Thursday, January 03, 2013
Political Mayhem Thursday: Actual Mayhem!
Comments:
<< Home
I don't think so. It seems to me that this story is much ado about not much--and misses a pretty big story: an historic and dramatic agreement on a $3.4T tax cut.
We have some real problems--and there are some pretty bad signs out there (like bipartisan agreement on a $3.4T tax cut after four years of $1T+ deficits and on the eve of a looming debt crisis that promises tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities).
However, the locker room banter between the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House is not out of step with the traditions of the US Congress, which include beatings, gun fights, vile calumny, and general paralysis in the face of major domestic crises. The exchange probably will not even make a TOP 100 list of similar incidents.
Again, NOT OUR BIG PROBLEM.
We have some real problems--and there are some pretty bad signs out there (like bipartisan agreement on a $3.4T tax cut after four years of $1T+ deficits and on the eve of a looming debt crisis that promises tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities).
However, the locker room banter between the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House is not out of step with the traditions of the US Congress, which include beatings, gun fights, vile calumny, and general paralysis in the face of major domestic crises. The exchange probably will not even make a TOP 100 list of similar incidents.
Again, NOT OUR BIG PROBLEM.
Aha! Now we are on to something.
WF, as we have already established, we agree on the essentials here-- that there does need to be some serious spending cuts along with allowing those tax cuts to sunset.
However, we can't ignore the connection between this kind of political buffoonery (on both sides- Harry Reid pretty much started it, after all) and the failure of Congress to do what they almost all know they should were they to act in the best interests of the nation.
The beatings, gun fights, etc you cite were primarily in the 18th and 19th century. Our best moments of modern government (whichever you choose) in the 20th century were marked by a different kind of discourse than the violence of 200/150 years ago or the screaming matches of today.
Our big problem (or, as you correctly put it OUR BIG PROBLEM) is that Congress and the President can't seem to do what they need to do, which is comprehensively approach a wide array of real fiscal problems that cause the deficit... but one cause of that big problem is the rank animosity and personal hatred between people who need to work this out.
Manners, I've found, often correlate to a number of other positive attributes, one of them being self-restraint.
WF, as we have already established, we agree on the essentials here-- that there does need to be some serious spending cuts along with allowing those tax cuts to sunset.
However, we can't ignore the connection between this kind of political buffoonery (on both sides- Harry Reid pretty much started it, after all) and the failure of Congress to do what they almost all know they should were they to act in the best interests of the nation.
The beatings, gun fights, etc you cite were primarily in the 18th and 19th century. Our best moments of modern government (whichever you choose) in the 20th century were marked by a different kind of discourse than the violence of 200/150 years ago or the screaming matches of today.
Our big problem (or, as you correctly put it OUR BIG PROBLEM) is that Congress and the President can't seem to do what they need to do, which is comprehensively approach a wide array of real fiscal problems that cause the deficit... but one cause of that big problem is the rank animosity and personal hatred between people who need to work this out.
Manners, I've found, often correlate to a number of other positive attributes, one of them being self-restraint.
Harry Reid is a moron. The Democratic Senators want him as leader BECAUSE he is so weak and ineffective. He has no control over his party and can't reach out to Republicans to get things done.
The last GOP Majority Leader, Bill Frist, was equally weak.
Contrast them with effective Majority Leaders of the past 30 some years who had to deal with sharply divided Senates and often Presidents of another party: Howard Baker, Bob Dole, George Mitchell and Trent Lott. None of them ever insulted colleagues on television or had such a bitter, negative attitude. Reid often looks like his underwear is too tight or like he just at something that made him sick. The effective ones usually were positive, focused and not willing to publicly insult their political adversaries.
Boehner has a tough job. The GOP has foresworn earmarks, so he can no longer use political largesse in the way that effective Speakers of the past whipped Members into line. (see Tip O'Neil, Sam Rayburn and the man behind the last GOP Speaker Tom Delay). He has a divided and difficult caucus to manage.
So here he is trying to keep a very difficult bunch together and Reid goes on television and calls him a Dictator? How does that help anything?
You know who was not involved in any stage of the fiscal cliff negotiations? Reid. It was the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who finally got the deal done.
The last GOP Majority Leader, Bill Frist, was equally weak.
