What should we do about obstructionism?

[Craig234]

First, we can't fix it. The question I'm raising is, can we reduce the amount of extreme, unjustified obstructionism?

First, let's note that not all obstructionism is 'wrong'. Every time one group blocks the actions of another it could be called 'obstructionism', and that's not what I'm referring to.

I'm referring to the more extreme amounts - when there isn't any reasonable policy basis for blocking, and it's more 'blocking for its own sake' - simply to deny the other side a victory. As an example, Scott Brown wants to run for Senate in New Hampshire. His opponent incumbent had a bill that was widely agreed to be a good idea that was going to pass. Simply because he wanted to deny her a victory to run on in the campaign, he asked Republican leadership to block the bill, and they did.

There isn't a lot to argue against the case that we're currently at an all-time high in obstructionism in American politics right now.

Let me take just one example of it for review. Our laws have a national labor relations board which is tasked with enforcing the federal worker protection laws. Under the law all kinds of things are illegal for employers to do to a worker, from not paying wages to harassment, but as a practical matter those laws don't exist until they are enforced. It'd be like a city with no police force, but just unenforced laws on the books against theft, without the board.

And the way the system is set up for limited length terms for members, the board requires appointing new members periodically - and a minimum of three of the five board spots to take actions, IIRC. As board members left the board, Republicans got the idea to simply not approve any replacements, and the board became unable to function. This meant that all worker cases across the country suddenly lost their protections - any case that was appealed and needed the board to rule, could not be enforced.

For most people, people who support the rule of law, workers and Democrats, that was a problem. For most Republicans, apparently, it was a victory to deny workers protections.

And that's where it sat, in a stall, until President Obama decided to do what Presidents have long done over disputes with Congressional approval of appointments - to use the recess appointment power of the constitution to fill the positions, just as, for example, President Truman did to appoint the first black federal judge to get around the blocking by southern racist Senators.

The recess power allows the president to make temporary appointments - often about 1 to 2 years - while the Senate is in recess. In an attempt to block the President from doing this, now the Senate says it doesn't go on recess - every three days they have someone bang the gavel for a short 'session' where nothing else is done to say 'see, we're not in recess'.

This issue went to the Supreme Court, who ruled yesterday that the recess power cannot be used in this situation - so, nearly not at all. That may be a perfectly correct enforcement of the constitution, but it leaves the problem wide open of how to get around excessive obstructionism.

In simple democratic dogma, the solution is, 'if the people don't like the obstructionism, they can vote them out'. But as a practical matter that doesn't work at all, for all kinds of reasons of how little people follow the issues like Senate appointment blocking, to how there are more issues to vote on, to how monied interests can pay for campaigns that obscure the issue from voters. And as much as some voters will say they're happy to see the President they don't like simply blocked for no reason but spite, that's not good policy.

A totally dysfunctional National Labor Relations Board is a serious problem for American workers, but it's just an example. The basic issue is that the 'advise and consent' power given to the Senate was intended to be used to block bad appointees for good reason, not to deny any appointee as a way to get around the laws that an agency they exist they don't like, or simply to cause pain to the country in the expectation the President will get blamed.

It's hard when setting up a system to say 'you can use this power to block actually bad appointees, but not good appointees for political reasons'.

So, can anyone suggest a way to improve the situation, or is radical obstructionism just here to stay?

One note - specifically on the issue of appointees, the Republicans were using one more tactic of filibustering nearly all appointees, requiring 60 votes to approve instead of 50, allowing them to block huge numbers of appointees. That one tactic was mostly removed when Harry Reid, after years of threats, finally changed the rules to not allow the filibuster on nominations, and many appointees have been approved since then.

But obstructionism such as filibuster abuse for laws is still in place (which it by far at an all-time high, with several hundred filibusters).

Shutting down the government by refusing to approve the debt ceiling increase was just another form of obstructionism - but one which has bitten Republicans politically each time they went to that length, despite their attempts to reduce the political damage by trying to pass narrow spending bills to fund whatever area is getting them political punishment.

But even if they don't go to that length, there is still a huge amount of obstructionism. This has resulted in such extreme blocking as not funding for a period the renewal of the treaty which allows the US to collect nuclear weapons materials around the world to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. I did not see any impact on elections as a result of that blocking.

 

[TerryMathews]

The traditional way to avoid obstructionism is through bipartisanship. Something sorely lacking on both sides of the aisle.

 

[Craig234]

The traditional way to avoid obstructionism is through bipartisanship. Something sorely lacking on both sides of the aisle.

Well, there's some truth to that, but it doesn't really say how to do it.

I'm not against some lack of compromise when it's justified. If George Bush wanted to start wars with Mexico and Canada, I'm not in favor of saying 'let's compromise, pick one'. If George Bush said "let's execute all gay people", I'm not in favor of saying "let's compromise, just give them jail."

One thing that enters in here is that the Libertarian/Tea Party positions are so radical, that compromise isn't really suited to them. When they say 'let's cut 90% of government spending', it doesn't make a lot of sense to say 'let's split the difference', any more than if someone said 'let's double government spending tomorrow' Republicans should say 'ok, we'll support a 50% increase'. That's always been the case with the general Libertarian view, radical changes not suiting much compromise.

But what's happening goes beyond even that, to the point of 'obstructionism for its own sake', the vote against your own bill, deny opponents anything to run on, scorch the earth and get the other side blamed for it, pure spite and exercise of political power type of obstructionism we're seeing.

Maybe there just isn't much solution here until the money in politics issue is addressed - as long as big money can buy propaganda getting people to blame the wrong people, that's it.

We are seeing this craziness where voting not to shut down the federal government is a 'betrayal of conservative principles' used in a primary campaign against a politician.

It's hard to think of when we've seen more polarization short of before the civil war. And we know how reasonably people resolved that - though of course it won't happen again.

It is unfortunate though that the divide is starting to map to race even more in the south, where white Democrats seem to be an endangered species (sorry but I think that there are good reasons why there are very few black Republicans especially in the south, that it's not a mirror problem, any more than how there aren't - to use a more extreme example - many Jewish Nazis).

What we're seeing is a decades long campaign to radicalize American politics to the far right having a pretty good amount of success. But obstructionism goes even beyond that.

Now there is actually opposition to things like renewing the voting rights act or the violence against women act that have passed historically by both parties.

My concern with your post is the common false equivalency, the 'both sides are equally to blame' stuff. Perhaps you can cite some votes where Democrats in recent years have been obstructionist on issues where it wasn't justified, to support your claim that they're equally or significantly equally to blame?

 

[TerryMathews]

My concern with your post is the common false equivalency, the 'both sides are equally to blame' stuff. Perhaps you can cite some votes where Democrats in recent years have been obstructionist on issues where it wasn't justified, to support your claim that they're equally or significantly equally to blame?

It is impossible to answer your question. You stated earlier you don't agree with conservative points of view so to you it will be impossible to satisfy the bolded.

 

[Mursilis]

What we're seeing is a decades long campaign to radicalize American politics to the far right having a pretty good amount of success.

Are you saying the country has been drifting toward the far right for decades?

As for obstructionism, it's built into the system (for good reason, mostly). There's not a whole lot "we" can do about it, unless we're prepared to make changes at the Constitutional level.

 

[Jaskalas]

Obstructionism?
Get rid of the Filibusterer.

It really is that simple. This country would start moving through some quick changes once that was out of the way. For better or worse.

 

[Screech]

I think you need to figure out what this thread is going to be about.

If the issue is that america as a whole is drifting right and you don't like it, then logically you would seem to favor obstructionism from the left. I don't think that is what you are trying to say, though.

if on the other hand you are against a few loonies on the far right being total nutcases and stopping reasonable things from being passed 'just because', then Jaskalas has the answer -- the filibuster needs to go.

 

[TerryMathews]

I think you need to figure out what this thread is going to be about.

If the issue is that america as a whole is drifting right and you don't like it, then logically you would seem to favor obstructionism from the left. I don't think that is what you are trying to say, though.

if on the other hand you are against a few loonies on the far right being total nutcases and stopping reasonable things from being passed 'just because', then Jaskalas has the answer -- the filibuster needs to go.

Obstructionism is like the nuclear bomb. Its either a valid tactic or it isn't.

Saying "I don't support the Republicans using it but if the Democrats need to in order to stave off those Moonie teahadists" then you are a hypocrite.

 

[Craig234]

I think you need to figure out what this thread is going to be about.

