You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
What's holding the Democratic Party down
2010-02-19
By E.J. Dionne Jr.

If you want to be honest, face these facts: At this moment, President Obama is losing, Democrats are losing and liberals are losing.

Who's winning? Republicans, conservatives, the practitioners of obstruction and the Tea Party.

The two immediate causes for this state of affairs are a single election result in Massachusetts and the way the United States Senate operates. What's not responsible is the supposed failure of Obama and the Democrats to govern as "moderates." Pause to consider where we would be if a Democrat had won the Massachusetts Senate race last month. In all likelihood, health reform would be law, Democrats could have moved on to economic matters, and Obama would be seen as shrewd and successful.
Amazing leap considering the numbers only changed with the election; before, the democrats had the numbers to win, and didn't...
But that's not what happened, and Republican Scott Brown's victory revealed real weaknesses on the progressive side: an Obama political apparatus asleep at the switch, huge Republican enthusiasm unmatched by Democratic determination, and a focused conservative campaign to discredit Obama's ideas, notably his economic stimulus plan and the health-care bill.
An admission by Dionne that the previous paragraph he knowlingly lied about the wherefores. The only reason Obama's ideas were discredited is that they were discreditable.
The Obama administration argues that both the stimulus and the health bill are better than people think. That's entirely true,
I quite agree. However, Mr. Dionne fails to note -- or quite probably, to realize -- that better than horrible is not at all the same as good, and in fact often means bad. Why would the voters choose something that is not horrible but merely a very bad idea?
and this is actually an indictment -- it means that on the two big issues of the moment, Republicans and conservatives are winning an argument they should be losing.
One didn't work and the other won't work. Neither were shining examples of representative republic; they were abominations rammed through in relative secret because the details were so ugly.
The dreadful Senate is a major culprit here, and that's why Sen. Evan Bayh's complaints in explaining his retirement rang partly true, but also partly false. What's true is that the Senate isn't working. What's false is that there is no room for moderation. The fact is that the legislative outcomes on both the stimulus and health care were driven by moderates.
Riiight. The other legislative element responsible for, you know, legislation, wouldn't pass it, so it, and not the law was the problem.
Moderates. So that's what they call them nowadays. It's fascinating watching a language evolve. Once upon a time liberal was a respectable political position.
Economists agree that the stimulus worked to create jobs,
Really? Which ones admit to ignoring the actual data?
but Senate moderates made it less effective by shrinking its size and including irrelevancies -- notably $70 billion to fix the alternative minimum tax -- that did little to create jobs. The moderates got their way because the stimulus needed 60 votes, an absurd standard now that we have an ideologically polarized, parliamentary-style party system.
How so parliamentary-style? Other than that it appears to be a term of insult to dear Mr. Dionne.
We can waste time mourning that development or we can recognize it and act accordingly.

On health care, months of delay in a futile quest for Republican support got the Democrats the worst of all worlds. The media gave them no credit for reaching out to the other side but did blame them for an ugly, gridlocked process.
Reaching out example: "I won. You lost. Go away... Wait! Come back!"
The demands of moderate Democrats for concessions -- remember the politically lethal Nebraska payoff for Sen. Ben Nelson? -- made the process look even seamier.
Appearance equals reality in this case, Mr. Dionne.
The bill's conservative opponents shrewdly focused on such side issues and on made-up issues such as the "death panels."
Death panels is a descriptor, Mr. Dionne, regardless of the official title in the various versions of the bill that hopefully will never be reconciled.
Nobody wants to admit that on health care the moderates won all the big fights. Single-payer was out at the start. The public option died. A Medicare buy-in died. The number of Americans who would be covered shrank. The insurance companies kept their antitrust exemption. If a bill eventually becomes law -- as it must if the Democrats are not to look like a feckless, useless lot -- the final proposal will be much closer to the moderate Senate version than to the more progressive bill passed by the House.
And conservatives all did that while the bill itself was made available for public viewing so their charges could be refuted. Oh, wait. Did I say made available? I meant wasn't made available.
And if the Republicans refuse to cooperate, this will not mean that the bill isn't moderate. It will mean only that Republicans refuse to vote for a moderate bill.
How can the Republicans cooperate? They aren't even being invited to the meetings.
But if all the media talk about the "failure of moderation" is nonsense, this doesn't get liberals or Obama off the hook.

While liberals were arguing about public plans and this or that, and while Obama was deep into inside dealmaking, the conservatives relentlessly made a straightforward public case based on a syllogism: The economy is a mess. Obama and the Democrats are for big government. Big government is responsible for the mess. Therefore the mess is the fault of Obama and the Big Government Democrats.
Sounds right to me.
Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely. But if liberals and Obama are so smart, how did they -- or, if you prefer, "we" -- allow conservatives to make this argument so effectively? Why do the mainstream media give it so much credence?
We are simple people, we Americans. Even our journalists. We seem to believe that one demonstration of intelligence is to tease out the simple essence of a complex situation, so that we can act, and that big words and complex sentence structures are intended to hide confusion or to cause it. One very successful multinational corporation, beloved of the Harvard Business School case studies program, requires all but the most technical writing to take place within the format of a one-page memo, the thinking being that if you can't summarize the data and present an action plan within one page, you haven't thought about it enough. The corporation's training process for young managers is exceedingly painful.
Of course, I think the conservatives' argument is wrong. But at this point, I have to admire their daring and discipline. Moderate and progressive Democrats alike have eight months before this fall's elections to change the terms of the debate and prove they can govern. Otherwise, they'll be washed out by a tidal wave.
Because if they've proved they cannot govern, why keep them in office. Right, Mr. Dionne?
Posted by:Fred

#5  It doesn't take 60 votes to pass a bill. It takes 60 votes to force an end to debate and make them vote right then. If you are willing to compromise on your ideology and craft a bill that 60 senators would vote for, you can end debate and get on to the vote. It was never meant to be a steam roller to force legislation down the country's throat. It is working exacly like it should now that Dems don't have a 60 vote majority.
And they talk as though all is lost because of it. It may very well have saved the course of this country and will force them to moderate their views if they want to get a bill passed. You didn't hear a peep about changing senate rules when they had 60 votes, did you.
Posted by: bigjim-CA   2010-02-19 14:43  

#4  Yo, E.J., if the Cornhusker Kickback is "politically lethal" as you say, then isn't that the reason the health care bill failed? If not, then it's not "lethal" then, is it?
Posted by: Mike   2010-02-19 14:15  

#3  What's holding the Democratic Party down

Fear of the Second American Civil War [in which the very people need who are willing to fight and die in such a war are way and far on the 'other side'].
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-02-19 11:36  

#2  The problem with Dionne and a lot of his buddies is that they all still think they're moderate, because everyone they know tell them that they're reasonable guys. Me, I don't pretend to be moderate anymore. I was an angry young RINO, and now I'm an irate aging conservative. Moderation is for people who don't want to think about politics and self-deceiving activists who are trying to sell you on something they've already sold themselves on.

Dionne is a political dealer strung out on his own junk.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2010-02-19 10:13  

#1  Did you see the polls I saw, E.J.? Two-thirds of Americans did not want Congress messing with their health care.

That means we won. You lost.

It's got nothing to do with the Senate, loser.
Posted by: Bobby   2010-02-19 07:09  

00:00