What is wrong with Democrats. Why can't they lead?

[werepossum]

We've discussed this issue before, I'm pretty sure. Your assessment assumes equal reasonableness by both parties, and therefore that a lack of participation by one party implies poorer quality policy. It deliberately ignores the possibility of one party simply being more intransigent than the other.

Suppose I suggest that you and I go out to movie X, and you agree even though you don't particularly like movie X. The next week, you suggest that we go out to movie Y, and I refuse because I dislike movie Y. That doesn't automatically imply that movie Y is worse than movie X, because it could just be that you're more willing to go along to get along, whereas I'm a stubborn asshole. And IMO, that's the Democrats and Republicans right now.

You seem to be implying here both that I'm a Democrat and that I'm being disingenuous in my contempt for the effectiveness of Reid and the senate Democrats. I think my track record shows fairly clearly that neither of those is the case.

Problem is, equal reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. When the Dems produce a bill written behind closed doors and demand that the Republicans vote for it, without even being able to have most proposed amendments debated - often without even being able to read it first, and at least once without the bill even existing at the time of the vote - the left says "See, Republicans are unreasonable." Most bills are crafted with or at the very least very quickly develop (usually with amendments) bipartisan support because if it's a good bill, politicians don't want to be seen as opposing something the public wants. That's not good for re-election. By positing Republican opposition to Democrat bills as only Republican intransigence, you must assume that the bills are good and popular and that every single Republican is acting against his own self interest for the good of his party - which will somehow escape the same public ire for opposing a good bill.

Put it this way: Democrats absolutely despised Ronald Reagan, but tons of them signed on to bills he wanted introduced. They did not do this to be cooperative; they did it because the bills were popular and they did not want to pay a political price for being on the wrong side. Everything Reagan got accomplished was with a solidly Democrat House and usually a Democrat Senate as well. Same with the Republicans and Clinton; they despised the man and certainly did not want him to get credit for anything, but when the Democrats introduced a popular bill the Republicans backed it simply because they could not take the chance of losing re-election by being on the wrong side of a popular bill.

As to the other, when ABC chooses to devote an entire programming day to push Obamacare without allowing opposing groups to even buy ad time, I don't think you can blame Democrats' lack of success on being utterly inept at messaging and at implementation, and being too naive. The Democrats have an entire news media to do their messaging for them (or did until they began tapping their phones anyway) and successfully passed Obama's signature legislation by political bribery and arm-twisting while totally outmaneuvering the Pubbies. Hardly seems naive to me.

 

[cwjerome]

I'll tell you why dems aren't capable of leading, they have been brain washed by the republicans.

I couldn't help but lulz. Of course Democratic failures are the Republican's fault.

On a more serious note, the failures of Democratic leadership are representative of the overall failure of political leadership in general. This has much more to do with the rather disgusting nature of the political discourse, massive polarization, and permanent campaign. Braindead political partisanship and broken electoral processes has created totally ineffective leadership and has destroyed the ability to create coalitions, properly address the real issues, and compromise.

 

[ivwshane]

I couldn't help but lulz. Of course Democratic failures are the Republican's fault.

On a more serious note, the failures of Democratic leadership are representative of the overall failure of political leadership in general. This has much more to do with the rather disgusting nature of the political discourse, massive polarization, and permanent campaign. Braindead political partisanship and broken electoral processes has created totally ineffective leadership and has destroyed the ability to create coalitions, properly address the real issues, and compromise.

Being brainwashed is the fault of the person who was brainwashed for being too stupid to know they are being brainwashed.

 

[blankslate]

Watching GoT... it's because they are the Starks when the Republicans are the Lannisters... maybe.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Problem is, equal reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder.

Of course it is. I didn't say it was objective. I said it was a factor that has to be taken into account - you can't just say that the value of a bill is reflected in who chooses to support it.

When the Dems produce a bill written behind closed doors and demand that the Republicans vote for it, without even being able to have most proposed amendments debated - often without even being able to read it first, and at least once without the bill even existing at the time of the vote - the left says "See, Republicans are unreasonable."

