I was mildly bummed Tuesday evening when it became apparent the Republicans were going to regain control of the Senate. It wasn't just that they won; it was also how they won. They won almost every close race, despite not really running on anything other than "Obama = Bad". (To be fair this was more or less the Democratic position back in 2004. I remember seeing many a "Anybody but Bust" bumper sticker.) As Paul Krugman put it in yesterday's column:
What we really need is a viable third, and even fourth, party in this country to break this one-on-one, your-loss-is-my-gain dynamic. But whenever somebody tries this (Perot, Nader) they get accused of spoiling the election and being a traitor and going on an ego trip and all sorts of other nonsense. The only way I could see a third party becoming a force is if a superrich person, like a Bill Gates, decides to make it his* life's goal and is willing to spend a substantial portion of his fortune on it. What would be even better is if he engineered two new parties, one on the conservative side and one on the liberal side. Actually, the time is probably right for this, people are mostly fed up with Congress. But I think there just aren't any superrich people that want to do it, which is understandable. I wouldn't want to do it. But I would (and do) want somebody else to do it.
Anyway, you might have noticed in my opening sentence that I said "mildly bummed", not "totally bummed". I was only mildly bummed for a few reasons. For one, part of me thinks, well, if this is the government we want, then this is the government we get, and then when things suck I'll get to say, "told you so." (But this is not very satisfying because I have to live under the dysfunctional government we're electing, and also because no matter what happens, no matter how much objective evidence there is, conservatives never admit they are wrong. The Capitol could be underwater, and they would still insist global warming isn't real and that the free market will surely lower the ocean level if we'd only cut taxes on the rich and repeal Obamacare.)
For two, the Democrats are no great prize themselves. Yes, they are much better than the crazy-and-becoming-crazier Republicans -- but other than that, what can you say about them? They don't really champion a progressive agenda. They're fair-weather progressives. When the country is high on hope and change, they're right there riding that wave; when things get a little choppy (as they always do), it's "Obama who? ACA what?" Two big examples of this (as pointed out by Bill Maher on Real Time) are Alison Grimes, who bizarrely wouldn't even admit she voted for Obama, and Clay Aiken who also distanced himself from Obama and wouldn't even speak in favor of gay marriage when given the opportunity. With friends like these ... Now, the obvious retort is they are in red states, and if they act too liberally they will lose votes. And the (perhaps) not as obvious counter-retort is they are likely going to lose no matter what they do. Is a 54-46 loss any better than a 59-41 loss? If you're the underdog, act like the underdog and try a David strategy. Or as Jim Carrey once said, "You can fail at what you don't want, so you might as well take a chance on doing what you love." Of course, this assumes Democrats love liberalism -- no safe bet.
The last and biggest reason I wasn't totally bummed by Tuesday's results is that other than the Senate (no small thing, of course) the progressive agenda did remarkably well. Here in DC, I-71 passed, legalizing possession and growth (but not sale) of marijuana, which is a step in the right direction in mitigating the deleterious, and often racist, effects of the awful "war on drugs". Minimum wage is set to go up in several states. Anti-abortion measures failed in two states (but passed in one). And in the great state of Washington, a strict (by US standards) gun control measure passed, while an anti-gun control bill failed.
It doesn't really make sense that all these things would pass -- many in red states -- and the GOP would also win back control of the Senate. At least, it doesn't make sense until you remember that most people don't vote on the actual issues, and in fact don't even understand the actual issues (which is why, say, Kentuckians like KyNect and hate Obamacare), and then it makes perfect sense.
Well, that's all I have time for today. I'll leave with a YouTube clip of the original Tacoma-Narrows Bridge (aka "Galloping Gertie") breaking apart and plunging into the sea (set to some eerily tranquil new age-y music), as yesterday marked the 74th anniversary of this event. Given the news of this week, it seems like an appropriate way to go out.
Until next time ...
*No, I'm not being sexist by assuming this superrich person is a man. I just don't want to write his or her a bunch of times. And even if I did that, what about the people who don't comply with your gender binary norms? Did you ever think about that? Also, there is the undeniable, if uncomfortable fact that the superrich are almost all men, so my hypothetical billionaire probably is a man, anyway.
