problem of moderate to conservative DEMS (goes way beyond the DLC) is another issue that I did not address, but is clear that to accomplish progressive legislation, one would need a majority of progressive legislators and moderates who sympathize with progressives (and perhaps a super majority in the Senate) as well as a progressive President. We have not had that combination since LBJ.

[Melissa G]

7. Think of things that the public can get behind.

Taxing the rich for instance...There is significant public support for that. I believe a version of the public option for health care could have gone through had Obama fought for it as he said he was going to. Job programs. Environmental reforms. Think FDR 2 for inspiration.

Think of things that are done by appointment. We just got a repub appointed to the Federal bench here in Texas. :eyes: This with a Dem president?:grr: As if we needed any more pubs in power down here.:nuke:

Categories like DOJ. Still much of shrub's crew hanging out. Same deal with banking... you get my drift, I'm sure. So much wasted opportunity.

There is a Ann Richards play touring the country right now. I saw it when it came through town and lived it as it was happening. So many great Dems were in office and appointed to office at that time. (Even liberal Dems here in Texas.)

There is a line towards the end of the play after Richards lost to shrub Jr. where her granddaughter asks her if she is out of a job. Richards responds " Honey, everybody you know is out of a job." That has not been the case for Obama. We had all three branches of government and yet we left in place and even reappointed plenty of Rove and shrub's crew. That is a damn shame.



edit for line that jumped.

[andym]

8. I think there is a large gap between what the public would support

and what the politicians in Washington of both parties could do given their relative political strength and the rules of the system. My OP really has more to with the system, not what might be acceptable to the American public.

None of your examples provide a specific political road map to overcome the inherent systematic problems to achieve the stated goal-- taxing the rich is a good example. It's a good idea with strong public support, yet there was no way to this EXCEPT possibly during the 9 months Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate (if Nelson and Lieberman agreed). That's because the GOP will support no revenue increase-- and they're probably serious about this, for example, in California much of the budgetary problems comes from the GOP refusing to agree to revenue increases or even let the public vote on them.

That said I actually thing you're right about what could have been accomplished! Or at least, I hope you might have been right.

I DO think that the incoming President in 2009 had the opportunity to accomplish much more, especially as pertaining to the economy (taxing the rich, getting a bigger more targeted stimulus, appointing a more Keynesian economist to the Fed, etc) IF he had decided to fully use the bully pulpit to achieve his goals. That would have required a more populist approach, appropriate framing and strong appeals to the public for support. It would have required removing Bernanke and assigning more blame to the laissez faire policies of the GOP (it's hard to make the argument when you reappoint the Fed chairman who had been in charge). It might have required not going after HCR at all, because it cost most of his good will for only moderate at best reform. It would have taken a huge wave of active public support to push the GOP into a more passive agreeable frame of mind, as well as encouraging better behavior from conservative Dems.

[Melissa G]

9. I agree with you about the politicians and perhaps, even the system.

I hope we are both right about what might have been accomplished, but that is water under the bridge because of the gap between what so many of us hoped this president would do and what he actually has done.

As to a specific political road map, I think Ann Richards is the model. We have to have real candidates who have real guts and reflect our values(not the right of Nixon Dems we have in DC now).

They have to come with both a local network, a state network and a national network like Howard Dean set up. When we win, we have to have the high caliber of operatives to get in place and appoint to be able to get our country back to a sane mode of being. Our votes and our values need to be voted by our elected representatives again.

Can we do this while our media is wholly corporately owned by the Powers That Be? Can we do this when those same Powers That Be count our votes and wholesale disenfranchise millions of those same votes? Can we do this as long as so many of our politicians are totally owned by the PTB?

Those are to me, the real questions.

[KittyWampus]

11. Democrats don't have the Mediawhores in their pockets. Nor do they have unlimited funds for ads etc.

It's amazing how so many DU'ers trash Democrats and so very happily ignore the realities of media and money working against them.

[Melissa G]

14. How does your version of reality improve anything?

I'm not ignoring reality, I'm just trying to improve it. IMHO, complicity with a bad status quo, does not improve anything.

Are you suggesting that rather than fight the "mediawhores" we just keep moving to the right? Should we just thank them for the rope, offer to tie a fancy knot and quietly slip it around our necks and be grateful for the opportunity?

[Drahthaardogs]

10. We punk out, we have not been tough since the Mother Jones days.

I hate to say it, but democrats try to be responsible and play like adults. The GOP plays like school ground bullies and kick us in the nards time and time again. The old labor democrats, they knew how to get it down. The miners, the steel workers, hell, even the Mafia. Sadly, they have gone the way of the passenger pigeon and what we have left are a bunch of softer, intellectual types who are trying to negotiate while we are getting punched in the face. We are not willing to get down in the mud with the GOP and we pay the price. One day though, revolution will come. It is inevitable.

[rug]

12. In the age of compromise conservative policies simply require an arched eyebrow.

[undeterred]

13. It helps if you have a president who keeps his promises.

[Melissa G]

16. What a charming notion. n/t

[B Calm]

15. Republicans are followers, not leaders.

[andym]

17. They seem to be following their anti-government ideology very well. NT.

[democracy1st]

18. K & R

[BzaDem]

19. That has always been the case with our divided government system. It takes passage through a huge

number of veto points to construct anything (including additional borrowing). It only takes the lack of consent of a single veto point to defund or destroy.

The fundamental reason for this is the existance of a Presidential system separate from the legislature. In parliamentary systems, each side controls all of government when they are in power, and what they do can be repealed if they get replaced in the next election.