Changing Power in the Senate
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
First of all, you shouldn't be listening to National Pro-Communist Radio, but it's your quarter.
Weren't there co-chairs on all the committees? And no, I don't expect Mr. Class Warfare to make any concessions to the republicans.
I think a more interesting question is if Gore was president, would the California Governor blame his crisis on the Republican House of Representatives.
Weren't there co-chairs on all the committees? And no, I don't expect Mr. Class Warfare to make any concessions to the republicans.
I think a more interesting question is if Gore was president, would the California Governor blame his crisis on the Republican House of Representatives.
GulfCoastAquarian
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 11, 2001
- Posts
- 187
.
Last edited:
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
lavender said:
Is this any more humorous than the fact that bipartisanship and power sharing within Senate committees were at first considered "marvelous" ideas by Democrats, but are now only paid weak lip service?
Don't fool yourself into believing this situation somehow distinguishes the Republicans and Democrats on grounds of higher principles or virtuous behavior. Put in opposite positions the scenario would play out almost identically because, in truth, both parties invoke the particular rhetoric that serves their momentary cause, but the moment when the opposite rhetorical position suits them better you know where to find them.
Since you find these sorts of flip-flops so amusing, Lav, why don't you post some of the more recent ones from the democrats. I'm sure we'll all think they're a hoot.
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
lavender said:Actually, did I ever make the comment in that thread that it would be a bad idea for the Republicans to share the committee seats? Um, no. I actually thought it was a marvelous idea in December and I think it would be just as great of an idea now.
It's just the flip-flop, on both sides, that is humorous.
I may be extremely left in my beliefs, but I'm fair usually in my assessments.
ok, you fooled me with your fairness. Shame on me.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,699
Oliver Clozoff said:
How's that, exactly? Go look at the recent votes in the House & Senate. Compare how many Repubs cross over to vote on Dem issues vs. Dems cross over to vote on Repub issues. Then look at which party is kissing the ass of its moderate members versus which party is using threats to yank its moderates into voting lock-step with the party. Then we can talk about "lip service" to bipartisanship.
In the words of Senator John McCain:
"Although we have lost our majority in the Senate, I do believe Senator Jeffords' departure can have a positive impact on how our party responds to members who occasionally dissent from party orthodoxy. For his votes of conscience, he was unfairly targeted for abuse, usually anonymously, by short-sighted party operatives from their comfortable perches in K Street offices, and by some Republican members of Congress and their staff. Perhaps those self-appointed enforcers of party loyalty will learn to respect honorable differences among us, learn to disagree without resorting to personal threats, and recognize that we are a party large enough to accommodate something short of strict unanimity on the issues of the day. Tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature party, and it is well past time for the Republican Party to grow up."
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
Don't go just yet, Laurel! You still owe me an email.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me clarify my position to clear up what I perceive to be a possible fundamental difference of opinion regarding the meaning of "bipartisanship" vis a vis the American political process. On the way to doing so, I'll offer an alternative explanation to the recent Congressional votes you mention.
First of all, I totally agree with your assertion that the Republican rhetoric about bipartisanship, especially that from GWB, is hollow. The idea that our nation can be governed by a cooperative process is extremely attractive; the media is absolutely in love with the idea of the pols reaching across the aisle to join hands in unified agreement over how our nation should be governed. Although the media have been extremely skeptical about his sincerity, he told them what they wanted to hear: that he would be a "uniter, not a divider", that he would bring a new spirit of cooperation to Washington. (And incidentally, isn't this what got him the victory? Other than running against an insufferable opponent and being appointed by a politically-motivated Supreme Court, right?)
You know very well that this is nothing but ordinary political bluster: rhetoric meant to make the bitter pill of Republican control a little more palatable to Democrats. You're deceiving yourself, however, if you believe that Democratic calls for bipartisanship have been any more enlightened or principled. The purpose of any minority party invoking the need for political bipartisanship is obvious. It's little more than a rhetorical ploy meant to portray the majority party as selfish bullies for simply exercising their duly-won power. No one will argue against the fact that in a republic, majorities rule, but nevertheless the cry goes up: "How immature of them to team up on us and beat us!"
Is this how you justify your condemnation of "voting in lock-step?" (How do you vote lock-step anyway? Didn't they teach anything about mixing metaphors in college?) The fact that recent Congressional votes featured more Democratic defections than Republican ones doesn't support a Democratic belief in "bipartisanship" as much as it says the Dems represent a much more diverse constituency than that of the Republicans and therefore are much less politically unified in general. After all, this is a party trying to speak for poor blacks, latinos, as well as more affluent liberals on the east and west coasts.
I also take issue with your endorsement of John McCain's final statement: "Tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature party, and it is well past time for the Republican Party to grow up." I think tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature society, which ought to tolerate the beliefs of all. The very purpose of a political party, however, is to advocate the interests of one subset of the population at the expense of others. A party exists to promote those policies considered most beneficial to its constituency and to oppose those policies that are most harmful to their members.
Nevertheless, the idea that political parties should comingle and cooperate is, as you know, incredibly popular right now. The media adores imagining the pols reaching across the aisle to join hands in unified agreement over how our nation should be governed. The fascination with John McCain is a great example. What could really be better than a Republican maverick who criticizes the Republicans!? He's not out to satisfy a constituency, he's a man of conscience! According to this view, strict partisanship and the promotion of "special interests" necessarily runs counter to that of the public good.
If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd find this argument quite odd. After all, it was their notion when they crafted our political institutions that conflict between parties and between branches of government would be the very strength of our government rather than its weakness. This idea was fundamental to the founding fathers concept of an effective government, but somewhere along the way the idea's been turned on its head.
Think about the alternative. If McCain's right about the mature party as being tolerant of dissent, wouldn't the perfectly mature party be one in which the members are perfectly tolerant of dissent? In such a party, individual members would be completely free of pressure from others, leaving free to vote their consciences. But if this is so, what really is the purpose of having a party at all?
It's an out-of-fashion idea now, but I believe in its basic truth: that people are basically self- interested and in political matters will seek to serve themselves at the expense of others. Accepting this reality, the founding fathers prudently fashioned our political system in such a way that an overarching public good could result from the conflict of opposing self-interested groups. I'm not ready to give up on that idea yet.
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Let me clarify my position to clear up what I perceive to be a possible fundamental difference of opinion regarding the meaning of "bipartisanship" vis a vis the American political process. On the way to doing so, I'll offer an alternative explanation to the recent Congressional votes you mention.
First of all, I totally agree with your assertion that the Republican rhetoric about bipartisanship, especially that from GWB, is hollow. The idea that our nation can be governed by a cooperative process is extremely attractive; the media is absolutely in love with the idea of the pols reaching across the aisle to join hands in unified agreement over how our nation should be governed. Although the media have been extremely skeptical about his sincerity, he told them what they wanted to hear: that he would be a "uniter, not a divider", that he would bring a new spirit of cooperation to Washington. (And incidentally, isn't this what got him the victory? Other than running against an insufferable opponent and being appointed by a politically-motivated Supreme Court, right?
)You know very well that this is nothing but ordinary political bluster: rhetoric meant to make the bitter pill of Republican control a little more palatable to Democrats. You're deceiving yourself, however, if you believe that Democratic calls for bipartisanship have been any more enlightened or principled. The purpose of any minority party invoking the need for political bipartisanship is obvious. It's little more than a rhetorical ploy meant to portray the majority party as selfish bullies for simply exercising their duly-won power. No one will argue against the fact that in a republic, majorities rule, but nevertheless the cry goes up: "How immature of them to team up on us and beat us!"
Is this how you justify your condemnation of "voting in lock-step?" (How do you vote lock-step anyway? Didn't they teach anything about mixing metaphors in college?
) The fact that recent Congressional votes featured more Democratic defections than Republican ones doesn't support a Democratic belief in "bipartisanship" as much as it says the Dems represent a much more diverse constituency than that of the Republicans and therefore are much less politically unified in general. After all, this is a party trying to speak for poor blacks, latinos, as well as more affluent liberals on the east and west coasts. I also take issue with your endorsement of John McCain's final statement: "Tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature party, and it is well past time for the Republican Party to grow up." I think tolerance of dissent is the hallmark of a mature society, which ought to tolerate the beliefs of all. The very purpose of a political party, however, is to advocate the interests of one subset of the population at the expense of others. A party exists to promote those policies considered most beneficial to its constituency and to oppose those policies that are most harmful to their members.
Nevertheless, the idea that political parties should comingle and cooperate is, as you know, incredibly popular right now. The media adores imagining the pols reaching across the aisle to join hands in unified agreement over how our nation should be governed. The fascination with John McCain is a great example. What could really be better than a Republican maverick who criticizes the Republicans!? He's not out to satisfy a constituency, he's a man of conscience! According to this view, strict partisanship and the promotion of "special interests" necessarily runs counter to that of the public good.
If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd find this argument quite odd. After all, it was their notion when they crafted our political institutions that conflict between parties and between branches of government would be the very strength of our government rather than its weakness. This idea was fundamental to the founding fathers concept of an effective government, but somewhere along the way the idea's been turned on its head.
Think about the alternative. If McCain's right about the mature party as being tolerant of dissent, wouldn't the perfectly mature party be one in which the members are perfectly tolerant of dissent? In such a party, individual members would be completely free of pressure from others, leaving free to vote their consciences. But if this is so, what really is the purpose of having a party at all?
It's an out-of-fashion idea now, but I believe in its basic truth: that people are basically self- interested and in political matters will seek to serve themselves at the expense of others. Accepting this reality, the founding fathers prudently fashioned our political system in such a way that an overarching public good could result from the conflict of opposing self-interested groups. I'm not ready to give up on that idea yet.
unusuallyconfused
BLUE EYED BABE
- Joined
- May 22, 2001
- Posts
- 1,253
WriterDom said:
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
EVERYBODY SHOULD LISTEN TO EVERYTHING!
if you do not know your enemy's argument,
HOW DO YOU DEFEAT IT?
if you do not know your enemy's argument,
HOW DO YOU DEFEAT IT?
Andra_Jenny
Mentally Divergent
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2000
- Posts
- 2,865
READ TOO DAMNIT!
