Many liberals seemed to almost relish Elizabeth Warren threatening to derail the bill over a few admittedly unpleasant riders-still riders and for that matter earmarks are symptoms of a functioning rather than a malfunctioning government-as has been the case for the last 4 years.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-cromnibus-bill-what-government-is.html
I see that a number of liberals-probably a little further out on the Left spectrum than me are just focusing on the riders they don't like.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/12/1351242/-Abbreviated-pundit-roundup-That-ugly-spending-bill
I just don't see how you can not see that if you're the minority party-as the Dems are now in the House-you can expect to not have anything in the bill you don't like. Again, I really like Dodd-Frank and don't want it watered down. I don't disagree with how Warren characterized the rider but I just feel that's how the art of governing works-you have to compromise. To compromise means accepting things you don't agree with maybe strongly.
What worries me is that Warren remains an activist rather than a politician. I know that's why a lot of the base likes her. But to me, being activist is one thing-if you're a politician you have to dirty your hands and actually engage in the act of governing. It's not that I don't like Warren. However, like most activists she's kind of single issue. I mean all she cared about was one provision she didn't like because she thought it was a sop to 'Wall Street banks'-which she sees as the most evil thing in the world.
However, what if we failed to fund the government? If we had ended up with just a short term funding bill that would have been a big defeat for Democrats. As it is, it's actually a big win. Greg Sargent:
"The bill was a loss of sorts for the bases on both sides. Conservatives didn’t get the scorched earth battle against Obama’s executive action they wanted. Liberals failed to block the addition of the measure blowing up yet another limit on big money in politics or the measure that eased regulations on derivatives trading, knocking out a key component of financial reform’s effort to control reckless practices by financial institutions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/12/morning-plum-the-good-and-the-bad-in-the-big-budget-deal/
A loss to both bases-ie, the activists of the Left and the Right-was in this case a good thing.
"It passed in spite of the fact that dozens of Republicans defected, requiring 57 Democrats to vote Yes to make passage possible. It will likely pass the Senate. So what does all this tell us about what’s to come?"
It means good things.
"On balance the outcome sends mixed signals about the ability of the Elizabeth Warren contingent to exert influence over the Democratic Party in service of the goal of protecting liberal priorities. On the one hand, this was obviously a big loss for Warren and Nancy Pelosi, since they failed at their main objective. As Matt O’Brien notes, this could have long term ramifications for the liberal wing’s ability to prevail over the party’s more Wall Street-friendly wing, which could ultimately result in a whittling away of Wall Street reform, among other things."
Being a politician means you actually have to get things done, you have responsibility. Compromise is part of the process. In a way 'activists' are misnamed in that they often rather than being all about 'acting' refuse to allow action, paralyze the politicians who need to act.
Don't get me wrong, I'm deliberately being provocative here. I get it that in the big scheme of things, taking a 'bird's eye view' of things, activists are also necessary for the political system to function. Both activists and politicians have a part to play. I get it that activists can feel burned by a politician they supported. But often times they elect someone, then won't let him actually do anything. Here I'm more describing the Tea Party activists more than anything at this point in US history.
I will say that I quite disagree with Ralph Nader here.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HTQ31TA/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Often it seems that if you could turn off the all or nothing activists in the base of both parties you could get a lot done. I mean put the RNC and DNC in the room with Boehner, McConnell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama and you could get immigration reform done tomorrow. You might even get a decent tax bill done-tax reform is a loaded term, but it could possibly be done right under these terms.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-cromnibus-bill-what-government-is.html
I see that a number of liberals-probably a little further out on the Left spectrum than me are just focusing on the riders they don't like.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/12/1351242/-Abbreviated-pundit-roundup-That-ugly-spending-bill
I just don't see how you can not see that if you're the minority party-as the Dems are now in the House-you can expect to not have anything in the bill you don't like. Again, I really like Dodd-Frank and don't want it watered down. I don't disagree with how Warren characterized the rider but I just feel that's how the art of governing works-you have to compromise. To compromise means accepting things you don't agree with maybe strongly.
What worries me is that Warren remains an activist rather than a politician. I know that's why a lot of the base likes her. But to me, being activist is one thing-if you're a politician you have to dirty your hands and actually engage in the act of governing. It's not that I don't like Warren. However, like most activists she's kind of single issue. I mean all she cared about was one provision she didn't like because she thought it was a sop to 'Wall Street banks'-which she sees as the most evil thing in the world.
