Who could have known?

Saturday, January 05, 2008


Make It So

by digby

Eugene Robinson goes out among the natives and brings back some important data:

"In Washington, it is conventionally wise to think of government gridlock as basically a good thing, even something that most Americans approve of. To have a president from one party and a Congress controlled -- or at least reined in -- by the other, we tell ourselves, prevents too-abrupt shifts in policy. Gridlock is supposed to force bipartisan consensus, which is held as a kind of Holy Grail, the only way to tackle the nation's biggest problems.

But tell that to Iowans -- or residents of most states, for that matter -- who either don't have health insurance or can't get insurance companies to pay their medical bills. Tell it to Arizonans who have pressed their state government to implement its own immigration policy -- shouldering what is clearly a federal responsibility -- because Washington can't get its act together. Tell it to military families, some in favor of the war in Iraq and some against, whose lives have been turned upside down by extended deployments with no end in sight.

There aren't many people in Washington (the state of mind) who spend sleepless nights worrying about sons, daughters or other loved ones serving in Iraq. Even though there are suburbs within 20 miles of the Capitol where illegal immigration is a passionate, hot-button issue, most in Washington think of the problem in academic terms. And just about everyone in state-of-mind Washington has top-notch health insurance; members of Congress enjoy a comprehensive plan that one might be tempted to call "socialized medicine," since a large portion of the costs are borne by taxpayers.

We in Washington are increasingly isolated from the people in whose interest we claim to labor. The economic gap between us and most of the country is widening to a chasm. In most American cities, a $600,000 house in a leafy neighborhood would be considered an extravagance reserved for the wealthy. Here, we'd call it a bargain.

The word "change" had great resonance in the Iowa campaign. In part, the yearning for change arose because George W. Bush has led the nation down so many dead-end paths. But from the conversations I had with Iowans, it seemed clear to me that change is also shorthand for the disconnect between the Washington state of mind and the widespread expectation, hardly unreasonable, that this city ought to actually get something done every once in a while.

Whether it gets done after a bare-knuckle brawl or a chorus of "Kumbaya" really doesn't matter."


That's exactly right, I think. The story isn't that people want peace at all costs. They want results.

Here's Candy Crowley from a couple of days ago in Iowa:

"BLITZER: What do you think, Candy? Do you think Michael Bloomberg is really serious about doing this?

Steve Forbes -- you heard him in that piece. He says he has no doubt that Michael Bloomberg -- when the dust settles from the caucuses and the primaries -- will throw his hat into the ring as a third party, Independent candidate.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Steve Forbes may talk to Michael Bloomberg a good deal more than I do. It's hard to see where his niche is. I know that everyone says that everybody wants a more bipartisan spirit in Washington. But I'll tell you what, if you get out here with these Republicans and, in fact, the Independents and the Democrats, what they're looking for, in fact, is their ideas to be pushed forward.

You know, the first thing that comes out of their mouth is not I really wish everybody would get along. It's I want this war stopped, I want the economy to be better, we need better jobs. So I'm just not sure what kind of constituency is out there"


When people say they want change it's not because they are tired of "partisan bickering" (which basically consists of derisive Republican laughter.) They're sick of a government that does exactly the opposite of what they want it to do. And they aren't picky about how it gets done. If it can be done with gentle persuasion, that's great. But if it takes a fight, they're all right with that too.

This is the central difference between the beltway CW as expressed by the Bloomer party and the village gasbags. The elders believe that nothing can get done without "moving to the middle" which currently means, even in the best interpretation, somewhere between the center right and the far right. And even that is incredibly optimistic. The truth is that Republicans out of power believe in total obstruction. They are perfectly happy to block all progressive legislation because they know they will suffer no consequences for it from the mild mannered Democrats and the bipartisan zombies...

I've seen nothing in recent years that leads me to believe it's gotten any less daunting. If anything, the Republicans' time in the majority made them more adept at both constitutional destruction and parliamentary obstruction. (For sheer audacity, check out this from Kagro X, keeping in mind that this gambit was first used by Reagan and failed. It's not going to fail this time. They learn...)

The LieberBloomer party insists that the only way to get anything done is to reach across the aisle. Back in the day, when the two parties were regionally and ideologically diverse, (and the conservative movement wasn't completely insane) that was certainly true. But it hasn't been that way for a long time now. The new political terrain is to either rule like Republicans, which requires a servile press and mountains of money to spin your undemocratic, plutocratic, imperialism as "boldness", "strength" and "resolve" (which will never be said of Democrats) or you get a specific, detailed mandate from the people and then gather enough legitimate democratic power to enact it.

I get a lot of people saying I'm fighting old wars. And that may be true. I would love nothing more than to see the conservative, martial, exclusionary, robber baron faction in American politics (which is now the Republican party) tamed. But they have always been around in one incarnation or another and with the post civil war realignment finally completed, it seems unlikely to me that they will be even more open to compromise than they used to be. The country is back to its original equilibrium --- which was always politically at odds.

That's America. We've been fighting from the beginning. The good news is that the progressives may be coming back into dominance, which means it's possible for Democrats to actually enact progressive legislation rather than simply stop the bleeding --- if they're willing to take the heat. I think the American people will be with them if the politicians listen to what it is they really want, lay out a program to make it so and then pass their agenda even as the villagers shriek and howl about "partisanship."

Or, on the other hand, the Democrats could follow David Broder's advice and get punk'd. Again.