| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| All this failure? It's not Obama's fault; America is ungovernable |
| 2009-12-12 |
| Matt Yglesias The smarter elements in Washington DC are starting to pick up on the fact that it's not tactical errors on the part of the president that make it hard to get things done, it's the fact that the country has become ungovernable.... Ah, yes! I remember that argument from the last year or two of the Carter administration: the problems are just too intractable, nobody can deal with them; the best that can be hoped for is pain management. Sure hope the Dhimmicrats lead with that in the next two elections. We're ungovernable. We can't fix our problems. Troubled cities? Let them rot. Troubled businesses? Bail them out. Failed education? Let the kids go on the dole. Health care too expensive? Sorry Granny, get on the ice floe. Remember Ronald Reagan's response when Jimmy Carter said our problems were too big to be solved? "Maybe for you but not for us. Step aside, Jimmy!" We're suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority's governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority's governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It's a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It's insane, and it needs to be changed. This is nonsense in a Brooks Brothers suit with a red power tie. The second comment is as good a rebuttal as I could write: This post is just utter nonsense. There have been no major institutional changes in the United States government in recent history that have caused it to "become ungovernable." There just isn't enough political support to enact various new laws and policies that you favor. Tough.To be fair to Matt Yglesias, he's always been against the filibuster, even when his team was using it. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #18 We're sorry, but only human beings are allowed to comment on Rantburg. Prejudice, I tell you, prejudice!! You should consider rephrasing it to "biological sophonts." Getting back to the subject at hand... it's occured to me that Mr. Yglesias is right, but for reasons other than he thinks, or the people here have offered as alternate reasons. The plain fact of the matter is, in the preferred embodiment of the governmental system the tranzistocracy has been inflicting upon the rest of us, the emperor, or the elected officials, don't really have much power to _create_ freedom or to _do_ things; power is based mainly on the ability to limit things or to deny permission for something to happen. The Chinese, with a variant of this system that claimed to select the smartest subset of the population to be in charge of running this system, couldn't get it to work well. What do you think are the chances Obama or Matt Yglesias would be able to succeed where they failed? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-12-12 11:00 |
| #17 The Republicans need to go into the next election pushing for states rights. Forget the Civil War analogies but hammer home that there are very few things Salt Lake City and San Francisco will agree upon and it is not the Federal governments job (and the political party in power) to force one or the other to accept opinions and laws they find abhorrent. They also should run on a pledge to eliminate every Czar position. We are not imperialist Russia and the whole concept of people outside the standard balance of power is stupid. They should also push a balanced budget amendment in time for the 2010 election. Even if they don't get it through they'll get people talking and have a better chance to get it through for 2012. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-12-12 09:02 |
| #16 Fred has it pinned. When someone starts to call for revolution make sure you verify who the "leaders" are. It can be a scary wake-up call. Our Constitution is fine if it were followed but it is up to the individual citizen to insure that it is. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-12-12 07:06 |
| #15 Agreed on the convention. Progressives won't abide by the current constitution, why would we think a new one would restrain them? A convention would only give them a new opportunity to wreck America. |
| Posted by: Skunky Angeack7024 2009-12-12 05:31 |
| #14 Re #7,10 and 11: I fourth the motion to table a constitutional convention. We would not end up with a better constitution than the one we have now. It would be hundreds of pages long, and probably guarantee everything on the wish lists of all the grievance groups in the country. If you think Obamacare is bad, imagine what it would be like if it were enshrined in the constitution. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-12-12 04:54 |
| #13 Just remember the last Constitutional Convention happened after the revolution. That has a tendency to remove the vipers from the nest before the gathering. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-12-12 02:11 |
| #12 Translation: Obama = Epic Fail, time for some feeble excuses. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-12-12 02:01 |
| #11 We'd get the same set of boodlers and mafiosi who're running things now ... Don't forget the academics and the apparatchiks ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-12-12 13:25 |
| #10 I'm with Fred - it would be a disaster. The best way to fix things is to present better ideas, plans, and win elections. Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-12-12 01:22 |
| #9 You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority's governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Which is essentially what you had up until the late 1960s (it was really and most sincerely dead by the mid 1980s). It was called 'bipartisanship' or 'civilized politics', a.k.a. "Liberalhawk's Good Old Days", and had the GOP as the permanent minority. If you hadn't become seduced by the delusion that Obama is a "progressive" and that last year's election represented some kind of historic realignment in favor of "progressive" policies you might have seen this coming It gets better - there's talk in progressive circles about pushing for 'proportional representation' a la the Germans, the Israelis and the Italians. Supposedly that would allow groups like the Greens a toe-hold, instead of having to weasel their way through the Democrats. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-12-12 01:10 |
