American politics 2016: Lawyers, Guns, and D-Money

it's very difficult to make the argument that european-style parliamentary democracy is a cure for the ills of two-party democracy

You seem to have missed the part where I said that revising or replacing the two-party system "might result in even worse chaos".

To repeat my point, Rauch had nothing to say about the future other than the current dynamic was 'likely to get worse before it gets better'. He gives no pointers on what would or could ever make it get better, so as a thesis, the second part of that assertion is pretty groundless.

you're interested in the future?

yes. aren't you?

I threw the Atlantic article across the room when it got teary-eyed over Prescott Bush's appointment to the SEate.

Senate

idk, Senate appointment by state legislatures, and the return of political bosses and ward heelers seems to be what rushomacy is advocating as "the least disruptive means of restoring function."

if I were Roscoe Conkling.

Some right wingers regularly hate on direct election of Senators as one of the causes of the nation's impending downfall. Not because elected Senators are more democratic, but because anti-federal Tenth-Amendment fetishists believe that Senators should advocate for the state itself, as opposed to voters. The emphasis is, I guess, on each state being a more or less sovereign entity that has provisionally decided to join in a marriage of convenience, temporarily if need be, with 49 other such entities.

you're interested in the future?

yes. aren't you?

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless)

yes, but not, like. in a criswell sense or anything. mostly just the part about robots with bombs. really looking forward to that.

(Quite tangentially I recall hearing someone on a public radio program describe herself as a "future thinker." If you're a future thinker, what are you doing now?)

is that a David Brooks quote

<-- future gibbon

srsly, though, you want to know what i'd say? i'd say congress needs a defined failure state. congress should not be able to get to the point where the economy is about to collapse because they can't manage to pay interest on their loans- not because they don't have the money, but because they can't effectively conduct the standard procedural business of the body. at some point in the past twenty years there should have been something that would allow the united states to dissolve the congress, send everybody home, and not let them come back. then elect an entirely new congress.

An entirely new congress? In the sense of not one member having served in the Congress during the dissolved prior session? Seems like a recipe for replacing pig-headed obstinacy with ignorance-fueled chaos, where the only institutional stability is provided by paid lobbyists and re-hired staff.

An entirely new congress? In the sense of not one member having served in the Congress during the dissolved prior session? Seems like a recipe for replacing pig-headed obstinacy with ignorance-fueled chaos, where the only institutional stability is provided by paid lobbyists and re-hired staff.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless)

the goal is not to actually replace the congress but to provide some performance standards beyond "the will of the people".

And maybe some checks and balances on lobbies that dictate the 'will of the people' with $$$.

even if you could bully congress into doing their jobs the senate can still obstruct away and is by design untouchable

In a way it's kind of a shame that by tradition the US constitution is so seldom amended. We muddled along for a couple centuries by letting the SCOTUS reinterpret it according to emerging needs, but that mechanism has broken down considerably in the past two decades, too.

There was a time when it was common to refer to the USA as a 'great experiment in democracy', but that spirit of experimentation and adaptability has waned to a nub of its former self and we have 'originalists' like Clarence Thomas trying to tear down most of the adaptations we've forged.

Here is the problem with asking "How do we fix the problems with Congress?" The practical answer is "We don't." Any attempt to change the structure of the institution, whether those changes be minor or major in nature, will be seen as revolution, and be crushed. It seems likely- honestly, unavoidable- that the US Congress will wind up going the way of its inspiration, the Roman Senate: unable to meaningfully reform its functioning, it will instead continue to exist in its current form, but without any real power to either effect or obstruct law or policy, which will be determined by a unitary executive.

Lotta predictions in this thread

Better than prediction is analysis of current problems and proposals of means and methods for solving them. But, as I read this thread there aren't so many confident predictions as just ruminations about the future of the republic.

In good news, the transphobic ballot initiative in WA didn't collect enough signatures to make the ballot.

Better than prediction is analysis of current problems and proposals of means and methods for solving them. But, as I read this thread there aren't so many confident predictions as just ruminations about the future of the republic.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless)

a little bit disappointed tbh, we've had seven months here and we haven't fixed _any_ of the fundamental problems with the american political system :( i propose we adjourn and go looking for dumpster fires.

in my experience, the people who have thought about larger societal problems and have shared their thoughts with others who also think about the same problems, are better prepared to face those problems and may even be in a position to coalesce others around reasonable solutions in the future. just because ilxors "haven't fixed _any_ of the fundamental problems with the american political system" doesn't mean discussion of such problems is purposeless or will inevitably come to nothing in the end.

as they" say, luck favors the well prepared.

Paul Ryan's doing a town hall on CNN tomorrow. That's so weird--don't remember a House Speaker ever doing something like that before, least of all in the middle of an election.

Is Ryan 100% about running against Clinton in 2020, or are there other things behind his behaviour the past few months?

I think it all boils down to him trying to salvage his role as party standard-bearer after the inevitable Trumphole collapse

Which would then, I assume, point to him looking to be anointed in 2020 as the nominee--except, based on this year, such an idea seems doomed forever. Maybe a landslide loss will resurrect it.

right. surviving four years as speaker also not a foregone conclusion.

everyone's favorite blue dog democrat gonna run for his old senate seat http://www.wsj.com/articles/former-indiana-democratic-sen-evan-bayh-to-run-for-open-senate-seat-1468252401

ugh that's really the best IN Democrats could do?

a centrist bayh-pass they needed, I guess

"ugh that's really the best IN Democrats could do?"

Bayh's probably the only one that could probably win and he's already got 10 million sitting in the bank that was never used or returned, when he decided to get out of Dodge before the 2008 debacle. He's only 60 as he was really young when he was Gov. of Indiana. I think Bayh sitting out the last couple election shxt storms probably looks pretty smart now.

the Dems have themselves the most liberal platform since the Great Society, so it makes sense that this oleaginous huckster would try to be the Voice for Centrists.

Jefferson Airplane is to the Great Society what Starship is to the Voice for Centrists.

what Jefferson Starship is to Nixonian liberalism

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama is laying out a blueprint for addressing unsolved problems with his signature health law, including a renewed call for a "public option" to let Americans buy insurance from the government.

Obama's assessment of the Affordable Care Act comes in an eight-page article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a peer-reviewed publication. The article debuted Monday on the journal's website, and Obama plans to echo the themes in public events and speeches in the coming weeks.

Replete with academic-style citations, the article is largely a self-congratulatory look at what Obama sees as the accomplishments of his law: millions of Americans who have gained coverage, slower growth in overall health costs and better coordination of care to improve quality.

Yet it's also a memo for Democrat Hillary Clinton on how she can build on his legacy if elected president. Obama's latest ideas are likely to be dismissed by Republicans, who remain committed to repealing the health care law. In polls, "Obamacare" continues to divide the public.

Despite progress under his administration, "too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles or pay their monthly insurance bills," Obama wrote. Others struggle to navigate the "bewildering" health system. Too many still lack insurance coverage, he added.

Obama urged lawmakers to "revisit" the public plan, especially in areas of the country where there is little or no competition among private insurers participating in HealthCare.gov and state-run marketplaces created by the law.

It's so exotic to see a president handing a putative successor a legacy/talking points that I'm blinking at the screen.

ugh that's really the best IN Democrats could do?

― Οὖτις

speaking from indiana: yes. we don't have a functioning democratic party.

i'm not voting for him, but i've already decided i'm not voting for any congressional races until i have some belief that doing so would do anything other than perpetuate the problem.

Corporate Lobbyist Jumps Into Senate Race To Replace Retiring Lobbyist. And it’s good news for Democrats.”

Huffington Post headline about it

rushomancy, where you at in IN? Region's cool if you don't care to name the actual city.

Bloomington is a bastion for D's but that's pretty much it. The state going blue in the '08 prez election is still one of the most shocking political upsets I've seen in my lifetime.

I'm in Indy. The '08 upset isn't all that surprising. The state went blue in '08 because Illinois was a lock for Obama, so the campaign sent all the campaigners with nothing better to do over here. If we had a competent and well-funded state party infrastructure we'd at least be competitive in every election.

can I get a lol:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tim-huelskamp-kansas-ryan-boehner-225384

f we had a competent and well-funded state party infrastructure we'd at least be competitive in every election.

Hi! Welcome to Florida!

Hi! Welcome to Florida!

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

or, you know. most states! the two-party system has fundamentally broken down on the state level.

not in NY, where the Dem governor openly blocks his party from taking too much control.

not in NY, where the Dem governor openly blocks his party from taking too much control.

― helpless before THRILLARY (Dr Morbius)

in my experience it's less about systems of formal political control (though gerrymandering certainly does play into it) as it is about money. you have a gross financial imbalance between one party and another, and soon people who might actually have some political acumen avoid that party like the plague. the party's complete lack of quality leadership candidates leads in turn to a diminished ability to raise funds. ordinarily these differences of opinion would lead to and the death of the weak party and a schism in the dominant party, but since local parties are necessarily beholden to national parties, this isn't allowed to happen. both parties weaken. the dominant party becomes increasingly corrupt due to the lack of competition. sometimes this gets bad enough that the marginal party manages to get somebody elected, but in most cases their candidate proves to be so completely and totally politically inept that it only further marginalizes their party.

anyway, all this goes some way towards explaining why a guy like evan bayh appears to be a veritable titan of statecraft in comparison to everybody else available.

oh bullshit, he has a fortune to run with and a name the mouthbreathers know, PERIOD

"in my experience it's less about systems of formal political control (though gerrymandering certainly does play into it) as it is about money."

"oh bullshit, he has a fortune to run with"

boy, political discourse with you sure is a valuable and rewarding pastime.

but that does not connect, even generously, with yr wrapup "seems like a titan of statecraft"

i know yr being hyperbolic and you make good points, but on Bayh's level it's just money, power, and narcissistic disorder. Simplify.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/congress-recesses-leaving-more-stalemates-than-accomplishments.html?_r=0

7 weeks recess time

but that does not connect, even generously, with yr wrapup "seems like a titan of statecraft"

― helpless before THRILLARY (Dr Morbius)

ok i was being overly ambiguous here. bayh is unquestionably an opportunistic slimebag who only ever got any votes in the first place because of his dad. i'm simply saying that, even taking that into account, he _still_ manages to tower above the rest of the indiana "left". you want to take a good close look at joe donnelly and his accomplishments in the senate?