I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish with these sorts of straw man arguments. Obviously if the Democrats are behaving inappropriately, I wouldn't expect the Republicans to go along with that.

But the context of this thread is not one cherry-picked example. It's a generic discussion of how the two parties approach governing. There are plenty of cases of both sides trying to push around the other or force through bills the other side finds unpopular. The major difference is that the Democrats play softball and the Republicans play hardball.

Most bills are crafted with or at the very least very quickly develop (usually with amendments) bipartisan support because if it's a good bill, politicians don't want to be seen as opposing something the public wants. That's not good for re-election.

Unless, of course, the Republicans decide that what's good for their re-election is to oppose any bills that come up simply because Democrats support them. Or they decide to oppose the bill even though they'd like to support it, because if they don't, they'll be primaried by some tea party drooler and lose their seat.

Put it this way: Democrats absolutely despised Ronald Reagan, but tons of them signed on to bills he wanted introduced. They did not do this to be cooperative; they did it because the bills were popular and they did not want to pay a political price for being on the wrong side.

You know their motivations how exactly?

And even if you're correct, the "political price" concept reflects the underlying reasonableness of their constituents. Most of the supporters of Democratic legislators in the 1980s were reasonable people -- most of the supporters of Republican legislators in the 2010s are not. And that's how we get spectacles like judgeships going unfilled for years, because the people who elect Republicans actually like the idea of gumming up the works, and the Democrats are too stupid to realize what they are dealing with and start playing hardball themselves.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Democrats can't lead because they are deeply conflicted in their motives. On one hand they are promising social reform, and the other hand is deep in the corporate money pockets. If they break their promises to the American People they won't get elected, if they break their promises to their corporate backers they won't have the money to get reelected.
You simply can't lead when your hand is in someone else's pocket.

This is a problem across entire government and not only limited to Democrats....

 

[Moonbeam]

This is a problem across entire government and not only limited to Democrats....

The folk who are inclined to vote democratic, in my opinion, are more anti-corporate than those voting Republican, so while this may be a problem across the political spectrum it is a bigger problem for democrats than their competition because it inclines progressives to turn against their so called party. So whereas the democrats may retain the money to get elected, they won't be because their base is turning against them or turning to apathy. I feel that rage is building and rage and destruction go hand in hand. It seems to me that the forces of democracy have been block behind a mighty dam and all hell will break loose when it gives.

 

[Vdubchaos]

The folk who are inclined to vote democratic, in my opinion, are more anti-corporate than those voting Republican, so while this may be a problem across the political spectrum it is a bigger problem for democrats than their competition because it inclines progressives to turn against their so called party. So whereas the democrats may retain the money to get elected, they won't be because their base is turning against them or turning to apathy. I feel that rage is building and rage and destruction go hand in hand. It seems to me that the forces of democracy have been block behind a mighty dam and all hell will break loose when it gives.

It sure will

just a matter of time.

Something major has to happen in order for this country to get fixed. There is NO WAY IN HELL "voting" or some BS demonstration etc will fix anything.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This is a problem across entire government and not only limited to Democrats....

I agree, but I think the Democrats suffer from it more. It seems that the Republicans have as a part of their ideology that what is good for big money is good for America. That means that their ideology and their corporate supporters are at odds a lot less often.

You can't lead while your hand is in someone elses pocket, but you can pretend that you were going their way all along.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I feel that rage is building and rage and destruction go hand in hand. It seems to me that the forces of democracy have been block behind a mighty dam and all hell will break loose when it gives.

Our current government was formed after the world learned some hard lessons about what sort of things causes governments to go wrong. They learned that religion has a bad habit of breaking government when it is allowed to have too much say. They learned that governments needs to have some checks and balances to keep one person from gaining too much power. There are a number of other lessons that were key to the formation of our government, you can see what sort of things they knew were major problems in the wording of the bill of rights.

