Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Bifurcated democracy

By Carl 

This was an interesting op-ed in yesterday's New York Times:

OUR nation isn't facing just a debt crisis; it's facing a democracy crisis. For weeks, the federal government has been hurtling toward two unsavory options: a crippling default brought on by Congressional gridlock, or — as key Democrats have advocated — a unilateral increase in the debt ceiling by an unchecked president. Even if the last-minute deal announced on Sunday night holds together, it’s become clear that the balance at the heart of the Constitution is under threat.

The debate has threatened to play out as a destructive but all too familiar two-step, revealing how dysfunctional the relationship between Congress and the president has become. 

The article talks about how presidents have decided to exercise power unilaterally, like Obama's Libyan adventures (although the practice goes back decades to Reagan and even Nixon,) while the Congress has been unable to rally itself to challenge the President's usurpation of power. Either the Congress is divided (like now) or reinforces the person holding the Oval Office (as under Bush the Younger).

This is what the punditry tells us we want, over and over again: divided government. Given what we've experienced for over three decades now (absent the six years of Bush the Younger) is this really what we want? An ineffectual Congress hamstrung by the tyranny of the minority and a Presidency who usurps power like a king?

Mind you, none of this is partisan: Republicans and Democrats have been to blame in BOTH branches. Clinton was forced to legislate by executive order, much as Obama is. Both Bushes declared wars without making a firm case to the American people as to the need for them (this wasn't dominoes toppling or any such credible threat.) Reagan tossed American troops around like candy and American armaments to enemies.

In Congress, John Boehner can't even get a centerpiece of legislation passed trying to keep the party's dog-and-pony show from tearing each other up. When Pelosi was in charge, she had to placate Blue Dog Democrats, rather than muscle them into line.

Hell, about the only thing any Congress since 1990 has been able to agree upon is that Bill Clinton needed to be impeached and a bunch of Asian deserts bombed!

This has effectively emasculated an entire branch of government. Power seeks a vacuum. It's almost understandable that the president would unilaterally legislate.

Plus, members of Congress don't have to take a stand on anything controversial. Take the EPA actions earlier this year to regulate greenhouse gases. Now, long time readers of this blog know there are few people more concerned with global climate change than me. Maybe Al Gore. So while I don't have a problem with Obama taking the bull by the fumes... so to speak... I worry about the fact that Congress didn't vote on this.

Note: it wasn't voted down. The bill stalled before a vote could be taken. It's probably still in the hamper, waiting to be aired out. Look at what this saves Republicans from, say, Montana, where people believe climate change is real and a problem. The party would insist they vote against the EPA actions. Their constituencies would say "We need a better Congresscritter." No responsibility, yet they can parade around touting how angry they are that they didn't get their say.

The more a controversial issue remains undecided, and the more critical that issue becomes, the less likely it is Congress will ever actually take action. And the more likely it is they will cede that issue to the Executive branch. Fine for a liberal like me when a semi-liberal like Obama is in charge, but what happens when another Dumbya hits the Oval Office? One a little more clever?

Congress will still feel this is expedient.

But it is unhealthy. It is unhealthy for an economy, it is unhealthy for a Constitution and it is deep unhealthy for a society and its people.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Saturday, April 16, 2011

The absurdity of the royal wedding: monarchy v. democracy


Last night Lawrence O'Donnell, on The Last Word, did what I thought was a fabulous job of questioning America's interest in the upcoming Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

Frankly, I don't care what some people might want to do to pass the time. I'm sure I have hobbies and such that are of little interest to others. But O'Donnell wasn't simply talking about the fact that there are more important things to worry about. His comments were not of the more mundane nature that "some people waste their time watching the adventures of Snooki on the 'Jersey Shore,'" as much as that fact does amaze me.

Rather, he was making the point that America fought a revolution to toss out the British monarchy, a form of government based not on the democratic principles we profess to hold dear but on heredity. Monarchy is a form of government that expressly deems some people, by virtue of birth, better than others and thus fit to rule. This has historically justified the mistreatment of peoples all across the world simply because they were considered to be of a lower station and fodder to promote the glory of the select few.

