November 04, 2004
Responsibility
Now that Bush has won reelection, Republicans have secured general legislative control for an additional two years, and knowing Congressional turnover probably four unless they screw up horribly.
Republicans, you need to learn a lesson that every ruling party must keep in mind if they want to avoid becoming an ossified wreck. You did not come to power for its own sake, nor ought your main job be to continue that power. You came to power to do things, and now that Republicans have been the majority party in the federal government for some time, you have a responsibility for how governmental processes turn out. I'm not going to tackle each of these areas comprehensively, but they are areas which need to see significant progress if Republican voters are going to bother keeping you in power.
1. Military Spending. We do need advanced weapons, but most importantly we need advanced soldiers. Despite scare tactics from the left, we could easily build up to Cold War levels without even considering the draft. We probably don't need to go more than half way there. But that requires authorization, which is to say money. Defence of the country is one of the federal government's prime responsibilities. Treat it that way.
2. Social Security. We need to take substantive steps to get that spending under control. The sooner we do it, the better. I favor means-testing, because I think having the large majority of the payments going to the rich and middle class is stupid for a system which is defended as a safety-net. But that terminology has become poisoned, so you will probably have to call it something else.
3. Free Trade. It has excellent pay-offs, but you can't make lots of little exceptions because they tend to swallow the rule. Stick to it.
4. Education. Its good for the country and in a somewhat surprising alignment, one of the issues that makes it look like you care.
5. Abortion. Most of the US is not NARAL. If you pass fair late-term laws which allow for verifiable medical exceptions, the electorate is not going to punish for it. If you go crazy, well they probably will punish you. But most people really aren't comfortable with late term abortions. Roe theoretically says that they can be banned in certain ways. You can act in that zone.
6. Tax simplification.
7. The deficit. We can grow our way out of some of it, but not all of it. Programs are going to have to be cut, or taxes raised. You make the call, you are responsible for it. I suggest you find ways to trim the budget. I also suggest that farm subsidies are the first to go. Best do it soon though, I don't want to hear whining about the 2006 elections yet.
You can dodge responsibility and maybe even fool people about it. But it isn't good for the country. So do your jobs.
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at November 4, 2004 10:46 AMSebastian,
Nice post. I have to say that it’s easy to forget that the republican party has some people who really do get it.
Today, we have an awesome opportunity with a country would seem to support the party.
Focus, and don’t let those guys on the otherside of the aisle feel like you’re giving them the shaft… Because you know if they can feel that way, that could be good practice for interacting with the rest of the world.
Zorkerman
Posted by: Zorkerman at November 4, 2004 11:10 AMsebastian, while i think that you and i would disagree a bit on the particulars of the topics you mention above (for example, we don’t need missle defence systems), i do agree with your larger sentiment. the republicans hold the keys to the city on the hill, and it will be their responsibility to welcome everyone in, or to burn the house down with divisive politics. we need honesty about iraq, we need honesty about social security and we need tolerance more than anything else about personal choices and reproductive rights. i’ll be watching to see what happens to the city.
Posted by: cali_ at November 4, 2004 01:18 PMSebastian:
Well written and well thought out.
Republicans have the burden of using their power well, and not abusing it. This does not mean giving in on ideals and principles, but it does mean working hard (or as SNL would say—haaaaaaarrrdd) to work in a bipartisan manner.
Democrats have a responsibility also. Theirs is to not simply undermine Republican attempts to get things done. Theirs is to hold true to their principles, while recognizing they are in the minority, both politically in the House and Senate, but also in the popular vote of the country.
I hope both sides will do what is best for the country, rather than simply what may be best for their party or their own interests.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 4, 2004 04:18 PMsebastian
i too think that your comments are tempered and dramatically different than what i think will really be pushed during the next foour years. i am surprised that republicans (by the way i voted dem) are not going all out to get rid of abortion, this is an excellent opportunity, however, i think that attempting to do so will cost you the congress. as a dem i am asking my party to allow the rep to pass whatever they want, the country needs to be taught the lesson that elections have consequences and to look past the surface of individual rederick to avoid groupthink. if this happens the country will see the true right and what their(your) agenda really is, i pray that i am wrong, but i don’t think you’re going to be happy with the next four years. what i would request of all, rep and dem is to look at the next 2 and 4 years and hold you elected official accountable. rep if your leaders are taking the country into larger defecits and we are still fighting wars all over the world, bills are still not funded and the gap between rich and poor increases, please don’t elect the same type of politician just because he has a “R” behind his name, it does the country no good to have morales and everyone is living in a cardboard box.