| #8 The country is indeed ungovernable. Â…By Democrats. Moe Lane |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-12-12 12:06 |
| #7 I would be scared out of my socks at the thought of a new constitutional convention. We wouldn't get Madison or Jefferson or Hamilton this time. We'd get the same set of boodlers and mafiosi who're running things now -- while contemptuously ignoring the existing constitution. Nor am I in favor of third parties. We may have a conservative-libertarian majority, but it's not a 2/3rds majority. So when that majority splits that leaves the pickings to the Dems, who've actually changed very little since the days of the Tweed Gang. The place for the Tea Party is in the primaries, filtering out the crooks and the nut cases and the vanity campaigners. |
| Posted by: Fred 2009-12-12 11:57 |
| #6 Hint - there's a reason it's titled the UNITED STATES of America. Centralization of power, regulation, and taxing are unsustainable over the long haul for a country the size of the US. Just look at the geometric growth of the national government and its laws and regulations since WWII. There is no perfect. You divide responsibility and authority, and shove execution to the lowest level of government. There will be shortcomings and failures, but not on the grand scale the we are witnessing with the centralization. California is the model of attracting and then repelling that mitigates across 50 state boundaries. Pick and choose those things that work, avoid those things that don't. However, it doesn't take everyone down at once. The body has the ability to self adjust. It's a feature, not a bug of the federal system. The Socia!ist drive to centralize only makes sure the old democratic system will die. For them, that is a feature, not a bug. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-12-12 11:11 |
| #5 Tale of Two Cities -It depicts the plight of the |
| Posted by: Joger Munster5243 2009-12-12 10:42 |
| #4 There is a huge federalist sentiment out there, and it is reaching beyond the 10th Amendment movement with the States. The realization is dawning that the US is being forced to hold another constitutional convention. What used to be considered unthinkable may now become essential to save the republic. Importantly, it will not happen until there is no other choice. But a lot of thought is going into how to conduct a convention. There are now lists of the constitutional changes that need to be made, large and small, along with the assumption that the convention will not only have to write the new constitution, but remain seated until the required changes have been carried out. So the convention may last a year or two, with the federal government just trying to keep the status quo until the 3/4ths of the States have voted to approve the new constitution. This likely means that candidates will need to run for office with or without a letter "C" next to their party affiliation, to show that they swear by oath to carry out the will of the constitutional convention once it is done. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-12-12 10:32 |
| #3 Sorry Matt, but you're an ignorant boob. Preventing "the tyranny of the majority" is one of the reasons this nation's government is set up the way it is. Read Madison and the Federalist Paper #10 and learn. The ultimate minority is the individual. And as long as we can keep this a Republic, that is where the rights and powers should remain. A just government gets any rights from the consent of the individuals, not the other way around. We do not consent to this massive expansion of government power and intrusion into our lives that Pelosi and Reid want to force upon us. We are not sheep to be herded, nor slaves to be kept on the plantation in exchange for favors from the overseers in DC. Regarding the abominable "healthcare" bill that triggered this, and the bogus AGW/Energy bill, and other collective nonsense the hard left is pushing: I cannot express it any better than this... Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S. Lewis |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-12-12 10:16 |
| #2 He's just test-polling the excuse for failure that Bambi and the progressives will use when the health care bill and the cap and trade bill go down. Carter talked about malaise, Bambi will talk about ungovernable ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-12-12 10:13 |
| #1 The elephant in the room ( no pun intended ) that no one wants to talk about is that the size of the federal government itself has been unmanagable for at least 20 years, some would argue 50 years. No one person, nor one group of people can effectively manage the levithan the federal government has become, not should they even try, yet, there they are believing that with a combination of computer technology and a socialist stiffie they can manage the government and between 10 and 20 percent of the US domestic economy. Yglesias wants us to believe that the Senate as it is now, stands in the way of "progress" and thankfully, he is absolutely correct. What he is confused about is the idea that changing the rules in the senate would magically make everything better. They won't. They'll make everything much, much worse. If democrats want to rule for the next 20 years they should take a good strong look at reducing the role of the government and therefore its size. But, because they are leftists we will have see-saw battles for control for the next 100 years, so, the government will grow is size and grow in sheer incompetence. |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-12-12 10:09 |