If there is anything less consistent with the democratic political values that Americans claim to hold, I don't know what it is.

Perhaps you will say that this is no longer the case in practical terms - that the Royal Family is now just for show. But why, as O'Donnell argues, would we stand and applaud the wretched remnants of this pernicious form of government?

Unless, of course, many are not thinking about this in a critical way but simply want to enjoy a good party. I guess that's it.

Below are the comments made by O'Donnell followed by some hilarious remarks by Jerry Seinfeld. I encourage you to watch to the end.


(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

This is what democracy really looks like

Guest post by Nicholas Wilbur 

Nicholas Wilbur is an award-winning reporter and opinion columnist turned political junkie and critic. He is the founder of the blog Muddy Politics and lives in New Mexico.

(Ed. note: This is Nicholas's fourth guest post for us. You can find his first two, both on the Obama-GOP tax deal, here and here. You can find his third, on the potential for revolution, here. -- MJWS)

**********

Nothing is perfect. Life is unfair. And politics is a dirty business.

Between the filibusters, debates, and votes on Capitol Hill this week, American politics embodied all that is true and beautiful – and unfair and ugly – about the processes of Washington politics. This week was a microcosm of exactly what Democracy looks like. It was a week of negotiations and compromise, of political maneuvering and allegiance fortifying, of sharp-tongued criticisms and heartfelt praises. It was a week that could have turned a Bible-thumping teetotaler into whiskey-latte slurping lush by breakfast.

To the chagrin of bleeding-heart liberals across the country, President Obama on Friday signed what some have dubbed "The Great Tax Deal of 2010," a bill extending unemployment benefits and tax cuts for all Americans, including the rich, and to the detriment of the national deficit. To the chagrin of all but the GOP, the Senate this week failed to pass the DREAM Act, which would have given children of illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship. And to the chagrin of those who believe discrimination is protected by the United States Constitution, Congress this week repealed a 17-year-old policy that prohibited gays from openly serving in the military.

Americans no longer must lie about who they are in order to fight on the battlefield for the freedoms awarded to them in the Constitution but kept from them, until this weekend, by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The American middle class must no longer worry about a tax increase come January 1 at a time when jobs are scarce, incomes are low, and economic security is all but certain.

But Americans also must face another several years, if not more, of political squabbling, maneuvering, and states-rights propagandizing of never-popular immigration reform proposals.

For the true patriots of life, liberty, equality, and justice, this week was as encouraging as it was discouraging, as disappointing and disheartening as it was productive and exciting. Democracy failed them, and the critics were quick to denounce all those who impeded the manifestation of their idealism. Liberals denounced the president, and Tea Partiers denounced the GOP. And then Democracy provided a path that reinforced the maxim, "to each his own" – granting conservatives the denial of immigration reform, and liberals the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

It was a roller-coaster ride of celebration and mourning, a simultaneous rekindling of hope, and a reminder that armchair strategists and social network site activists can achieve only so much when it comes to real progressive change. It was, above all, a call to action.

Again, this is what Democracy looks like.

It looks like President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell negotiating a tax deal that neither side can fully support, and which a small but vocal group of constituents on both sides claim, vehemently, is the straw that broke the camel's back come 2012. It looks like pissed off Hispanics being denied, yet again, a path toward citizenship. It looks like average Americans rejoicing because they needn’t hide their lifestyles in order to defend their flag. And when it plays out on Fox News, it looks like a Capitol Hill cockfight between ideology and idiocy – which it is.

But again, this is what Democracy looks like.

Celebrate the victories, mourn the defeats, and wake up tomorrow to fight another day, and another and another – until America is the country that can rise above the stalemated bureaucracy that we've seen it become in recent years; until America can reclaim its beacon of light status in the world by attracting industry instead of outsourcing careers, and by encouraging intelligence – in discourse and debate – instead of rewarding indigence, ignorance and incorrigibility.

We saw this week that when we work toward Democracy, when the stars and stripes align in spite of ideological differences, Democracy works for us. In the weeks, months and years ahead, perhaps it can work better.