But it seems they did not know all of the things that can turn a government against it's
people. They never considered the fact that money concentrated in too few people becomes a power that can break a government. That is a lesson we are having to learn now.

 

[ivwshane]

But it seems they did not know all of the things that can turn a government against it's
people. They never considered the fact that money concentrated in too few people becomes a power that can break a government. That is a lesson we are having to learn now.

I disagree, I think their original intentions were to keep the power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. After all it was originally only white land owners that were allowed to vote.

And to be perfectly honest, it seems that's how it still is.

 

[nehalem256]

I disagree, I think their original intentions were to keep the power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. After all it was originally only white land owners that were allowed to vote.

And to be perfectly honest, it seems that's how it still is.

I don't think land owner was synonymous with wealthy. Given the agricultural nature of early America it would more appropriately correlate with middle class and above.

 

[werepossum]

Of course it is. I didn't say it was objective. I said it was a factor that has to be taken into account - you can't just say that the value of a bill is reflected in who chooses to support it.

I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish with these sorts of straw man arguments. Obviously if the Democrats are behaving inappropriately, I wouldn't expect the Republicans to go along with that.

But the context of this thread is not one cherry-picked example. It's a generic discussion of how the two parties approach governing. There are plenty of cases of both sides trying to push around the other or force through bills the other side finds unpopular. The major difference is that the Democrats play softball and the Republicans play hardball.

Unless, of course, the Republicans decide that what's good for their re-election is to oppose any bills that come up simply because Democrats support them. Or they decide to oppose the bill even though they'd like to support it, because if they don't, they'll be primaried by some tea party drooler and lose their seat.

You know their motivations how exactly?

And even if you're correct, the "political price" concept reflects the underlying reasonableness of their constituents. Most of the supporters of Democratic legislators in the 1980s were reasonable people -- most of the supporters of Republican legislators in the 2010s are not. And that's how we get spectacles like judgeships going unfilled for years, because the people who elect Republicans actually like the idea of gumming up the works, and the Democrats are too stupid to realize what they are dealing with and start playing hardball themselves.

How on Earth are the Democrats playing softball? They pass legislation using procedural ploys and blatant bribes, they regularly accuse Republicans of wanting to starve children and murder old people, they've actually made television ads showing Republican lookalikes pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff while at the same time by a purely partisan vote the Democrats were cutting hundreds of billion dollars from Medicare, which provides medical services for old people. Should they be doing drive-by shootings of Republicans?

Nonetheless, if you wish to believe that Democrats can't lead because everyone who isn't a Democrat is evil, it's a free country. Just be aware that if you follow that line of reasoning it won't long be a free country, because the Democrats will have a moral mandate to protect the rest of the country from those evil people who aren't Democrats which will supersede any right to the democratic process. We've already seen that begin with the IRS, where one's political views determines what rights one possesses.

 

[werepossum]

Watching GoT... it's because they are the Starks when the Republicans are the Lannisters... maybe.

I'd argue the opposite. The Starks are hidebound traditionalists who rigidly stand by their beliefs. The Lannisters are more morally flexible (and certainly more sexually open to non-traditional behavior) as well as dedicated to empowering government as much as possible. As long as they are in control anyway.

And of course, the Libertarians are the Targaryens, hot, crazy and powerless.

I agree, but I think the Democrats suffer from it more. It seems that the Republicans have as a part of their ideology that what is good for big money is good for America. That means that their ideology and their corporate supporters are at odds a lot less often.

You can't lead while your hand is in someone elses pocket, but you can pretend that you were going their way all along.

+1

 

[woolfe9998]

How on Earth are the Democrats playing softball? They pass legislation using procedural ploys and blatant bribes, they regularly accuse Republicans of wanting to starve children and murder old people, they've actually made television ads showing Republican lookalikes pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff while at the same time by a purely partisan vote the Democrats were cutting hundreds of billion dollars from Medicare, which provides medical services for old people. Should they be doing drive-by shootings of Republicans?

Nonetheless, if you wish to believe that Democrats can't lead because everyone who isn't a Democrat is evil, it's a free country. Just be aware that if you follow that line of reasoning it won't long be a free country, because the Democrats will have a moral mandate to protect the rest of the country from those evil people who aren't Democrats which will supersede any right to the democratic process. We've already seen that begin with the IRS, where one's political views determines what rights one possesses.

You can throw around whatever straw men you like, it's a free country.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that republican voters are less interested in the two parties compromising than democrat voters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx

No one is calling that "evil." Nonetheless, it is what it is.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How on Earth are the Democrats playing softball?

They allow the minority party in the senate to hold up legislation and appointments through excessive use of a procedural tactic that is not part of the constitution and could be curtailed or eliminated.

...they regularly accuse Republicans of wanting to starve children and murder old people...

Now I feel like I'm listening to Sean Hannity. So, I'll give you the same response I give to my radio: people decide what's important to them by what they prioritize. Republicans may not want to starve children or murder old people, but they're much more interested in tax cuts for people who don't need them and spending on an already bloated military than they are on the programs that feed children or keep old people alive.

Nonetheless, if you wish to believe that Democrats can't lead because everyone who isn't a Democrat is evil, it's a free country.

It may shock you to learn that there are people who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. I'm one of them.

And yes, I do think most of the leaders of the Republican party are evil. When the senate minority leader openly declares that his first priority is not what's good for the American people, but the political success of his party, it's hard to conclude otherwise. When leaders flatly declare that they're going to not do their jobs because they think it is good for them politically, they are not worthy of respect.

You can throw around whatever straw men you like, it's a free country.

Yes, though we're supposed to strive for better around here. Apparently werepossum is more interested in preaching (to some imaginary choir of his own invention) than discussing.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yes, though we're supposed to strive for better around here. Apparently werepossum is more interested in preaching than discussing.

He isn't always like that. Maybe a democrat peed on his lawn last week.

 

[nehalem256]

You can throw around whatever straw men you like, it's a free country.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that republican voters are less interested in the two parties compromising than democrat voters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx

No one is calling that "evil." Nonetheless, it is what it is.

Maybe that is because compromise is usually a win for the Democrats.

Consider for example Obamacare. I think it would be reasonable to assume this represents a compromise over what Democrats really want for healthcare. Now in the future do you think it is more likely that laws will be passed to give Democrats more of what they want on healthcare, or that Obamacare(or substantive parts of it) will be repealed?

 

[woolfe9998]

Maybe that is because compromise is usually a win for the Democrats.

Consider for example Obamacare. I think it would be reasonable to assume this represents a compromise over what Democrats really want for healthcare. Now in the future do you think it is more likely that laws will be passed to give Democrats more of what they want on healthcare, or that Obamacare(or substantive parts of it) will be repealed?

Poor attempt to spin something whose meaning is pretty clear and obvious.

Bad example, because Obamacare wasn't a compromise between right and left. We don't know what a compromise, bi-partisan bill would have looked like. Except it probably would have been further to the right had it been a bipartisan bill.

 

[werepossum]

They allow the minority party in the senate to hold up legislation and appointments through excessive use of a procedural tactic that is not part of the constitution and could be curtailed or eliminated.

Now I feel like I'm listening to Sean Hannity. So, I'll give you the same response I give to my radio: people decide what's important to them by what they prioritize. Republicans may not want to starve children or murder old people, but they're much more interested in tax cuts for people who don't need them and spending on an already bloated military than they are on the programs that feed children or keep old people alive.

It may shock you to learn that there are people who are neither Democrats nor Republicans. I'm one of them.

And yes, I do think most of the leaders of the Republican party are evil. When the senate minority leader openly declares that his first priority is not what's good for the American people, but the political success of his party, it's hard to conclude otherwise. When leaders flatly declare that they're going to not do their jobs because they think it is good for them politically, they are not worthy of respect.

Yes, though we're supposed to strive for better around here. Apparently werepossum is more interested in preaching (to some imaginary choir of his own invention) than discussing.

What is there to discuss? You insist the Democrats are playing softball for graciously allowing the Republicans to use the same procedural tactic the Democrats have used for tens of decades. You insist the Democrats are playing softball when they claim that Republicans want to starve children and kill old people because Republicans do want to starve children and kill old people. You insist you aren't a Democrat, but also insist that Republican leaders are evil and not worthy of respect.

You insist that one side of the political spectrum is pure evil (your word) and the problem with the other side is that they are not sufficiently attacking this evil. On what basis then could we possibly have a discussion? When you insist that the only acceptable starting condition for a discussion is one party being completely in the wrong, the only possible result is a circle jerk of competition as to who can best describe the Republican's evil. No discussion is possible when your only acceptable starting point is that one party is completely in the wrong.

You guys are so funny with your accusations of partisanship. When we agree you say I'm a reasonable guy, but when I go off the reservation I'm "preaching (to some imaginary choir of his own invention)" or that a "Maybe a democrat peed on his lawn last week." Yet the two parties are far more alike than dislike, and our nation is more or less evenly split between parties. Given those things, your strong belief that one party is evil and always wrong doesn't make you rational, thinking beings, just cartoon caricatures. This is especially amusing now, when the party of pure though ineffectual good is using the IRS to oppress the party of pure evil.

 

[werepossum]

You can throw around whatever straw men you like, it's a free country.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that republican voters are less interested in the two parties compromising than democrat voters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx

No one is calling that "evil." Nonetheless, it is what it is.

Actually Charles did specifically call Republicans leaders evil, which would at least imply that those who follow them are also evil. Although I suppose we could give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he really meant that only the leaders are evil and those who follow them are merely stupid. Either way, whether he believes that everyone who disagrees with him is evil or merely that everyone who disagrees with him is evil or stupid, on what basis can there be a discussion? And when he insists that the other side is pure evil and his side is good but too nice - but it's not really his side, he's just a disinterested observer pointing out how the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are just too nice - what can I do but laugh?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When one acquires sufficient control and power there is no need to lead. Indeed leading is a distraction, just do as you please. The expansive monitoring of our communications effectively gutting Constitutional protections is an example. It's not leading, it's about power.

 

[Mursilis]

And yes, I do think most of the leaders of the Republican party are evil.

Very few people are actually evil. Dumb, stubborn, short-sighted, self-centered, and/or self-interested, maybe - I'd certainly agree those labels could be assigned to a large number of people, especially the current GOP leadership. Evil, however, is just a stretch. There's a huge difference between a driver who kills a pedestrian because the driver was busy playing with his phone while driving, and a driver who leaves the house with the intent of running down pedestrians. The first is negligent and the second is purely evil. It's simplistic and lazy to just characterize people with whom you disagree as 'evil' without understanding their perspective. You don't have to agree with an opposing viewpoint, but you should always seek a better understanding of it.

 

[Mursilis]

You can throw around whatever straw men you like, it's a free country.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that republican voters are less interested in the two parties compromising than democrat voters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/144359/democrats-republicans-differ-views-compromise.aspx

No one is calling that "evil." Nonetheless, it is what it is.

What does that survey show? Very little, I'd say. Let's imagine I propose killing your entire extended family. I'm guessing you'd object and propose I kill none of them. Reasonable compromiser that I am, I propose to kill only half of them, and yet you still object and refuse to move off your original position that none of your family be killed. So what's more important here, sticking to your beliefs or embracing compromise?

 

[nehalem256]

Poor attempt to spin something whose meaning is pretty clear and obvious.

Bad example, because Obamacare wasn't a compromise between right and left. We don't know what a compromise, bi-partisan bill would have looked like. Except it probably would have been further to the right had it been a bipartisan bill.

I think it illustrates the point. Overall I think that Democrats are much more interested in creating new government programs and "rights"(think for example same-sex marriage).

The Democrats are more willing to compromise because it is more likely for government programs and "rights" to be expanded in the future than to be cut.