Democrats Move Forward, Bush Remains in the Quagmire

I suspect there are many Americans who will greatly benefit from that minimum wage increase, assuming the Senate passes it.

This is simply the first month of their session. Already they have promised to work harder than the previous session (where Republicans only held session in the House 72 days), have already passed the first minimum wage increase in 10 years and the long overdue 9/11 commission (a bipartisan recommendation) recommendations, AND, as I made clear, brought in the moderate Republicans to their side, restoring bipartisanship for the first time in awhile...

Yeah...I think that is a fucking good start and I for one am going to encourage it.

And if Edwards is going to go on record opposing this stupid surge, then I am going to encourage THAT as well. As, I suspect, would most of the world which hates Bush's policies in Iraq.

So I am not really sure why you are eager to discourage these changes.

Bipartisanship only works if both sides do the "bi" part. Furthermore, it is not always appropriate. I do not advotate bipartisanship when the opposing force happens to be, for example, the Nazi party.

We have seen a concerted effort by the right wing, initially from a fringe group of the Republican party, to destroy all bipartisanship. Democrats have, in general, favored bipartisanship where possible...and often have been called sell outs when they have. There is some truth that in compromising with Gingrich, Clinton sold out somewhat and that in compromising with Bush, Congressional Democrats sold out a little. But that was Democrats holding up their end of bipartisanship.

They got nothing in return. The Republicans dominated by what was once their right-wing fringe has even refused to cooperate with the moderates within their own party. They barely even tolerated dissent WITHIN their party.

In that atmosphere of increasing intolerance and oppression, there was little room for bipartisanship. Democrats won big this last year because they told the American people that they did NOT want to work with what Bush was offering but wanted to give an alternative. They wanted to restore some balance to the pretty disgusting crap that Bush and the fringe-dominated Republicans have been heaping on America.

They made a promise to the voters to offer that sharp alternative to Bush's policies. Compromise with Bush was NOT what the voters voted for.

Within the first month of taking office, not only do we see Democrats fulfilling their pomises to the voters, something they deserve full credit for, but for the first time since Bush took office you see some moderate Republicans feeling they have the freedom to break ranks. By establishing the opposition position to Bush, rather than giving in to his threats and the BS of the right wing spin machine, Democrats allowed a moderate bipartisanship to emerge within DAYS of taking control of Congress.

I consider that amazing.

And I have to say that one thing I find disturbing is the continued accusation that somehow Democrats are as much to blame for things as Republicans. Democrats are far from perfect, but in my mind there are stark differences in policy, strategies and tactics that all make Democrats on average far more palatable. You have seen me criticize Democrats when they go wrong. But I will not, in the name of some kind of bipartisanship, claim that Democrats are in any way "just as bad" or just as much to blame for what is going on. There IS a difference between the parties and I personally side with the party that favors minimum wage increases rather than the one that favors tax breaks for the wealthy, the party that favors fighting people who actually attack you rather than the party that is picking fights with every Muslim nation on earth except Saudi Arabia, the party that favors alternatives to oil and coal over the party that favors nothing but oil, oil and more oil, etc. And when that party that I favor does what it promises to do, yeah I'm going to offer praise.

I have a couple of problems with what you say...

First, what in practical terms do you suggest? Our nation has been a two party system from the start with almost no major influence from third+ parties. Why? Two reasons, I think. One is the winner-takes-all system rather than proportional representation. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change that and it is hard for me to see that having much of a chance of flying. Second, our nation has at the core of its political thinking two inherent, related dichotomies: states-rights vs. Federalism and loose vs. strict interpretation of the Constitution. In general you get these two dichotomies defining in some way the two parties. These two dichotomies were left in place by those who established our system of government I think partly intentionally because the balance between the extremes of these dichotomies works better than either in isolation, and because they themselves were so split over them that they couldn't resolve them but could only compromise. I may not like the 2-party system per se, but I do think this odd balance between ends of two dichotomies works better than dominance of any extreme...and, arguably, some of America's worst moments come when on extreme dominates. Interestingly, ancient Greek political thinking also saw the balance of two extreme systems ideal, and often they two saw ongoing infighting between two factions.

So our system is a balanced system that tends to split into two camps, and this reinforces the basic structure of the system that favors a party in presidential power and one opposition party. I have heard no real workable suggestions that seem likely to change this with the possible exception of instant runoff voting that might in rare cases give a better chance to a minor party.