But the biggest secret of the Republican triumph surely lies in the discovery that obstructionism bordering on sabotage is a winning political strategy.Indeed, when you have a two-party system, voting becomes a one-on-one, zero-sum game: any loss for you is a gain for your opponent and vice versa. Further, voters tend to hold the president -- the highest ranking official -- more responsible for the state of the union than they do congress. The Reps did the math on this and realized that "tanking the country" (for lack of a better term) is a good move politically for them. And they are ideologically ruthless enough actually carry out. Sure, it makes them look bad, and the public disapproves overall, but they disapprove of Obama (and by proxy the Democrats) more, which is ultimately a net gain for them. Conversely, if they actually did their jobs and passed bipartisan legislation, overall approval ratings would surely go up, but vis-a-vis the president Republican ratings would go down. GOP leaders, in moments of candor, have openly stated that they didn't want to be bipartisan because bipartisanship makes the president look good. Occasionally this strategy backfires (remember last year's government shutdown?) but Tuesday's results emphatically demonstrated that, for the most part, it can work.
What we really need is a viable third, and even fourth, party in this country to break this one-on-one, your-loss-is-my-gain dynamic. But whenever somebody tries this (Perot, Nader) they get accused of spoiling the election and being a traitor and going on an ego trip and all sorts of other nonsense. The only way I could see a third party becoming a force is if a superrich person, like a Bill Gates, decides to make it his* life's goal and is willing to spend a substantial portion of his fortune on it. What would be even better is if he engineered two new parties, one on the conservative side and one on the liberal side. Actually, the time is probably right for this, people are mostly fed up with Congress. But I think there just aren't any superrich people that want to do it, which is understandable. I wouldn't want to do it. But I would (and do) want somebody else to do it.
Anyway, you might have noticed in my opening sentence that I said "mildly bummed", not "totally bummed". I was only mildly bummed for a few reasons. For one, part of me thinks, well, if this is the government we want, then this is the government we get, and then when things suck I'll get to say, "told you so." (But this is not very satisfying because I have to live under the dysfunctional government we're electing, and also because no matter what happens, no matter how much objective evidence there is, conservatives never admit they are wrong. The Capitol could be underwater, and they would still insist global warming isn't real and that the free market will surely lower the ocean level if we'd only cut taxes on the rich and repeal Obamacare.)
For two, the Democrats are no great prize themselves. Yes, they are much better than the crazy-and-becoming-crazier Republicans -- but other than that, what can you say about them? They don't really champion a progressive agenda. They're fair-weather progressives. When the country is high on hope and change, they're right there riding that wave; when things get a little choppy (as they always do), it's "Obama who? ACA what?" Two big examples of this (as pointed out by Bill Maher on Real Time) are Alison Grimes, who bizarrely wouldn't even admit she voted for Obama, and Clay Aiken who also distanced himself from Obama and wouldn't even speak in favor of gay marriage when given the opportunity. With friends like these ... Now, the obvious retort is they are in red states, and if they act too liberally they will lose votes. And the (perhaps) not as obvious counter-retort is they are likely going to lose no matter what they do. Is a 54-46 loss any better than a 59-41 loss? If you're the underdog, act like the underdog and try a David strategy. Or as Jim Carrey once said, "You can fail at what you don't want, so you might as well take a chance on doing what you love." Of course, this assumes Democrats love liberalism -- no safe bet.
[This is what came up when I Googled "David and Goliath"]
The last and biggest reason I wasn't totally bummed by Tuesday's results is that other than the Senate (no small thing, of course) the progressive agenda did remarkably well. Here in DC, I-71 passed, legalizing possession and growth (but not sale) of marijuana, which is a step in the right direction in mitigating the deleterious, and often racist, effects of the awful "war on drugs". Minimum wage is set to go up in several states. Anti-abortion measures failed in two states (but passed in one). And in the great state of Washington, a strict (by US standards) gun control measure passed, while an anti-gun control bill failed.
It doesn't really make sense that all these things would pass -- many in red states -- and the GOP would also win back control of the Senate. At least, it doesn't make sense until you remember that most people don't vote on the actual issues, and in fact don't even understand the actual issues (which is why, say, Kentuckians like KyNect and hate Obamacare), and then it makes perfect sense.
Well, that's all I have time for today. I'll leave with a YouTube clip of the original Tacoma-Narrows Bridge (aka "Galloping Gertie") breaking apart and plunging into the sea (set to some eerily tranquil new age-y music), as yesterday marked the 74th anniversary of this event. Given the news of this week, it seems like an appropriate way to go out.
Until next time ...
*No, I'm not being sexist by assuming this superrich person is a man. I just don't want to write his or her a bunch of times. And even if I did that, what about the people who don't comply with your gender binary norms? Did you ever think about that? Also, there is the undeniable, if uncomfortable fact that the superrich are almost all men, so my hypothetical billionaire probably is a man, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment