I just finished his book this morning, it was excellent in showing that market failure really is inevitable. The market excels at providing for most goods and services but some things it just doesn't do very well-like healthcare, or regulating the financial industry or providing adequate research and development to name some examples.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/08/john-cassidy-market-failure-and-thek.html
Cassidy also has an incomparable description of the American political system. Essentially the dysfunction of American politics is a feature not a bug for those who designed the Constitution. While Hamilton won in some important areas overall we have much of Madison-who believed in 'limited government.'
"The American political system was designed to prevent effective government action rather than to facilitate it, and many senior congressman remained wedded to the nostrums of Milton Friedman."
John Cassidy, When Markets Fail, pg.322
If this was the intent then it has been very successful. This is why while I understand the concerns of some Democrats about what the GOP does next time they have the Senate I think such fears are misplaced. For one thing it's like having a bully that takes your milk money everyday but not confronting out of fear that if you do now he's really gong to beat you up.
As if he isn't already. In those situations fighting back is basically what economists call a 'free good.'
"What's true is when you are dealing with a bully-or at least someone who has malevolent intent towards you for whatever reason-trying to give no offense won't help. Now speaking of bullies, we have Mitch McConnell's Senate GOP filibuster machine. I'm very happy to hear Dems saying that even if the GOP does take back the Senate in 2014 it's time to go nuclear. Indeed, this is another free good, a demand met at a zero price. The GOP tries to intimidate the Dems by evoking how mercilessly they will grind things to a halt if we have filibuster reform.As if it will be any different otherwise."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/patrick-sullivan-thomas-sowell-and-why.html
As long as they can get away with it, the obstruction won't stop. This was how at least some of the those who had input in the Constitution wanted it. The 60 vote super majority has a history. In the past the filibuster may have not been used so much. Yet, the goal for those who didn't want governance very effective had the goal of making the country one that is run by minority rule.
The minority that is ruling today comes from the same line that wanted majority rule 220 years ago. Then the slaveholding South worried that its interests would not the day. So the system finally agreed on effectively enabled them to dominate the country for the next 60 years-until the Civil War.
Today the minority also dominates. After all, most Americans support the bulk of the President's agenda. A small number of red states don't. Yet they are able to effectively veto his agenda.
Between a filibustered Senate and a gerrymandered House they have managed to carry the day. So the Dems really need not be too shy about further filibuster reform. They already signaled their intent on executive nominees and now they've opened the possibility of judicial nominees. In the end it may be time to do a Voltaire to the filibuster and 'Crush the infamous thing!'
What you have to really consider is maybe the filibuster is a force not for democracy-upholding minority rights-but rule by the minority. I appreciate that Reid has pointed out that the filibuster and other procedures with long tradition in the Senate are not set in stone but are subject to change and debate like anything else.
Many other traditions of the supposedly August Senate have been done away with-like when voters didn't directly elect Senators to say nothing of 3/5 of a man. The filibuster may just be from this same antiquated history that needs to be scrapped-along with each State getting two Senators regardless of population. If you did away with these two things the Senate would start to resemble what the voters have voted for.
As for the House, the redistricting process is just so corrupt. This too has a long history. Part of the trouble here is Democratic complicity. While the recent SCOTUS ruling that invalidated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was a travesty, one aspect of VRA really should be reconsidered, the demand for majority minorityghettos districts. What this serves to do is allows certain Democrats to get a lock on this House seats but this pound of flesh isn't cheap, indeed it comes at too high a price; what we get is for ever Democratic district with a 90-10 advantage we get 2 or 3 Republican districts with a 60-40 or 55-45 advantage.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/how-the-voting-rights-act-hurts-democrats-and-minorities/276893/
So Democrats should rethink this. In the long term the minority won't win-just as ultimately it didn't prevail over slavery, industrialization and banking. Still it took a lot of bloodshed-both literal and figurative then. It won't require so much literal bloodshed this time-some perspective helps However, it may require some of the figurative kind. At some point the Dems may have to go full nuclear against the filibuster.
What is becoming more painfully clear by the day is that the Republicans learned nothing in 2012 and are determined not to so progress right now can only come with full Democratic control of the government-with either the filibuster and redistricting rules changed or supermajorities of Democrats swept into office.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/08/john-cassidy-market-failure-and-thek.html
Cassidy also has an incomparable description of the American political system. Essentially the dysfunction of American politics is a feature not a bug for those who designed the Constitution. While Hamilton won in some important areas overall we have much of Madison-who believed in 'limited government.'
"The American political system was designed to prevent effective government action rather than to facilitate it, and many senior congressman remained wedded to the nostrums of Milton Friedman."
John Cassidy, When Markets Fail, pg.322
If this was the intent then it has been very successful. This is why while I understand the concerns of some Democrats about what the GOP does next time they have the Senate I think such fears are misplaced. For one thing it's like having a bully that takes your milk money everyday but not confronting out of fear that if you do now he's really gong to beat you up.
As if he isn't already. In those situations fighting back is basically what economists call a 'free good.'
"What's true is when you are dealing with a bully-or at least someone who has malevolent intent towards you for whatever reason-trying to give no offense won't help. Now speaking of bullies, we have Mitch McConnell's Senate GOP filibuster machine. I'm very happy to hear Dems saying that even if the GOP does take back the Senate in 2014 it's time to go nuclear. Indeed, this is another free good, a demand met at a zero price. The GOP tries to intimidate the Dems by evoking how mercilessly they will grind things to a halt if we have filibuster reform.As if it will be any different otherwise."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/patrick-sullivan-thomas-sowell-and-why.html
As long as they can get away with it, the obstruction won't stop. This was how at least some of the those who had input in the Constitution wanted it. The 60 vote super majority has a history. In the past the filibuster may have not been used so much. Yet, the goal for those who didn't want governance very effective had the goal of making the country one that is run by minority rule.
The minority that is ruling today comes from the same line that wanted majority rule 220 years ago. Then the slaveholding South worried that its interests would not the day. So the system finally agreed on effectively enabled them to dominate the country for the next 60 years-until the Civil War.
Today the minority also dominates. After all, most Americans support the bulk of the President's agenda. A small number of red states don't. Yet they are able to effectively veto his agenda.
Between a filibustered Senate and a gerrymandered House they have managed to carry the day. So the Dems really need not be too shy about further filibuster reform. They already signaled their intent on executive nominees and now they've opened the possibility of judicial nominees. In the end it may be time to do a Voltaire to the filibuster and 'Crush the infamous thing!'
What you have to really consider is maybe the filibuster is a force not for democracy-upholding minority rights-but rule by the minority. I appreciate that Reid has pointed out that the filibuster and other procedures with long tradition in the Senate are not set in stone but are subject to change and debate like anything else.
Many other traditions of the supposedly August Senate have been done away with-like when voters didn't directly elect Senators to say nothing of 3/5 of a man. The filibuster may just be from this same antiquated history that needs to be scrapped-along with each State getting two Senators regardless of population. If you did away with these two things the Senate would start to resemble what the voters have voted for.
As for the House, the redistricting process is just so corrupt. This too has a long history. Part of the trouble here is Democratic complicity. While the recent SCOTUS ruling that invalidated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was a travesty, one aspect of VRA really should be reconsidered, the demand for majority minority
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/how-the-voting-rights-act-hurts-democrats-and-minorities/276893/
So Democrats should rethink this. In the long term the minority won't win-just as ultimately it didn't prevail over slavery, industrialization and banking. Still it took a lot of bloodshed-both literal and figurative then. It won't require so much literal bloodshed this time-some perspective helps However, it may require some of the figurative kind. At some point the Dems may have to go full nuclear against the filibuster.
What is becoming more painfully clear by the day is that the Republicans learned nothing in 2012 and are determined not to so progress right now can only come with full Democratic control of the government-with either the filibuster and redistricting rules changed or supermajorities of Democrats swept into office.
No comments:
Post a Comment