Contrast them with effective Majority Leaders of the past 30 some years who had to deal with sharply divided Senates and often Presidents of another party: Howard Baker, Bob Dole, George Mitchell and Trent Lott. None of them ever insulted colleagues on television or had such a bitter, negative attitude. Reid often looks like his underwear is too tight or like he just at something that made him sick. The effective ones usually were positive, focused and not willing to publicly insult their political adversaries.
Boehner has a tough job. The GOP has foresworn earmarks, so he can no longer use political largesse in the way that effective Speakers of the past whipped Members into line. (see Tip O'Neil, Sam Rayburn and the man behind the last GOP Speaker Tom Delay). He has a divided and difficult caucus to manage.
So here he is trying to keep a very difficult bunch together and Reid goes on television and calls him a Dictator? How does that help anything?
You know who was not involved in any stage of the fiscal cliff negotiations? Reid. It was the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who finally got the deal done.
Like I said, Reid started it. Still, IPLG, you probably shouldn't be dropping F-bombs in the hallways of the White House. And it does matter-- the more toxic the atmosphere there, the less seems to get done.
Excellent point about earmarks. They were, perhaps, a relatively small price to pay in order to get things done.
Excellent point about earmarks. They were, perhaps, a relatively small price to pay in order to get things done.
Two Assertions & a Question:
Question:
What are the best moments of modern government of which you speak? That detail may help us shed light on our discussion.
Assertions:
1. I actually agree with you about manners. Ironically, I have been outlining a piece about how the general loss of manners contribute to the violence in our society--in terms of dehumanizing us and facilitating an increasingly disengaged community. "If you please" and "thank you" are metaphors that acknowledge equality and value in others and remind us that we can only exist through the willing cooperation of our fellow humans. In short, those symbols remind us that we are not "entitled" to everything we desire and promotes "consideration" for humanity.
Having said that, the politicos of the c. 19 were extremely mannerly. In fact, there was nothing more mannerly in those days than a good duel.
2. I would say that our real problem behind our BIG PROBLEM, however, is not our lack of manners. The root of the problem remains our disconnection with reality. You are right that the pols basically understand the right thing to do--although ideology on both sides gets in the way sometimes. BUt even more than that, the pols know that we the people, the voters, their constituents, do not really want them to do what they know they need to do. We the people want more free stuff. We want lower taxes and better healthcare. We want lower taxes and more defense systems. We want lower taxes and more infrastructure.
They are not the problem. We are the problem.
Question:
What are the best moments of modern government of which you speak? That detail may help us shed light on our discussion.
Assertions:
1. I actually agree with you about manners. Ironically, I have been outlining a piece about how the general loss of manners contribute to the violence in our society--in terms of dehumanizing us and facilitating an increasingly disengaged community. "If you please" and "thank you" are metaphors that acknowledge equality and value in others and remind us that we can only exist through the willing cooperation of our fellow humans. In short, those symbols remind us that we are not "entitled" to everything we desire and promotes "consideration" for humanity.
Having said that, the politicos of the c. 19 were extremely mannerly. In fact, there was nothing more mannerly in those days than a good duel.
2. I would say that our real problem behind our BIG PROBLEM, however, is not our lack of manners. The root of the problem remains our disconnection with reality. You are right that the pols basically understand the right thing to do--although ideology on both sides gets in the way sometimes. BUt even more than that, the pols know that we the people, the voters, their constituents, do not really want them to do what they know they need to do. We the people want more free stuff. We want lower taxes and better healthcare. We want lower taxes and more defense systems. We want lower taxes and more infrastructure.
They are not the problem. We are the problem.
I also agree with you about the failure of the electorate-- insofar as Americans have very little sense of self-sacrifice outside of (importantly) military service.
Dueling was mannerly in the 19th century... but not now! What Reid and Boehner have done is wrong in the modern context, and reflects a terrible sense of negotiating skills. Moreover, it simply is a breach of ettiquette (using the term "ettiquette" in the most positive sense) to use that kind of insult in a professional setting. I would be utterly appalled if one of my students did that in class or at an internship, for example-- as I'm sure you would be. I would be appalled because it shows that person to be poorly suited and prepared for the job. I think I can hold members of Congress to at least that standard.
So, there is more than one problem... and I am not ready to absolve Congress, either side, for their failures, which is shared with the executive, even as I acknowledge the broader failure of our nation to see the need for real sacrifice.
I'm not a historian (though I know some!), but I do teach advocacy. The things Reid and Boehner and others are doing is simply lousy advocacy.
Dueling was mannerly in the 19th century... but not now! What Reid and Boehner have done is wrong in the modern context, and reflects a terrible sense of negotiating skills. Moreover, it simply is a breach of ettiquette (using the term "ettiquette" in the most positive sense) to use that kind of insult in a professional setting. I would be utterly appalled if one of my students did that in class or at an internship, for example-- as I'm sure you would be. I would be appalled because it shows that person to be poorly suited and prepared for the job. I think I can hold members of Congress to at least that standard.
So, there is more than one problem... and I am not ready to absolve Congress, either side, for their failures, which is shared with the executive, even as I acknowledge the broader failure of our nation to see the need for real sacrifice.
I'm not a historian (though I know some!), but I do teach advocacy. The things Reid and Boehner and others are doing is simply lousy advocacy.
Oh, and on the other thing... some would say the Tip O'Neill/Reagan era, some would point to the Kennedy years or WWII. IPLG is exactly right in remembering people like George Mitchell and Howard Baker...
Mark,
I agree that Boehner, Reid, and the President are bad advocates (although the President is much more successful at persuasion in terms of mass com).
Again, I am with you (100 percent) on the importance of manners, but I think you are miscalculating its importance on this level of intercourse. For example, I can relate numerous instances in which academics very politely slashed and destroyed--all in the most civilized tones.
Lastly, it seems to me that millions of Americans are anxious to blame our politicians for our mess. As I continue to say, respectfully, I am convinced this is an unhealthy cop out.
I agree that Boehner, Reid, and the President are bad advocates (although the President is much more successful at persuasion in terms of mass com).
Again, I am with you (100 percent) on the importance of manners, but I think you are miscalculating its importance on this level of intercourse. For example, I can relate numerous instances in which academics very politely slashed and destroyed--all in the most civilized tones.
Lastly, it seems to me that millions of Americans are anxious to blame our politicians for our mess. As I continue to say, respectfully, I am convinced this is an unhealthy cop out.
WF--
Manners, as I think of them, isn't about tone... and I wouldn't consider those academics to be very polite, either.
There is an intertwining of two things here, and they reinforce one another. The first is that we have political leaders who demagogue too much and negotiate too little. This feeds into our national sense that only the other side should make a sacrifice. I wouldn't say that one is important and the other is unimportant-- I think they are aspects, largely, of the same thing. It's really a feedback loop between ideologues, media, and voters that rarely includes the idea of personal responsibility or sacrifice and builds that up by rudeness towards the other side.
Manners, as I think of them, isn't about tone... and I wouldn't consider those academics to be very polite, either.
There is an intertwining of two things here, and they reinforce one another. The first is that we have political leaders who demagogue too much and negotiate too little. This feeds into our national sense that only the other side should make a sacrifice. I wouldn't say that one is important and the other is unimportant-- I think they are aspects, largely, of the same thing. It's really a feedback loop between ideologues, media, and voters that rarely includes the idea of personal responsibility or sacrifice and builds that up by rudeness towards the other side.
Mark,
The era you offer as an example of cooperation was singular in American history, fairly short lived, and too often mythologized beyond recognition.
However, assuming those Happy Days really were all you suggest, the moment may have been the perfect storm: it was post-WWII, and a moment of basic agreement on foreign policy, a time of incredible economic growth, which meant funding an increasingly Progressive state was not much of a sacrifice, and it was a period just prior to the onus of providing for the health and welfare of the entire citizenry being affixed to the federal government.
Related to the last point, one of our dire current problems is, in effect, the PETER PRINCIPLE: the federal government has ascended to a position of power and authority tragically beyond its competence.
The era you offer as an example of cooperation was singular in American history, fairly short lived, and too often mythologized beyond recognition.
However, assuming those Happy Days really were all you suggest, the moment may have been the perfect storm: it was post-WWII, and a moment of basic agreement on foreign policy, a time of incredible economic growth, which meant funding an increasingly Progressive state was not much of a sacrifice, and it was a period just prior to the onus of providing for the health and welfare of the entire citizenry being affixed to the federal government.