If the issue is that america as a whole is drifting right and you don't like it, then logically you would seem to favor obstructionism from the left. I don't think that is what you are trying to say, though.

if on the other hand you are against a few loonies on the far right being total nutcases and stopping reasonable things from being passed 'just because', then Jaskalas has the answer -- the filibuster needs to go.

That's fair, and this thread is about obstructionism, not the issue of the move to the radical right/libertarianism. That is a contributing factor to obstructionism, but not the whole issue.

Obstructionism is bigger than the filibuster. That's merely one tool that has been in place and rarely abused - and not systemically ever - for over a century until recently. And there are all kinds of obstructionism that don't use the filibuster - such as the House's refusal to pass almost any bill (the least productive Congress in history) and moves to defund all kinds of things, for example.

This is about the larger explosion of obstructionism - the political willingness and determination to use it as a political weapon and our inability so far to prevent it.

 

[Craig234]

Obstructionism is like the nuclear bomb. Its either a valid tactic or it isn't.

Saying "I don't support the Republicans using it but if the Democrats need to in order to stave off those Moonie teahadists" then you are a hypocrite.

I tried to distinguish between opposition based on an issue, and not call that obstructionism, and use the word obstructionism for much more than that - such as blocking for politics.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I tried to distinguish between opposition based on an issue, and not call that obstructionism, and use the word obstructionism for much more than that - such as blocking for politics.

correction -- I tried to distinguish between opposition based on an issue, and not call that obstructionism, and use the word obstructionism for much more than that - such as what the Republicans are doing for politics.

 

[Moonbeam]

You do about obstructionism what a river does about it.

 

[TerryMathews]

You do about obstructionism what a river does about it.

Generate electricity?

 

[Greenman]

Your obstructionism is my saving grace. It all depends on which side of the issue you stand. That the current congress is the least "productive" in history I view as a good thing. When congress is productive, they take more of my money, they take more of my time, they take more of my liberty. Congress isn't in the business of helping me out, and simply stopping them from doing anything is a major victory.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Is Reid's obstructionism OK or is it a problem as well? OP seems to be a tad myopic as he mentions nothing about what Democratic leadership is doing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368369/harry-reids-obstructionism-andrew-stiles

January 14, 2014 4:00 AM
Harry Reid’s Obstructionism
The Senate majority leader’s hostility toward amendments is finally catching up to him.
By Andrew Stiles

It took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism.

The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining.

Democrats such as Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — who wants to repeal Obamacare’s medical-device tax — and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who has waged a highly publicized campaign to reform the way the military handles sexual-assault cases — have been denied votes on their proposed amendments to various bills. Gillibrand had hoped to attach her sexual-assault amendment to the defense-appropriations bill that passed in December, but no amendments were allowed. Klobuchar has called for “a more open amendment process” because she’d like a vote on repealing the medical-device tax.

Moderate Republicans who occasionally vote with Democrats and help broker bipartisan compromise are annoyed as well. Senator Lisa Murkowki of Alaska told the New York Times she was “kind of fed up” with Reid’s obstructionism. “He’s a leader. Why is he not leading this Senate? Why is he choosing to ignore the fact that he has a minority party that he needs to work with, that actually has some decent ideas? Why is he bringing down the institution of the Senate?”

Reid’s tight control of the amendments process has become a point of contention in the debate over unemployment benefits, which he’d like to extend without providing funding for the program. After signaling that he would not allow any Republican amendments on a bill to temporarily extend the benefits, Reid appears to be backing down, however begrudgingly. “I am open to considering a reasonable number of relevant amendments to [the bill], if that’s what it takes to end Republican obstruction,” he said Monday on Twitter.

Allowing a “reasonable number of relevant amendments” from the minority party has not always been considered a concession in the Senate. It was once referred to as “regular order.” Despite Reid’s claims that he has been “very generous with amendments,” the number of amendment votes per year (not counting non-binding budget amendments, which by law cannot be limited) has declined from 218 in 2007, when Reid became majority leader, to 67 in 2013. Since July of last year, Republicans have been allowed a grand total of four amendments.

Some of Reid’s defenders have justified his hostility toward amendments by arguing that he is simply trying to protect vulnerable Democrats from having to vote on politically challenging but ultimately meaningless ones, such as a GOP proposal to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate. In order to avoid these votes, they argue, Reid has been forced to block all amendments through a process known as “filling the tree.”

Members of the minority party are not impressed with this defense. Red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 “are grown-ups,” says a senior GOP aide. “They are U.S. senators who were elected to take positions on tough issues, and if they don’t want to, that’s too bad.”

Republicans complain that the media’s reporting on the “unprecedented obstructionism” of a “do-nothing Congress” has focused almost exclusively on GOP filibusters in the Senate and the refusal of the Republican-controlled House to take up Senate-passed bills, such as the Gang of Eight immigration-reform legislation. They note that House Republicans passed more than 200 bills in 2013, many of which Reid has refused to hold votes on in the Senate. House-passed legislation is readily dismissed as “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber, while the storyline surrounding Senate measures, such as the immigration bill, tends to focus on House speaker John Boehner “facing pressure” to hold a vote in the House. In reality, of the 72 bills President Obama signed into law last year, only 16 originated in the Senate.

Reid has refused to bring up measures that would almost certainly pass with bipartisan support, such as legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, or the aforementioned medical-device-tax repeal. He has also refused to consider legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran: A majority of Senate Democrats support the idea, but it’s strongly opposed by the White House. On the Iranian issue, Republicans have accused Reid of “playing defense for the president” against the wishes of his own conference.

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, still reeling from Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters on executive-branch appointees, has gone on the offensive, taking to the Senate floor last week to urge members to “restore the Senate to its purpose,” which he says will produce better legislation for all.

“I realize amendments frighten some people,” McConnell said. “But it’s the best way I know to force an outcome everybody’s satisfied with.”

— Andrew Stiles is a political reporter for National Review Online

 

[boomerang]

40 Jobs Bills Stuck In The Senate

 

[Craig234]

Your obstructionism is my saving grace. It all depends on which side of the issue you stand. That the current congress is the least "productive" in history I view as a good thing. When congress is productive, they take more of my money, they take more of my time, they take more of my liberty. Congress isn't in the business of helping me out, and simply stopping them from doing anything is a major victory.

Except you're wrong. But the position you're taking is the radical one of the anarchist/radical libertarian that basically rejects the American political system for its history to now.

You're implying that the current level of obstructionism is a "good thing" on the policy level when you look at each of these blocked measures. And that makes no sense under any policy-based position - not even your radical anti-government one - as the only explanation to defend it is the 'politics first, don't care about hurting the country' political one. The obstructionism has wasted large amounts of money that don't fit even your politics.

We could debate the issues, and show how my position is good for the country and the American people, while yours is the 'kill Americans for your ideology' position, such as on healthcare. But those are the 'issue' topics. I'm talking about even more than that. Off the top of my head, a few examples, Republicans refused to renew the START II treaty which allows the US to collect stray nuclear weapons materials around the world from falling into terrorist hands. You really think blocking that was a "good thing"? The government shutdown wasted billions of dollars for no benefit to the country but being a political stunt for the far right to excite their base that they were 'standing up'. That didn't 'save you money', but it did hurt the country. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling, as most Republicans voted to do IIRC, didn't save the country any money - it simply threatened to cause massive damage to our economy for no benefit. You call that a good thing?

It's really not hard to find hundreds of examples of pretty clearly good government bills blocked by obstructionism, that do not have any legitimate policy objection to your complaint about costing you money, about denying you rights. Your comments are those of a pure ideologue whose statements are not based in reality.

That's in addition to the issues where it's not hard to argue the blocked policy is good and justified even if it does cost you a little money, or prevent your 'rights' only in the sense of denying you the right to deny others rights - things like ending the legal discrimination against gays' right to marry, which you could claim is a reduction in your 'right' to deny them their rights. But that's not a legitimate complaint about your rights being taken away.

The problem is how many citizens THINK like you do that obstructionism is simply protecting their interests, when it's not - they have no idea, really, for the most part what the actual obstructionism is doing, they don't understand how it's selling out the interests of the country for the political benefit of causing harm to people to then blame on Democrats.

For better or worse, this unprecedented level of obstructionism is denying the majority the right to rule, it's not how the country has worked for its history.

So no wonder the radical fringe who basically wants to dismantle democracy comes crawling out to cheer it in the early stages, before the damage is clear. But they'll always have an answer no matter how bad things get as a result of their policies - the answer is always that 'it's the government's fault, we need to shrink it more', simpletons.