Which leads to my second objection to your portrayal of our system, though this is a more fuzzy one. Given that we are by inclination and bu structure a 2-party system with little chance of majorly changing that, I think it is extremely important to recognize that one of those two parties is far more of a coalition of interests than the other. The modern Republican party tends to be narrowly focused, representing a more narrow slice of America. That means overall there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, but Republicans are far more loyal to their party and far more consistent voters. The modern Democratic Party (and to some degree the entire history of the Democratic Party, more or less) has always been more a loose coalition representing farmers, labor, etc. Hence the famous Mark Twain quote, which most Democrats today can sympathize with. And hence the more recent view that the Democrats have primarily become a coalition of the competing interests of blacks, Jews and Catholics. That of course is a gross oversimplification, but for some time, and to some degree even today, those three very different and competing interests are the most loyal Democratic voters.

And I guess a final objection I have to what you are saying amounts to asking just what about human nature suggests to you that partisanship is anything but how human nature works. In all of history I can't really name any major culture that either wasn't rife with partisanship or was oppressively dominated by one side of a previous partisan battle. The best I see happening over the entire expanse of human history is a system that by and large channels the human reflex to define the world as "us" vs. "them" into the most constructive and least destructive pathways. And which best allows cooperation and power sharing between the us and them sides.

So, given our two party system, which I don't see changing any time soon, and given what seems to be inhernent in human nature, we are lucky to have one party that already represents a vague and shifting consensus of competing opinions because it represents a larger slice of American voters and is more open to pretty much anyone. I kind of LIKE being a part of the party that at the same time included both Zell Miller (yuck!) and Barney Frank among its members. Now I really don't regret that Miller is gone. But I am willing to accept Lieberman in the same party I accept Barney Frank.

We could all grow old and accomplish nothing if we wait for our system to change and become something other than a fiercely contested, two party system. For my part I am not willing to wait. So instead I pick the party that comes closest to my ideals and work with them. More often than not, I am proud to call myself a Democrat because I genuinely LIKE what most Democrats represent most of the time, though I think the inherently vague and shifting consensus that is the Democratic party makes it slightly less reliable than I would like in regards to my personal political preferences. And I don't really feel any need to apologize for my being proud to be a Democrat.

This is the system we have and which I am willing to work within because that is how I see things getting done. Right now things ARE getting done after years of mismanagement by a more narrow political establishment. And I feel good about that.

Those football coaches don't make mistakes that lead to thousands of deaths and the erosion of civil rights for millions of people.

This all matters a lot to me not because I care if someone I backs wins. In fact, in primaries I seldom pick the winner. Big deal.

It matters to me because lives are on the line. It also matters to me because climate-related choices we make or fail to make will affect the quality of my son's life. It matters because the integrity of our elections, and with it the integrity of our democracy, is at stake. Our most basic freedoms are at stake.

You can't really say that about the sports analogy.

Because it means that much to me I spent a great deal of time, money and effort helping people I considered to be particularly smart, caring and reasonable to win against people who came off particularly nasty, greedy and corrupt. In cases where I saw someone on "my side" acting in particularly nasty, greedy and corrupt manner, I focused my attention to oppose that person as well. In a few cases I chose not to take a stand because no candidate was very good. When I see people advocating destruction of civil rights or policies that lead to illegal wars based on lies, I consider opposition to them extremely important and I have no intention of keeping my comments regarding such a person polite.

So did I...you just don't seem to be willing to credit me with that ;-)

I credit you (more than you know!) mole, seriously. And you personally are not much of a vitriol smearer anyway, must be the scientist in you? -- compared to what I get so sick of all around me from all directions. I was just tugging on your cape a bit here where it is worth the trouble to engage in real conversation.

No capes here! A meanacing axe, maybe...

And I do smear occasional vitriol...isn't that supposed to be good for clearing up congestion or something? :-)

That clears the sinuses right up. . .

About that menacing axe, I always liked the photo because I figured it was from the Society for Creative Anachronism or something similar. You do look very period, maybe ready to not tell a lie about a cherry tree, perhaps?

It was for a wedding. No one seems to believe that. But it was for a wedding.

After all...I was entrusted with one of the rings. I had to defend it!

. . .a proclivity for period costumes is a sign of high intelligence and sensitivity plus the accompanying desire (if not always the ability) to SING! Story songs, story clothes, you know how it goes . . .Unschooling Young Son at the age of 11 still has no real clothes, only costumes. And musical theatre is pretty much what we live for around here . . .

I'm trapped in a tiny box here!

(And that said, your kid has no real clothes? Seriously? That's pretty, um, intense)

Not for my lack of offering and nudging but yeah - his wardrobe is all baseball, Star Wars, pirates, etc and dance stuff of course -- he had to go to his first memorial service last Sunday, and he happily wore his older sister's old tux shirt from when she played violin in a youth orchestra, and his jazz black pants and shoes with his black dance company jacket.