Osler's Razor

They aren't "more polarized and polarizing", really, than candidates have ever been--they just have as their highest (only?) priority gaining re-election, and in today's media environment, only the most polarizing can get past the first hurdle with their "bases".

The last meaningful compromises I can think of were (a) George H.W. Bush agreeing to a tax increase in 1990 or so (and thereby cooking his goose with his "base") and (b) Bill Clinton agreeing to welfare reform in 1996, and thereby (even though it frustrated Clinton's "base") defusing the Gingrich trap that had been set.

Nothing's been compromised since.
 

Oso--

Isn't it interesting how well those two compromises worked out?

The Bush compromise, in part, led to balanced budgets during the Clinton years-- the closest we have come to deficit reduction.

The Clinton compromise was a positive force in reshaping the way we look at welfare, and a largely successful social experiment.

So, if those are the two great compromises, I say keep them coming!
 

Why you ask, choose more polarized and polarizing people? One, because we as a people seem to be afflicted en masse by short attention span (no wonder the national obsession with Tweeting) thus allowing the republican candidate to point out that an economy that was left in free fall by eight years of GOP administration should have recovered by now in spite of the role of republican controlled state governments that blocked every effort of the current administration to implement the solutions which won them the election in the first place; essentially accusing them for not acting as if the GOP was given a third term. And two, because political polarization in general is closely related to income inequality…in other words money buys power and in particular, when you only have two political parties it becomes that much easier to effectively buy allegiance and blow up any prospect of cooperation if the power agenda is not met.
 

The more combative nature of our elected officials reflects how redistricting has brought more and more hardcore partisans into power and makes the primary election the only time when they run any risk of losing. Since they are elected in statewide elections, the Senators haven't been affected as quickly by this trend. However, once your party has largely purged itself of those who value being able to work with the other side to get things done, senate candidates find themselves with fewer supporters and pretty much HAVE to join on the intractable partisan bandwagon. None of this will start to unwind itself until we fundamentally change how we set up voting districts, and frankly I don't see how that will ever happen in a system where the elected officials who are the product of gerrymandering protectionist redistricting are the ones who control the redistricting process. Maybe everyone should just move randomly every time there's a census...
 

Having read the NYT article several times, I am still a little foggy on what Jonathan Weisman is really asserting. Jim DeMint is trying to make the Senate more like the House? That seems to be what you (Mark) took from the piece. And this is because Jim DeMint is a product of the House?

BTW: being a product of the House is not unusual for Senators; it is one of the main paths of ascension.

Historically, the House and Senate are very very different structurally (by design and by tradition). I am not sure how Jim DeMint proposes to make the Senate more like the House.

A lot of Progressives are currently calling for an end to the filibuster (back when the GOP held a slim majority in the Senate they were calling for an end to the filibuster). I have been for the filibuster both times. But killing the filibuster is one obvious way to make the Senate a little less distinctive and more majoritarian and "efficient."

Also from the NYT article:

"Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the impact of Mr. DeMint’s efforts tended to be overstated." I agree with John McCain.

On the other hand, if the NYT is right and Jim DeMint is the man to see when you come to Atlantic City, the Palmetto State senator has a few wins under his belt as well: [DeMint] "pointed to senators he has backed who are already shifting the ideological poles of the Senate: Marco Rubio of Florida, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah.

That is actually a fairly impressive group, not necessarily all ultra-yayhoos...
 

One other note:

I think you meant to say that the Senate was the less combative but often deadlocked chamber. As you well know, the House is very efficient at passing legislation. It has always been the Senate where bills went to die (by constitutional design).
 

I would like to suggest they all check their various electronic gadgets at the door when they walk into the House or Senate chamber. Then, perhaps. they wouldn't be so distracted by all the instantaneous information that is flowing from their offices and lobbiest.

They might actually have to listen to each other without some 3rd party outsider trying to force their point of view on them. And they might then, in fact, carry on a conversation with someone who has a different opinion on any number of topics.
 

The Senate is deadlocked because of the 60 vote requirement. I heard someone say yesterday (perhaps on Morning Joe or NPR) that perhaps if Senators were required to be in chambers during a filabuster things might start moving along.
 

Professor, may I point out that nowadays "compromise" is synonymous to treason. Also can I ask who’s in charge with asking these people to care explaining why they won’t govern…because by some cosmic momentum they get elected and re-elected regardless.
 

to be clear, Demint doesn't think his GOP colleagues are conservative enough, so when a seat becomes open he tries to get it filled with someone he is aligned with ideologically...and this is a bad thing? Forgetting for a moment that the author makes a tremendous leap in logic between that effort and the author's claim that Demint is actively attempting to foster disharmony in the Senate, what is so bad about him supporting people he agrees with?

Basically, this article says, "Demint is trying to get more conservatives elected to the Senate -> conservatives are unwilling to compromise and are always starting trouble (it doesn't say that, but that is the implication) -> Demint is trying to turn the Senate into Thunderdome."

I'm not buying it.
 

If Congress was more like the Thunderdome, it would be like having term limits, right? Short ones?
 

I could offer something to ponder about Jim DeMint and his efforts. If he is off promoting candidates (who are more ideologically aligned with his brand of conservatism) across the country then he isn't spending enough time working for the people who elected him in S.C. The interest of those in SC are not necessarily the same as someone in Iowa or S. Dakota or New Hampshire.

Different states, different people, different economy's and different priorities.
 

40%.
 

We are a nation of "rugged individualists" who expect as our birthright to have everything our way, right away, everyday. This leads to all sorts of solipsism evidenced throughout our culture with regard to how we order our lives, relationships, and families to how and when we purchase products to how we vote to where and if we worship, et al.

One of the fascinating realities as far as I see it is as our political and religious voices go farther to the right and left respectively, the growth of independents in the realm of politics and the number of nones (that is persons claiming no religious affiliation whatsoever) is growing at a staggering rate.

I think, no pun Cartesian or otherwise intended, that more and more people are opting not to participate in the body politic, civil or religious at all.

Scott Davis

PS My other thought is that "the extremes" we are now seeing is the natural outgrowth of a hyper individualist culture, with no room for genuine community because community is laborious, messy, and truly imperfect. Maybe what we have is the natural end of an iconoclastic culture.