I’d argue the Republicans have a nearly blank check do to as they please for the next few years. It’s not because they have a mandate- that’s silly, based on the closeness of the popular & electoral vote- but it is a practical fact, based on possession of the Executive branch, a comfortable majority in the Legislative branch, and a convervative/moderate majority in the Judicial branch; and the Supreme Court is likely to become even more conservative shortly. Short of a congressional filibuster, democrats and, yes, bleeding heart liberals like myself are effectively irrelevant.
Will the Republicans act responsibly? I’ve just watched the country re-elect a President who suffered 9/11 on his watch, a recession, two wars, and a jaw-dropping deficit. I’ve watched Bush win the election despite lying to the public to convince it to go to war in Iraq. Amazing. But there it is. Amazing or no, in terms of our government we’re in the hands of the neo-cons, the rural population, and the fundamentalists. The election is over, it’s a done deal.
The next comment falls more into the category of idle musing…
Has Osama bin Laden accomplished more than we realized? He has unquestionably radicalized fundamentalist Islam. Has the US reacted by becoming increasing fundamentalist and radicalized as well? Or, to put it in terms of Thomas Barnett, having seen the Islamic countries of the Gap metaphorically hang up on the US, are we in turn disconnecting from them, and from the rest of the international community? Has the polarization we see in American politics also occurred on an international scale?
sebastian
i too think that your comments are tempered and dramatically different than i think what will really think will be pushed during the next foour years. i am surprised that republicans (by the way i voted dem) are not going all out to get rid of abortion, this is an excellent opportunity, however, i think that attempting to do so will cost you the congress. as a dem i am asking my party to allow the rep to pass whatever they want, the country needs to taught the lesson that elections have consequences and to look past the surface of individual rederick to avoid groupthink. if this happen the country will see the true right and what their(your) agenda really is, i pray that i am wrong, but i don’t think you’re going to be happy with the next four years. what i would request of all rep and dem is to look at the next 2 and 4 years and hold you elected official accountable. rep if your leaders are taking the country into larger defecits and we are still fighting wars all over the country, bills are still not funded and the gap between rich and poor increases, please don’t elect the same type of politician just because he has a “R” behind his name, it does the country no good to have morales and everyone is living in a cardboard box.
Some of the posts imply that conservatives are going to establish a kind of fascism in America. Fascism, you will recall, depended on big government, loved centralized regulations, was predicated on fighting for the rights of the oppressed masses against greedy oppressors and counted no businessmen among its top leaders. Among the achievements of German fascism were government full employment programs and the establishment of a couple very large nature parks (In true earth first fashion, people were driven out to make room). Beyond that, the big boss was a vegetarian former artist, who disliked the free market with a passion and disparaged traditional religious beliefs.
Sebastian, if the Republican party follows your advice, there is no doubt in my mind they could hold the reins of power for decades, and rightly so. I am not optimistic. But, I would also be one of the first to tout such Republican successes as beneficial to the nation. I hope Republicans in office are capable of seeing the wisdom of such a course, not for the sake of retaining power but for the sake of representing an overwhelming majority of American’s interests. That afterall, is what democracy demands of them. That is precisely how power is retained in a democracy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2004 03:06 AMNice post Sebastian. Though I disagree on some of the particulars, there’s obviously room for compromise. Unfortunately, Republicans haven’t been in a very compromising mood for… Oh, about the last twelve years.
From President Bush’s victory speech, it’s clear that Republican legislators will continue to treat their Democratic collegues as an obstruction to their agenda, rather than as representatives of slightly less than half the country.
Nice post, though.
Coalition forces in Iraq reportedly killed 3 children yesterday by stray bombing, and seriously injured others. While in the NJ, an Air force Guardsman mistakenly shot up an elementary school over 3 miles off his target range. Two questions:
Where’s the morality, and, where’s the accuracy?
Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2004 08:56 AMIt is true: This is a perfect opportunity for Republicans (or neocons, anyway) to prove that their ideas will work. As Bush enters his second term it will be increasingly harder to blame anything on Clinton and Bush will have to himself hew to the concept of “personal responsibility” so valued by the party.
I hope that they succeed. If they do I will have to give serious consideration to becoming a Republican.
Posted by: Alejo at November 5, 2004 10:17 AM“Unfortunately, Republicans haven’t been in a very compromising mood for… Oh, about the last twelve years.”
Compromise requires both parties to engage in it. Most of my list would have been strongly resisted by any major Democratic party force in Congress.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at November 5, 2004 11:35 AMI hope that both sides can work together for the good of the country, I can see many things that “should” be bipartisan, like tort reform,education, and a energy policy.
I’m not sure that will happen untill the Dem.’s back away from the far left fringe(moore/soros) wing of the party.
No political party can run to the far left or right and say meet us half way, and expect to win.
I would also say that the liberal judge in Mass. that demanded gay marriage, did more damage to the Dem. party than Carl Rove ever could have.