Point our, for example, how elder poverty was 90% before Social Security, and under 10% after Social Security, and ask them their solution, and you will hear nothing that works - only ideology and perhaps nonsensical 'alternatives'. For ideological reasons, if given the chance, they'd destroy the program, destroy the benefits to the American people, and when the harms increased greatly, they'd have an answer - it's because of government, cut it more.

There has always been an anti-Social Security movement - the Republican Party when it was created, George W. Bush's top priority his second term - but it's never been politically strong enough to get its way and destroy the program. But radicals like you will do just that and things like that if you get your way. It won't do the things you say object to - really protect your money, your rights - to destroy Social Security. But you have a warped idea what those things mean. The idea of the government doing things good for the country is one you don't understand except in an extremely narrow fashion. I don't expect to see any commentary from you with any concern over things like wealth inequality, either.

The short summary of the problem is that your views despite whatever convoluted claims you make, are supporting plutocracy, and you have no way to defend that.

All you can do is to defend plutocracy with misused words like 'freedom'. And plutocracy is about as anti-American and anti-democracy as you can get.

Your defense of the obstructionism doesn't hold up even under the radical political agenda you have. Not raising the debt limit is petulant, disastrous, and nothing more.

It wastes your money. It reduces your rights. And that's the case with a lot of the obstructionism you want to defend.

Is not having a functioning National Labor Relations Board really a defensible policy position? Take the consumer protection agency - like with the NLRB, Republicans made clear they had no objection to the person appointed to lead it - the constitutional power they're given - but rather had decided to block anyone for the position, as a way to get around the law and prevent it from functioning. Reportedly, the agency - with a recess appointment by Obama - has already saved Americans tens of billions. You object to that? Why? Ideology.

 

[MongGrel]

When they raised the voting from 50 to 60 I new things were pretty much borked there when it was up for a vote.

And it actually happened.

Hanging a ton of Lobbyists would be a good start.

*shrug*

 

[Craig234]

When they raised the voting from 50 to 60 I new things were pretty much borked there when it was up for a vote.

And it actually happened.

Hanging a ton of Lobbyists would be a good start.

*shrug*

Lobbyists are a huge problem deserving their own thread, different from obstructionism (though lobbyists' agenda is often to obstruct).

IIRC a majority of members and staff of Congress move to lobbying when they leave office, meaning they are under pressure to serve the lobbyists while in office.

That's why a study found that the public has zero influence on legislation, while the wealthy are the dominant influence.

That's a reason to quote one of my favorite sayings:

"Politicians have to LOOK good to voters, and DO good for donors."

 

[Greenman]

Except you're wrong. But the position you're taking is the radical one of the anarchist/radical libertarian that basically rejects the American political system for its history to now.

You're implying that the current level of obstructionism is a "good thing" on the policy level when you look at each of these blocked measures. And that makes no sense under any policy-based position - not even your radical anti-government one - as the only explanation to defend it is the 'politics first, don't care about hurting the country' political one. The obstructionism has wasted large amounts of money that don't fit even your politics.

We could debate the issues, and show how my position is good for the country and the American people, while yours is the 'kill Americans for your ideology' position, such as on healthcare. But those are the 'issue' topics. I'm talking about even more than that. Off the top of my head, a few examples, Republicans refused to renew the START II treaty which allows the US to collect stray nuclear weapons materials around the world from falling into terrorist hands. You really think blocking that was a "good thing"? The government shutdown wasted billions of dollars for no benefit to the country but being a political stunt for the far right to excite their base that they were 'standing up'. That didn't 'save you money', but it did hurt the country. Refusing to increase the debt ceiling, as most Republicans voted to do IIRC, didn't save the country any money - it simply threatened to cause massive damage to our economy for no benefit. You call that a good thing?

It's really not hard to find hundreds of examples of pretty clearly good government bills blocked by obstructionism, that do not have any legitimate policy objection to your complaint about costing you money, about denying you rights. Your comments are those of a pure ideologue whose statements are not based in reality.

That's in addition to the issues where it's not hard to argue the blocked policy is good and justified even if it does cost you a little money, or prevent your 'rights' only in the sense of denying you the right to deny others rights - things like ending the legal discrimination against gays' right to marry, which you could claim is a reduction in your 'right' to deny them their rights. But that's not a legitimate complaint about your rights being taken away.

The problem is how many citizens THINK like you do that obstructionism is simply protecting their interests, when it's not - they have no idea, really, for the most part what the actual obstructionism is doing, they don't understand how it's selling out the interests of the country for the political benefit of causing harm to people to then blame on Democrats.

