Bipartisanship and compromise are dead. If we want a more effective Congress, we must embrace partisanship.
Our nation has been facing major problems for over four years now and Congress has done next to nothing to address any of them. We continue to experience unacceptable levels of joblessness, the cost of health care and health insurance continues to rise, and we have done nothing to address the threat of climate change, or to shore up financing for Medicare and the Social Security system.…
Article comments
26 - Winston Apple
Christopher, I understand that is what you meant. I don't think banning political parties would be a good idea. I believe that embracing parties and their platforms offers more hope for a better government. But, even if it was a good idea, do you think political parties, controlling the government as they do, are going to ban themselves? I don't see that happening.
27 - Christopher Rose
Winston, the flood tide of political progress and freedom has been rolling around Europe, the Middle East and, to a lesser extent, Asia for maybe thirty years now. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the USA had its own successful "political Spring" one day.
The flawed Tea Party and Occupy movement may just be the first small waves of a significant need for reform in the politically constipated and over-regulated land of the formerly free. Who knows what might happen?
28 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
While banning all parties sounds nice, it's flatly impossible. The human animal is a social creature, and we tend to band together with other like-minded humans to get what we want (whatever it may be). So even if we did officially 'ban' political parties, people would simply find another way around the obstacle.
29 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, I don't think it is nice, just necessary. Not having political parties doesn't interfere with our social nature at all, it would just prevent or at least reduce abuse by dogma. Given your nature though, I can see why you would have problems with the concept...
30 - Igor
@5-NotTheLiberal (who one suspects is really Warren):
I usually don't follow his citations because they are poor quality and just rightist diatribes, and this is no surprise. But I took a look at the first one which he labeled "analysis" though it is just predictable opinion from the Heritage Foundation (judge for yourself). here's the way it begins:
There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and "rich" taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed.
There's no such 'pattern'. And cherry- picking doesn't improve the claim.
31 - Glenn Contrarian
Igor -
Glenn (#19) and Clavos (#21) I do not advocate a one party system, with all other parties banned. But I do support one party (at a time) rule.
Problem is, once one party has power, they don't want to give that power up. C'mon, Igor - you know this. If one side has unrestricted power, they will change things to where they won't lose that power. Look at the Republicans, at their voting suppression efforts this time. Do you really think that if the current GOP was in charge, that such efforts wouldn't occur to a much greater extent?
One party rule is a really, truly bad idea. Sorry, Igor, I've got a lot of respect for you, but on this issue, um, no, I can't agree with you.
32 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
[Banning all political parties:] I don't think it is nice, just necessary. Not having political parties doesn't interfere with our social nature at all, it would just prevent or at least reduce abuse by dogma.
Dude - again, sounds nice, but (like libertarianism and communism) totally unworkable in human society. There will always be groups of like-minded people, some of whom will be especially charismatic and skilled in and given to leadership. These groups will band together behind such leaders to try to bring into being whatever it is they believe in. Human society has been this way from the days of the hunter-gatherers till now, and it will always be so as long as humans are human.
The ONLY society where there would be no political parties would be a tyranny, where one person (or a small group of people) would rule, and they would have an organization that would carry out their orders...which might not be a party in name, but would be one in form and function just as the communist party was in the USSR.
Chris, I suspect that you're projecting your own personality upon enough humanity that you actually believe that a government without parties could effectively exist. Problem is, history doesn't support you at all in your belief - not at all.
33 - Igor
@31-Glenn: I think you've misidentified me as someone else.
34 - Glenn Contrarian
Crap. Sorry, Igor - that was meant for Winston.
35 - Winston Apple
Glenn (#32) - One party has controlled both houses of Congress and the White House quite frequently in our history. Since 1932 the Democrats have had control of both the executive and legislative branches for a total of 34 years. Most notably for all 12 years of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, and some jobs programs we should be emulating today to reduce unemployment. And also for all 8 years of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in the 1960s (with 64 to 68 seat majorities in the Senate), which gave us the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and other Great Society programs.
Since 1932 the Republicans held the White House and both houses of Congress for only 4 years (and part of a fifth) under George W. Bush, which gave us two wars and unneeded tax cuts, turning surpluses into deficits.
Given the historical record, I would prefer divided government to Republican rule, which would undoubtedly see the shrinkage, privatization, or elimination of most, if not all, of the New Deal and Great Society programs listed above, as well as further tax cuts for the super-wealthy.
Oh the other hand, if the Democrats were given another run, particularly with a 60 plus seat majority in the Senate, I feel somewhat confident we’d see some progress made on unemployment, climate change, and maybe even a public option for health care, or Medicare-for-all. All desirable goals in my opinion.
That’s why I’m no longer an independent, and will be voting a straight Democratic ticket for the first time in my life this year.
36 - Glenn Contrarian
Winston -
But in all those cases, the Republicans were never marginalized. Their presence in Congress was always there, and in numbers.
Please don't get me wrong - I'd love to see the Dems in control of the White House and the House , and in the Senate with filibuster-proof majority (which we did have for all of 71 in-session days in 2009). But I would never want the GOP truly marginalized.
Funny thing is, if they were to continue their current policies, their denials of reality and their perpetual tolerance of race-baiting politics, they might cause their own marginalization.
37 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, just because you repeat the justification you use to explain away your own submission to formularised group think doesn't make it any more true or persuasive.
Groups of people that need leaders are simply immature, which is why teens are particularly prone to group think. As people mature, the need reduces, as I hope you will discover one day...
As I am talking about the future, not the past, about how things might well develop, not how they have been, I think it is actually you that is projecting your views in the context of your own personal need for dogma.
38 - Winston Apple
Glenn (#36) Again the term "marginalizaton" seems to be tripping us up. I would simply like to see Democrats holding more than 60 seats in the Senate and a solid majority in the House.
We seem to agree, however, that if the Republicans stick to their guns on their current agenda, the only thing that will prevent them from becoming a fringe party is the willful ignorance of a sizable number of voters who can't see through their propaganda.
I would like to see the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party trade roles. Although I have voted for Republican candidates from time to time, I have usually split my votes between the Democrats and the Libertarian Party.
39 - Zingzing
"I would like to see the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party trade roles."
Yes. The libertarians are overly-principled (read: rigid), but they aren't so far up god's asshole that they've mistaken religion for right (when it's their god) or evil (when it's islam's take on the same god). The GOP is horrifying, and it seems to be getting worse all the time. This country needs a political dialogue, but the GOP has been nothing but an ignorant bully for a decade now. Libertarians present a thoughtful, decent alternative to democrats, and occupy a place on the political spectrum rather than the insane religious temper tantrum tangent that the GOP inhabits at the moment.
40 - Igor
Zing: good points and well said.