Not only does the nation reject that, a whole bunch of Democrats do as well(look at Oregon).
The worst of that for Dem’s, It will be long lasting, voters now know that, very liberal judges may overule the will of the people on both sides.
Good luck ever getting another one on a federal bench.
I’m not gay bashing or Dem. bashing, I’m not passing any judgement on anyones views, everyone should embrace every view,vote for people of a like mind, but when either side gets to far from the mainstream, its hard to sell your ideas.
I really hope that the moderates from both sides can work together on all the issues that the majority of Americans need and want.
Posted by: Beagle at November 5, 2004 01:28 PMAlthough a lot can be done in two years, there will be an opportunity to change the balance of power in the House and Senate in 2006. If the Republicans do not use the power they now have responsibly and with approval of the majority, then we will see changes in House and Senate seats. Also, 2006 will determine a large number of Governor and State elections, which will be critical to both parties. It would be very short sighted for the Republicans in office to think that they can do whatever they want for the next two years and I think they know that.
Posted by: Kirt at November 5, 2004 03:36 PMbeagle:
the mass. judge did not demand gay marriage..jesus….
the ruling was based on this simple factor…
according to the mass. state constitution there is a fair and equal clause that states that all mass. residents have exactly the same rights, regardless of race, gender, creed, political beliefs, and yes, sexual preference.
at no point did these “radical” judges say…hey let gays marry…
what is more accurate is that they said “well, according to our constitution, i don’t think we can prevent them from getting married”.
however,
i do agree with you that the mass. ruling, and then the other fringe efforts in nj, and san francisco ruined our chances for a democrat in office for a while, and hurt the gay-rights effort drastically…it was too much too soon, for a country that just isn’t ready to condone dude’s kissin.
girls makin out…welll…thats kinda cool…
Posted by: rob at November 5, 2004 04:57 PMRob,
I’m quite sure that no place in Mass. law does it say…reguardles of sexual preference, correct me if I’m wrong.
If I’m right on that, the judge could have interpreted the law to mean …any man can marry any woman, reguardless of race, color, ect.
Does the defence of marriage act cover Mass. ?
I wasn’t passing judgement on anyone.
Posted by: Beagle at November 5, 2004 05:43 PMCompromise requires both parties to engage in it. Most of my list would have been strongly resisted by any major Democratic party force in Congress.
Sebastian, I didn’t see anything in your list that goes totally against Democratic values. The differences come in the implementation details. So far, Republicans are uninterested in compromising at all,
“The American people expected a fair and open airing of issues affecting 40 million older Americans on Medicare — our mothers, our fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers. Yet Republicans locked House Democrats out of the conference negotiations, and in so doing locked out the 130 million Americans we represent.“This is a diverse country, but ours, the Democratic Caucus, is the only diverse caucus. By shutting out the Democrats, they denied the conference negotiators the benefit of the thinking of representatives of the African American community, our Hispanic community, our Asian Pacific American community, the whole diversity of philosophy within our caucus, from the Blue Dogs to New Democrats to our progressive Democrats.
“The American people expected genuine debate. Yet Republicans limited floor discussion on one of the most dramatic changes to Medicare in its history to a mere two hours. Two hours. And this behavior was not limited and confined to the vote on Medicare. For some reason, and I think it should be obvious what it is, the Republicans insist on having votes that are of great import to the American people, where they are clearly on the wrong side of the issue, taken in the middle of the night.
“On a Friday in March at 2:54 a.m., the House cut veterans benefits by three votes. At 2:39 a.m. on a Friday in April, House Republicans slashed education and health care by five votes. At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed a leave no millionaire behind tax cut bill by a handful of votes. And at 3:38 a.m. on a Friday in June, the House GOP passed a Medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote. At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House passed a Head Start bill by one single vote, and that Head Start bill was to undermine and unravel a very successful Head Start initiative. And then after returning from a summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion for Iraq, an issue that Democrats and Republicans were on both sides of the issue, as were the American people. They deserve to hear the debate in the light of day.
“It degrades our democracy when Democrats have no role in the legislation. This legislation affects millions of Americans — but we had no role in conference negotiations, no chance to offer amendments, no alternatives, and limited debate or discussion.
“It degrades our democracy when secret negotiations — such as those on energy legislation — rip up provisions supported by both Houses and insert new provisions approved by neither House.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 5, 2004 11:04 PM
Aside from Bush saying he is willing to work with those across the aisle who shares his goals (?), now they’re ostracizing Spector for his call for moderation in Supreme Court nominations.
Senate offices said the response was intense. “We are getting slammed,” said Mike Brumas, a spokesman for Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama and a panel member. “Some of them are saying things like they voted for values on Tuesday and this is a slap in the face.”Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 6, 2004 03:44 PM