For better or worse, this unprecedented level of obstructionism is denying the majority the right to rule, it's not how the country has worked for its history.

So no wonder the radical fringe who basically wants to dismantle democracy comes crawling out to cheer it in the early stages, before the damage is clear. But they'll always have an answer no matter how bad things get as a result of their policies - the answer is always that 'it's the government's fault, we need to shrink it more', simpletons.

Point our, for example, how elder poverty was 90% before Social Security, and under 10% after Social Security, and ask them their solution, and you will hear nothing that works - only ideology and perhaps nonsensical 'alternatives'. For ideological reasons, if given the chance, they'd destroy the program, destroy the benefits to the American people, and when the harms increased greatly, they'd have an answer - it's because of government, cut it more.

There has always been an anti-Social Security movement - the Republican Party when it was created, George W. Bush's top priority his second term - but it's never been politically strong enough to get its way and destroy the program. But radicals like you will do just that and things like that if you get your way. It won't do the things you say object to - really protect your money, your rights - to destroy Social Security. But you have a warped idea what those things mean. The idea of the government doing things good for the country is one you don't understand except in an extremely narrow fashion. I don't expect to see any commentary from you with any concern over things like wealth inequality, either.

The short summary of the problem is that your views despite whatever convoluted claims you make, are supporting plutocracy, and you have no way to defend that.

All you can do is to defend plutocracy with misused words like 'freedom'. And plutocracy is about as anti-American and anti-democracy as you can get.

Your defense of the obstructionism doesn't hold up even under the radical political agenda you have. Not raising the debt limit is petulant, disastrous, and nothing more.

It wastes your money. It reduces your rights. And that's the case with a lot of the obstructionism you want to defend.

Is not having a functioning National Labor Relations Board really a defensible policy position? Take the consumer protection agency - like with the NLRB, Republicans made clear they had no objection to the person appointed to lead it - the constitutional power they're given - but rather had decided to block anyone for the position, as a way to get around the law and prevent it from functioning. Reportedly, the agency - with a recess appointment by Obama - has already saved Americans tens of billions. You object to that? Why? Ideology.

I'm not defending anything, I'm saying it works for me. You may need someone to tell you when it's alright to piss, I don't.
The bottom line for me is simple, all government is evil, some government is necessary. Our government has run amok. One state just passed a law making it legal for a child to eat their food into the shape of a hand gun, and they did that because children were being thrown out of school for making their sandwich into the shape of a gun. What level of stupidity do we have to reach before we say enough? What sum of money has to be pissed down a hole before we say stop?
Obstructionism works just fine for me. If we're lucky, they'll all get discouraged and go home.

 

[Craig234]

I'm not defending anything, I'm saying it works for me. You may need someone to tell you when it's alright to piss, I don't.
The bottom line for me is simple, all government is evil, some government is necessary. Our government has run amok. One state just passed a law making it legal for a child to eat their food into the shape of a hand gun, and they did that because children were being thrown out of school for making their sandwich into the shape of a gun. What level of stupidity do we have to reach before we say enough? What sum of money has to be pissed down a hole before we say stop?
Obstructionism works just fine for me. If we're lucky, they'll all get discouraged and go home.

Here's the summary. You're ignorant, and I don't mean that to insult, just to say the factual situation that explains your position, because as a result, you just make up simple answers - a big bad government that only does bad pretty much, and you don't need to put the hard work into actually deciding what cuts are good and which are bad, what money should be spent on, because you simply view all cuts as good.

That sort of ignorant position is extremely harmful because you're like a blind man given a vote on what paintings to exhibit, and you think the fewer you exhibit the savings go into your pocket. You just have idea about the spending and the benefits it has morally and economically - despite imperfections that are always the case in anything, public or private.

This is why 'red states' tend to progress less - to have less technological and economic advancement, to have less education, to more resemble feudal systems where a few rich people own some industry and hire the citizens they need at low wages, and no one better complain. All they know is they hate government, so they elect the people who will pander to that view, and make it come true, giving them 'evil government' not benefitting the people but only the wealthy. They seem to like that, letting them just hate government.

It contradicts common sense to think that a society that is able to act on national agendas - say, putting a man on the moon or reducing elder poverty - can get more done than one who simply demands a minimum of cooperation in effort, a minimum of using resources for any societal goal, a minimum of organization. That's what our system is supposed to do - elect leaders who represent the people and do things good for society using the resources needed to do so.

And it's very true that that whole process is never perfect, and can be very corrupt and broken, government can become 'evil', but that's a legitimate and rational concern to be 'vigilant' in keeping government servicing the people - and that legitimate concern is not at all like your ignorant, blind paranoid view that all government - since you don't know anything much about it and are purely ideological - is bad.

Your views are at their heart un-American, denying the right of the people, if you had your way, from acting on their own behalf through elected government.

It's a pretty simple idea, really. Kings used to use society's wealth for their own interests. Billionares generally use their wealth for their own benefit. The US had a new idea - put 'the people' in charge of the wealth of society so it's used for the benefit of those same people, not some narrow interest who controls it instead of the people. Of course the people are happy to keep most of their wealth and to let rich people get rich, but you oppose the whole idea of the people ruling society in this way. You want their power cut off.

And when you get your way, the wealth of society, and its agenda, revert back to the few rulers, whether they're kings or corporations or billionares, and the society does far less good for its people than it does when operating for the public benefit. But you don't have any idea about that, because you blindly follow a 'hate government' ideology, and you're happy whatever the harm comes from it, that at least big bad government is reduced.

I guess that's why I hear so many of your persuasion call for a 'benevolent dictator', a system that has never worked for more than about one generation I can think of.

The United States has progressed in large part because of the people through their government taking actions on their behalf. Workplaces went from where you might live in a company shanty and work alongside your 8 year old child for 16 hours days in unsafe conditions for barely enough to eat, to the far better paying, safer, more humane places they are today because of government action. You and I are reading this on the internet because the government developed it (thanks Al Gore).

This is sliding into yet another 'Libertarians are dangerous and uninformed and deluded utopians' thread, but that's the real issue it seems.

Edit: To add one point - you can legitimately point as massive failings of government today, but they don't prove government is bad, they show how when our system is compromised, bad things happen. So when certain politicians - cough, Reagan Bush cough - figure out how to use public money for things that benefit them and their donors, and to cut the taxes on their wealthy allies needed to pay for what society needs; when industries are able to dictate legislation that prevents the public from regulating them; you see the sort of things we see today, with the massive debt, the inability to reign in powerful institutions from big banks to the military industry, and many more flaws.

You can respond to that corruption two ways - one is to fix government, reduce the corruption, so the people have a government representing them; the other is to cut government (where by the way, all the cuts come first from the 'good' programs for the people, not the 'waste'), and just destroy democracy and let the corrupt interests have even more.

Of course they're sell the policy to people like you by saying you'll keep more of your money, but you'll get screwed, and they'll get to keep more of your money.

I was watching a darkly humorous clip of Bush selling his tax cuts by saying how much they'd benefit the economy and all citizens, and what's actually happened in that same period is all but the wealthiest Americans losing $16 trillion while Wall Street got a $13 trillion bailout, and Americans' incomes have gone up half as much as productivity.

In fact, since the 2008 crash, the economy has recovered trillions, but nearly all has gone to the top 1% - the rest of the country was just left poorer. Nearly all Americans have had almost no income increases after inflation, while the few at the top have multiplied their fortunes and inequality is at record highs. That's the real result of your policies.

 

[Craig234]

I think one issue might be that many 'conservatives' might not realize the degree of obstructionism going on - that it's far beyond blocking excesses consistent with their political views, and blocking good things simply for the politics of the conservative pottery barn rule: 'If you break it, Obama owns it.'

And I think another is the same 'conservatives' liking the obstructionism simply in a 'I hate Obama, so I'm happy we're opposing him' sort of way. This is the 'extreme partisanship' nearly everyone says they don't like, but many mean they don't like it by those they disagree with, it's just fine if my side does it.

When people don't appreciate the harm done by the obstructionism, and when they fall for the ploy of 'blame Obama for the harm Republicans cause', it's hard to get them to demand the Republicans stop. Republicans understand that many voters vote simply on the reaction of 'if I don't like how things are going' - and they try to make sure people feel that way - 'then vote against the President's party'.

Studies support that many people vote that way, that the single best predictor of who will win the presidency is how the economy is doing.

People are kind of suckers for the promises - that's how Bush got so many votes the election could be taken, his campaign was basically saying that everything we like about Clinton, he'll do, but he'll also restore 'honor' to the White House by avoiding sexual scandals, and give you tax cuts also. And a lot of people said 'sounds good'.

Republicans understand that if Obama passes anything people like, it's something for Democrats to run on later. Obama cures cancer? Democrats run on that. They know how Democrats can get a lot of power by doing well - and the country doing well under them. So, blocking good things for the country is a political strategy - leave nothing for Democrats to run on, while making promises they'll do better. 2010 showed that worked pretty well for them - just as it did for them in Clinton's first mid-term.

Clinton had gotten his budget passed with no Republican votes that got the country started on eliminating the deficit - and his reward was the 'Gingrich revolution' smashing.

Democracy relies on informed electorate to see these issues and vote correctly, and it seems a good question how much that is happening, it appears it's not. Perhaps some of the blame lies with the Democrats in not doing better at educating voters - Obama is finally getting around to some blame for the obstructionism after 6 years, and even now he doesn't do that much education on it, just a few speech lines with snark that seem unlikely to inform or persuade any on the right who are who need the information.

We seem poised for repeating historical mistakes - when the country turned from Carter to Reagan (the biggest mistake in a century), from Clinton to Bush, from a Democratic House to a Republican House in 2010. The level of hate the obstructionist Republicans have to work with against Obama is huge, not for good reason, but they've been pretty politically effective with the obstructionism.

The Libertarian view of things is getting more power than it's ever been able to as a result - with its careful nurturing by a few billionares who stand to benefit. We no longer seem able to elect a President who will be a progressive leader like an FDR or a Kennedy or a Johnson who will try to do much - only a Republican who will say 'government' and therefore democracy - is the problem, cut things good for the country while keeping the things good for their donors, or a centrist Democrat who promises to do little also.

Obstructionism seems to get people used to the idea of a government not doing anything.

Nevermind how the interior deteriorates, how inequality reaches new record levels, how society sees less progress on things the government can do, and strong threats of eliminating programs that work for the country (Bush wanting to destroy social security with privatization, Republicans wanting to do the same to Medicare).

Would Americans rather be better off with 'government that works', or the poor in a Libertarian plutocracy where 'at least government is small'? Shockingly, that's in question.

A healthy skepticism of government's potential excesses has turned into an uninformed and dysfunctional extremist paranoia, blinding many to the right balance.

And the current level of obstructionism fuels that mistake, and even 'conservative Republicans' are finding themselves in danger from even more radical Libertarians.

The only 'winners' here are the most wealthy who think they benefit from a country who won't regulate their businesses and will let them become plutocrats with extreme wealth.

 

[Greenman]

If you would limit your posts to a paragraph or two, I'd actually read them. As it is I have to guess intent from a dozen or so words, the system would work better if you chose those words.

 

[KeithP]

I tried to distinguish between opposition based on an issue, and not call that obstructionism, and use the word obstructionism for much more than that - such as blocking for politics.

Well, that kind of distinction is really in the eye of the beholder isn't it? I did a little research on your Scott Brown example and it wasn't (surprise, surprise) quite as simple as you make it out to be.

It is impossible to answer your question. You stated earlier you don't agree with conservative points of view so to you it will be impossible to satisfy the bolded.

In the end, that is really all we are talking about here.

-KeithP

 

[Craig234]

Well, that kind of distinction is really in the eye of the beholder isn't it? I did a little research on your Scott Brown example and it wasn't (surprise, surprise) quite as simple as you make it out to be.

Not really, no. How about you support your Scott Brown claim, instead of just making an assertion? IF I had an incorrect understanding I'll appreciate the info. If YOU do...

In the end, that is really all we are talking about here.

That's wrong.

For example, if Republicans object to a judicial appointment because they fought for our rights with the ACLU, I strongly disagree with their position - and am not including it in what I'm calling obstructionism. If they say they're going to block ALL judicial nominations, or block some for clearly obstructionist rather than issues relevant to the judge's qualifications (even if I disagree), that is obstructionist.

My Scott Brown example - if it's correct, but as presented - is a good example of the difference. I might and probably would disagree with Brown if his opposition were based on policy, but when his opposition is based simply on 'deny his Democratic opponent a victory to run on' despite being a good policy, that's obstructionist. And no, flimsy propaganda cover stories to try to pretend the obstructionism is a policy issue doesn't count.