dagblog - Comments for "The Senate Sucks or Waiting for Obama"

Obey has a pretty good take

acanuck — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:12:49 +0000

In reply to OK, we're all in agreement:

Obey has a pretty good take on the key role the media need to play in calling out the obstructionists for what they are, in order to spur voters to act. After a few of of the worst offenders have been defeated, maybe there'd be a chance for Dr. Cleveland's rule changes. Forget about enshrining them in the constitution, though. A bridge too far.

OK, we're all in agreement:

acanuck — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 07:05:53 +0000

In reply to The Senate Sucks or Waiting for Obama

OK, we're all in agreement: the Senate does suck. But this is one frustrating thread to read, folks. Do we need better senators, do we need to change the Senate rules, do we need a constitutional amendment to restructure or abolish the Senate?

Well, we can't get better senators because the system incentivizes sucky ones. Because they're so sucky, they keep adopting obstructionist rules. And as for amending the constitution, two-thirds of those senators would have to vote for that, which won't happen until we get better ones. So end of discussion. Nothing will ever change.

Unless, of course, the American voting public accepts and embraces its assigned role in running the damn country. You get the chance to throw one-third of the bums out every election cycle. DO IT. Except not on the basis of gay marriage, or mosque construction, or trysts with hookers. Do it on the basis of whether they are committed to passing -- rather than obstructing or gutting -- legislation that's in the public interest.

Maybe that's just silly talk. It would require all those angry tea partiers to examine carefully, with open minds, exactly what is in their interest. Right, that's too hard. I guess you're screwed.

Sorry for not reading well

we are stardust — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 02:24:17 +0000

In reply to I agree RE: elections. I

Sorry for not reading well upthread, DF. When I have a lot to do, I tend to get to the computer in snatches, and read and write far too quickly; ergo: errors in both. ;o)

I enjoy your diaries and comments a lot. Thank you.

I can see the wisdom of a

DF — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 00:29:27 +0000

In reply to Unlike Destor, I'm okay with

I can see the wisdom of a bicameral legislature, but it has to work regardless of how many houses there are. As for getting things to work, I like your suggestions for rule changes, though I suspect you might be right that an amendment would be required. That's troubling to the extent that I have a hard time seeing that happen these days.

I see what you're saying. But

Obey — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:49:13 +0000

In reply to Obey, I share your

I see what you're saying. But either way - if they are just to use the rules more pragmatically, as I suggest, or change those rules, as you suggest - a better class of Senator is required to do those things. And their incentives are strongly against changing the rules in a direction that diminishes the power of the individual Senator.

So the easier campaign is to keep, on all important bills, the question of 'who is for or against the use of reconciliation?' front and center. Each time. Keep the heat on, again and again, until it becomes the natural prima facie framing of a Senator's position on a bill - he is for it if he favors reconciliation, (implicitly) against it if he prefers the supermajority cloture vote.

I haven't thought this fully through right now, but I'm tempted to say I'd flip your principle on its head - it is not that the quality of representation is only as good as the rules that define his role, it is the quality of rules - what the rules in practice are - that is determined by the character of the representatives using them. Reconciliation is sparsely used because Dems see it as illegitimate. And because they see it as such, it becomes de facto illegitimate. (and so on...)

Beyond that I'll quit bitching about handwringing if you'll stop calling me insane!!

;0)

(just kidding on that last point... )

I agree RE: elections. I

DF — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:28:57 +0000

In reply to Copy that, DF. Reform? I'd

I agree RE: elections. I mentioned Lessig's Fix Congress First (formerly Change Congress) upthread. He wrote an op-ed @ WaPo recently. I would really like to see something like this succeed, but my gut feeling is that it would take a hell of a lot of people. Fortunately, that's not impossible.

Copy that, DF. Reform? I'd

we are stardust — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:20:41 +0000

In reply to And yet the House keeps

Copy that, DF. Reform? I'd say you have to start with public financing of elections, and what a tall order that will be now. What, it takes how many million for a successful Senate Campaign now (not including CA; your girls are Special...)? On day 2 a Senator starts fundraising. Feh!

I also wish that the

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:15:30 +0000

In reply to Sorry, no. The Senate is

I also wish that the Democrats were more assertive in the Senate, but I think that in any system you get the behavior that the rules reward.

Obey, I share your

DF — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:05:00 +0000

In reply to Sorry, no. The Senate is

Obey, I share your frustration on these points, but my point is that the "better class of Senator" is a myth. Within the system we have, this is the best behavior we're going to get. The reason we get this behavior is because the system incentivizes it, faction be damned. To quote a well-known flick, "What if this is as good as it gets?" What I'm saying is that, given the system we have, this is what we should expect. Continuing to be surprised by it and continuing to demand better characters as the solution seems to be the model of behavior that Einstein guy described as insanity.

And I have to contest the notion that recognizing structural problems is just hand-wringing over procedural crap or that it reflects a lack of conviction. I have numerous and strong convictions about where we should be headed, but the question is, as A-man is not at all too fond of repeating, "How do we get there?" If we recognize that the system doesn't work to get us where we're trying to go, then focusing on fixing that stuff is of primary importance, far from being mere hand-wringing.

And yet the House keeps

DF — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:59:12 +0000

In reply to I have to say some of the

And yet the House keeps passing bills without it. Clearly Obama was just wrong about that (and "partisanship").

To be clear about my post, I'm not saying that the Dems are just helpless prisoners of the system. In fact, I don't think I mentioned any party with the exception of Tea. Both you and Obey raise similar points - that there are many Dems who are just as beholden to the system as Republicans. Granted, but that's a major premise of my argument, not a contradiction of it or even further nuance. That the rot is so prevalent on both sides of the divide stands as support for my assertion that the structure of the system yields these results, regardless of party affiliation.