Related to the last point, one of our dire current problems is, in effect, the PETER PRINCIPLE: the federal government has ascended to a position of power and authority tragically beyond its competence.
One your last point, Mark, I agree entirely.
I believe the Democratic Party is beyond solving our BIG PROBLEM for reasons ideological, political, and strategic. And the MSM just exacerbates their problem. Hopeless.
The GOP has the potential to save itself, speak truth to power, and offer real solutions--but it is currently fighting a couple of viruses. I hope the GOP survives the battle.
But your bigger point is spot on.
I believe the Democratic Party is beyond solving our BIG PROBLEM for reasons ideological, political, and strategic. And the MSM just exacerbates their problem. Hopeless.
The GOP has the potential to save itself, speak truth to power, and offer real solutions--but it is currently fighting a couple of viruses. I hope the GOP survives the battle.
But your bigger point is spot on.
I don't think there has ever been a period where "the onus of providing for the health and welfare of the entire citizenry being affixed to the federal government" was more true than in WWII. But, yes, that was a very brief period (luckily), and one of tremendous and unsustainable federal spending. The rest of it, though, was in our lifetime, and in fact constitutes most of our lives to this point, and the current failure is a departure from what we have known. I don't really see a principled reason for this shift away from civility.
Going back to the feedback effect that incivility has with a societal refusal to accept sacrifice, I suspect that some of that may have to do, in fact, with the sad loss to time and age of the generation that did survive the depression and fight WWII... people who knew by hard experience that sacrifice was sometimes called for, and that the fat times are always temporary.
Going back to the feedback effect that incivility has with a societal refusal to accept sacrifice, I suspect that some of that may have to do, in fact, with the sad loss to time and age of the generation that did survive the depression and fight WWII... people who knew by hard experience that sacrifice was sometimes called for, and that the fat times are always temporary.
I am not sure I understand you last point.
My point is that the post-WWII period was a moment in which conditions made sacrifice virtually unnecessary. It was a time of plenty--not deprivation. It is a lot easier for politicians to distribute government largesse than it is to say no.
We are now entering a period in which the money is no longer flowing--and the federal government still seems committed to protecting every American's right to freedom from fear and want. It is a big job. And it is increasingly more difficult to do on a budget.
My point is that the post-WWII period was a moment in which conditions made sacrifice virtually unnecessary. It was a time of plenty--not deprivation. It is a lot easier for politicians to distribute government largesse than it is to say no.
We are now entering a period in which the money is no longer flowing--and the federal government still seems committed to protecting every American's right to freedom from fear and want. It is a big job. And it is increasingly more difficult to do on a budget.
Another black mark on Boehner's record is the refusal to take up the Sandy relief bill before the end of the new Congress. Surely the majority can agree that major disaster relief affecting multiple states is in the purview of the federal government. There is no reason to sit back and wait to appropriate disaster relief funds.
# posted by 
: 11:05 AM
: 11:05 AM
For AMT:
I actually see Sandy as another non-issue, media-driven, ego-driven circus.
The Chances of NJ NOT getting everything they need and more from the Feds is exactly 0 percent.
I actually see Sandy as another non-issue, media-driven, ego-driven circus.
The Chances of NJ NOT getting everything they need and more from the Feds is exactly 0 percent.
WF-
I'm sure they'll get everything they need and probably more now. But it will be delayed, maybe by a couple of weeks, maybe by a month, maybe more than a month. Does that matter in the long run? Probably not. But would it matter to me if it took me that much longer to put my life back together because a bunch of politicians couldn't take the time to vote on a bill they said they were going to vote on? Absolutely it would.
It was an unforced error by Team Boehner. Why give your opposition any ammo you don't have to?
I'm sure they'll get everything they need and probably more now. But it will be delayed, maybe by a couple of weeks, maybe by a month, maybe more than a month. Does that matter in the long run? Probably not. But would it matter to me if it took me that much longer to put my life back together because a bunch of politicians couldn't take the time to vote on a bill they said they were going to vote on? Absolutely it would.
It was an unforced error by Team Boehner. Why give your opposition any ammo you don't have to?
# posted by : 11:24 AM
: 11:24 AM
I certainly see your point AMT in terms of bad PR. BTW, I think this discussion reinforces my bigger point today about how impossible it is take your time and do the right thing in this environment. We want what we want and we want it right now.
WF-
I certainly see your point about taking time to consider the bill. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But if you want to take your time to carefully contemplate whether the bill is the right thing or not, don't promise you're going to hold a vote on it and then break that promise. It causes everyone a whole lot of unnecessary heartburn and gets Chris Christie all worked up.
I certainly see your point about taking time to consider the bill. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But if you want to take your time to carefully contemplate whether the bill is the right thing or not, don't promise you're going to hold a vote on it and then break that promise. It causes everyone a whole lot of unnecessary heartburn and gets Chris Christie all worked up.
# posted by : 11:38 AM
: 11:38 AM
Isn't it more likely that Boehner was just quoting Rahmbo? Of course, Obama brought Chi-town politics to Washington, so a coarsening of language is surely expected. Also, the f-bomb is part and parcel to the Jon Stewart guide to politics, so the f-bomb is no longer the f-word.
And Obama and the Dems got exactly what they wanted...higher taxes and payoffs to key constituents. On to the next cliff...
And Obama and the Dems got exactly what they wanted...higher taxes and payoffs to key constituents. On to the next cliff...
Recap:
1. Although I agree with Mark that rudeness is a real problem on a lot of levels in our society and indicative of other problems like a lack of self restraint, I think the political problem here is the more obvious one: a lack of will on the part of politicians to make hard and unpopular decisions.
2. Kendall makes an intriguing point with which I also agree: the coarsening of our popular culture also contributes to ills in our greater society. Jon Stewart and his f-bombs are a problem, as is the silliness and snark and ironic detachment that comedians like Stewart emit into the public conversation.
However, in fairness to Mark, I don't think he was really offended by the f-word as much as he was the incivility. And, in terms of language, my sources tell me that during the "golden age" of cooperation in the post-WWII era Congress, something of an old boy's club, members often cursed like sailors in private--as many of them were former sailors and other combat vets. So, perhaps it is not the language as much as it is the "animosity" conveyed in the language (as Mark intimated). Nevertheless, I appreciate the very serious coarsening problem as an addition to this important discussion. Thank you, Kendall.
1. Although I agree with Mark that rudeness is a real problem on a lot of levels in our society and indicative of other problems like a lack of self restraint, I think the political problem here is the more obvious one: a lack of will on the part of politicians to make hard and unpopular decisions.
2. Kendall makes an intriguing point with which I also agree: the coarsening of our popular culture also contributes to ills in our greater society. Jon Stewart and his f-bombs are a problem, as is the silliness and snark and ironic detachment that comedians like Stewart emit into the public conversation.
However, in fairness to Mark, I don't think he was really offended by the f-word as much as he was the incivility. And, in terms of language, my sources tell me that during the "golden age" of cooperation in the post-WWII era Congress, something of an old boy's club, members often cursed like sailors in private--as many of them were former sailors and other combat vets. So, perhaps it is not the language as much as it is the "animosity" conveyed in the language (as Mark intimated). Nevertheless, I appreciate the very serious coarsening problem as an addition to this important discussion. Thank you, Kendall.
No one cares about Boehner's F-Bomb... inside or outside the Beltway.
And as anyone who reads the Washington Post should know, no one here in the D.C. area cares about the Fiscal Cliff. It's all Redskins and RGIII
And as anyone who reads the Washington Post should know, no one here in the D.C. area cares about the Fiscal Cliff. It's all Redskins and RGIII
His eminent conservativeness David Brooks had a similar piece yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/brooks-suffering-fools-gladly.html?src=me&ref=general
Though it's hard to fault the Speaker for not suffering gladly the fool Reid.
Really I think disclosure of all the tough talk is an attempt (started by Washington's version of Tarantino--Rahm Emanuel) to look strong for the base. If Boehner had not been in such a weak position with the party, I doubt anybody would have heard about it.
Post a Comment
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/brooks-suffering-fools-gladly.html?src=me&ref=general
Though it's hard to fault the Speaker for not suffering gladly the fool Reid.
Really I think disclosure of all the tough talk is an attempt (started by Washington's version of Tarantino--Rahm Emanuel) to look strong for the base. If Boehner had not been in such a weak position with the party, I doubt anybody would have heard about it.
<< Home