However, what if we failed to fund the government? If we had ended up with just a short term funding bill that would have been a big defeat for Democrats. As it is, it's actually a big win. Greg Sargent:
"The bill was a loss of sorts for the bases on both sides. Conservatives didn’t get the scorched earth battle against Obama’s executive action they wanted. Liberals failed to block the addition of the measure blowing up yet another limit on big money in politics or the measure that eased regulations on derivatives trading, knocking out a key component of financial reform’s effort to control reckless practices by financial institutions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/12/morning-plum-the-good-and-the-bad-in-the-big-budget-deal/
A loss to both bases-ie, the activists of the Left and the Right-was in this case a good thing.
"It passed in spite of the fact that dozens of Republicans defected, requiring 57 Democrats to vote Yes to make passage possible. It will likely pass the Senate. So what does all this tell us about what’s to come?"
It means good things.
"On balance the outcome sends mixed signals about the ability of the Elizabeth Warren contingent to exert influence over the Democratic Party in service of the goal of protecting liberal priorities. On the one hand, this was obviously a big loss for Warren and Nancy Pelosi, since they failed at their main objective. As Matt O’Brien notes, this could have long term ramifications for the liberal wing’s ability to prevail over the party’s more Wall Street-friendly wing, which could ultimately result in a whittling away of Wall Street reform, among other things."
"On the other hand, Pelosi did maintain surprising unity among Democrats up until the very end, signaling to House GOP leaders that if Democrats don’t bail them out, conservative defections will make governing pretty much impossible. And Pelosi may have quietly signaled to Democrats that, once this statement had been made, they could feel free to support the spending package, giving President Obama what he wanted. According to a source in the room during last night’s meeting among House Democrats, Pelosi told them:
“I’m giving you the leverage to do whatever you have to do. We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”
"So I’d say it remains unclear what sort of influence liberals will be able to wield if, say, the prospects for a big bipartisan deal on tax reform threaten to become a bad deal for progressives."
"Beyond that, Kevin Drum makes the case that in the end, this is probably the best outcome:
By the normal standards of this kind of stuff, the obnoxious riders in the current spending bill are pretty mild. Really….Government shutdowns are immensely costly in their own right, after all. This kind of crass calculus sucks, but that’s human nature for you. All things considered, I’d say we all got off fairly easy this time around.
"I would only add that this outcome — provided the measure passes the Senate — may reduce the possible damage House Republicans can do to liberal priorities in the near future. For much of next year, Republicans will be far more limited in the ways they can use government funding fights to target Obamacare or environmental regulations — which, you may recall, they had previously threatened to do — or to roll back Obama’s executive action on deportations. On the latter, this leaves Congressional Republicans with the remaining options of either risking a shutdown to the Department of Homeland Security to combat his action, which seems like a terrible idea in both political and substantive terms, or perhaps even undertaking some legislating of their own on immigration, which could actually be a good thing in some ways."
The GOP isn't going to have the weapon of funding fights now for the next 9 months. Now they can pass legislation that the Dems don't like and can move it further in the Senate but legalisation, even bad legislation is a a major step up over funding fights.
P.S. Look, I'm surely something of an outlier. I like and yes even trust politicians more than I trust activists. To be an activist you have no responsibility, all you have to do is make big old demands. How it is to be achieved you don't have to worry about and if anyone asks you, well you just get to be indignant of such 'utilitarian concerns.' All that matters is your pure sense of what's right and what's wrong. Strategy, details, logistics, what's actually possible politically, all that you can sniff at like you're a nun and someone is using swear words.Being a politician means you actually have to get things done, you have responsibility. Compromise is part of the process. In a way 'activists' are misnamed in that they often rather than being all about 'acting' refuse to allow action, paralyze the politicians who need to act.
Don't get me wrong, I'm deliberately being provocative here. I get it that in the big scheme of things, taking a 'bird's eye view' of things, activists are also necessary for the political system to function. Both activists and politicians have a part to play. I get it that activists can feel burned by a politician they supported. But often times they elect someone, then won't let him actually do anything. Here I'm more describing the Tea Party activists more than anything at this point in US history.
I will say that I quite disagree with Ralph Nader here.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HTQ31TA/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Often it seems that if you could turn off the all or nothing activists in the base of both parties you could get a lot done. I mean put the RNC and DNC in the room with Boehner, McConnell, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama and you could get immigration reform done tomorrow. You might even get a decent tax bill done-tax reform is a loaded term, but it could possibly be done right under these terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment