I Don’t Care Who Started It. What We’re Doing Isn’t Working

James Joyner complains about the nasty turn of American politics:

The links between Obama and former Weatherman William Ayers were tenuous and decades removed from whatever radicalism Ayers might have engaged in—but there was at least a veneer of truth in the smear. And the Swift Boat idiots were a fringe group; they weren’t run by a former Bush spokesman. Now, though, we’ve got the Obama administration signing off on an ad insinuating that Mitt Romney killed a woman and the vice president refusing to back away from the suggestion that Romney wants to put black people back in chains. So, yeah, I’d say it’s worse than four or eight years ago.

quoting liberally from a six year old post of his complaining about the nasty turn of American politics. He goes on to lay most of the blame for the present sad state of affairs at the feet of Congressional Republicans:

As bad as Bush Derangement Syndrome was, though, Obama Derangement Syndrome is much worse. While Democrats were bitter over the way Bush won in 2000 and some even charged that 2004 was stolen, too, there was at least no question that Bush was an American citizen.

As bad as Harry Reid was in opposition, the Republicans are even worse now. While Reid and company did their best to deny Bush controversial appointments, McConnell and company took it up several notches, baldly declaring that their top legislative priority was keeping Obama from getting re-elected. Not just in the election year, mind you—but for Obama’s whole term. Oh, and the country just happened to be in the worst economic crisis in generations.

for which he is duly taken to task by his commentariat for failing to blame the Congressional Republicans for everything from the state of the economy to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and enter a nunnery to repent for his sins.

I don’t care who started it. Other than as a historical footnote useful in examining how we arrived at the point at which we have, it’s completely uninteresting to me. Trying to figure out who shot John is childish. It isn’t working. It isn’t moving the ball forward.

Of the following alternatives:

  1. The Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, President Obama and his surrogates are working well with each other.
  2. The Congressional Democrats and President Obama are vile and obstructionist and there’s nothing the Congressional Republicans can do to work with them.
  3. The Congressional Republicans are vile and obstructionist and there’s nothing the Congressional Democrats or the President can do to work with them.
  4. The Congressional Republicans are obstructionist and the Congressional Democrats and President Obama have done Sweet Fanny Adams to encourage them to do anything else.

which do think most accurately describes the status quo? If you have an alternative that can be expressed succinctly, in twenty-five words or less, propose it. If I like it, I’ll add it to the list.

I think we’re at “D”.

I interpret the Constitution as placing greater onus on the president to cooperate with the Congress than vice versa. If you think something else, please state your case with evidence and citations.

15 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    Twenty-five words or less? Yikes.

    The Democrats tried to replicate what they saw the Republicans do after 9/11, without recognizing that their party is more divided ideologically than the Republicans, who also measure the risks of action versus inaction very differently.

    I think that’s a D variant . . . and I’m not very good at math.

  • Blaming the structure of your own party on the other party is a neat trick if you can make it work. I don’t think the Democrats have been making it work that well but that’s the gist of their answer on why the ARRA was structured as it was, why the PPACA was structured as it was.

  • for which he is duly taken to task by his commentariat for failing to blame the Congressional Republicans for everything from the state of the economy to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby and enter a nunnery to repent for his sins.

    The commentariat at OTB is comprised mainly of people who walk around muttering into their drool cups.

    I’m fine with option D.

    That and I’m now convinced that politics is a non-rational policy…which is why so many of our policies and programs look so far from what a rational policy might look like (e.g., taxing income…so we get less income…brilliant!).

  • Icepick Link

    • The Congressional Democrats and President Obama are vile and the Congressional Republicans are vile and there’s not that much obstructionism.

    There, 20 words, or 21 counting the contraction. My evidence for lack of obstructionism? The sheer amount of federal spending, despite the lack of a budget. It’s just bitching about whose side gets the most spoils.

  • Icepick Link

    As an aside, I think the traditional news media will be the biggest losers from this election. The coverage is so skewed Dem now from most entities that it is making Rather’s forgeries from a few years ago look tame. The people here know I have no great love for Romney, but come on! In the last two weeks the Dems have accused him of wanting to bring back slavery and give everyone’s wife cancer, and he’s to blame for the toxic atmosphere? Please!

  • steve Link

    E. The past 4 years were a continuation of the prior 16 years. The Senate is dysfunctional.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    Ok, 27 words, sorry:

    The nastiness in American partisan politics is proportional to the federal government’s power and budgetary authority, which is a prize to be taken by any means necessary.

    The 100 word version: The two parties are fighting for control of the federal government. As the federal government’s power grows in terms of budgets, regulatory and other authorities, the stakes in that fight rise and so do the incentives to play dirty in order to win. If trends continue and we get to a critical mass (hopefully far in the future, but maybe not) the stakes will be so high that violence will become a normal part of politics. At that point we’ll be like Imperial Rome or any country where armaments are a measure of political influence.

  • jan Link

    27 words:

    E. The president & Senate are pushing a social agenda, demanding more spending and higher taxes. Congressional republican’s antidote is to hold the line, creating an obstructionist appearance.

  • Andy, how about….

    The nastiness in American partisan politics is proportional to the federal government’s power and budgetary authority; a prize to be taken by any means necessary.

    Gets you under the 25 word maximum.

    I like your explanation BTW.

  • Andy Link

    Thanks for the word-smithing Steve!

  • steve Link

    I guess the problem I have with Andy’s summation, is that I dont think the government’s power and budgetary authority have changed. As Dave has noted elsewhere, we had a command economy during WWII. After WWII, the government set prices for basic services like transportation and basic commodities like beer and oil. The powers have always been there.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    Steve,

    In WWII we had a command economy instituted on a temporary basis to support a national mobilization for war. I think that’s a substantially different set of circumstances and goals than normal, steady-state government activity.

    Consider lobbying. Why does it exist and why is it so important to those industries and groups that do it? If the regulatory and budgetary authority of the federal government rises, what do you think will happen to lobbying?

  • Ben Wolf Link

    Parties reflect the mood and thinking of the electorate. Republicans and Democrats have been pushed into dysfunction by voters who hate each other.

    Translation: It’s a country welded together solely by guns and money. We hate each other and social cohesion has become non-existent.

  • Andy Link

    This is a pretty interesting take on the theme:

    If the business of America is business, the business of government programs and their clients is to stay in business. And after a while, as the programs and the clients and their political protectors adapt to nourish and protect each other, government and its universe of groups reach a turning point—or, perhaps more accurately, a point from which there is no turning back. That point has arrived. Government has become what it is and will remain: a large, incoherent, often incomprehensible mass that is solicitous of its clients but impervious to any broad, coherent program of reform. And this evolution cannot be reversed. What you see now in Washington is basically what you will get for a very long time to come, even though many people, in fact probably a majority of people, may both wish and vote for something quite different.

  • Cstanley Link

    A variant of D:
    The Republicans are obstructionist; Obama and the Congressional Democrats have encouraged this obstructionism in order to scapegoat for the failure of their own policies.

    That and what Ben Wolf said, which is why this strategy has proven useful for Obama.

Leave a Comment