just wonders wrote:
Quote:blatham wrote:
So, the moderates pulled it out of the fire. Good for them. This will not please the White House, I think, but it sure as hell pleases me.
Why displeasure at the White House? Three of Bush's nominees will now be confirmed with a minimum 55-59 votes, plus he won't have to drop the other two. Look for a call on their vote soon.
I don't see this as 'moderates' pulling it out of the fire, so much as Reid realizing he didn't have the votes to overcome the conssitutional option.
Of course, that's merely my opinion.
squinney wrote:
Quote:I'm very disappointed in both sides.
I wanted a fight.
They probably saw the poll numbers showing how ticked people were with the job their doing and thought they needed to settle this and get back to work.
They didn't even consider it might be the actual "work" they've been doing that ticked us off to start with.
Is there any other western democratic government that comes
even close to demonstrating the level of rabid partisanship that we see in US politics presently? It isn't a good thing. It divides the community, pitting neighbor against neighbor ascribing the worst tendencies and motives to each other and, maybe most damaging of all, it discourages citizens from thinking carefully and thinking for themselves. Cliches and generalities abound - and that makes people nothing but stupider.
Had this gone over the edge, the negative consequences would likely have been huge, and possibly quite long-lasting. The level of rabidness would surely have increased exponentially; citizens, already apathetic about the role of government (and their ability to engage it at all) which is already low would have worsened; the Senate would have become a mirror body to Congress; and the potential tyranny of majorities would have been strengthened.
That last point is significant. A fundamental component of the American democratic experiment is the balance-of-powers architecture. That's a purposeful design based on the understanding that humans, in community, often do not behave well. Lust for power and dominance and the tendencies we have to scapegoat minorities are policed through ensuring no single entity can move too far without bumping into institutional obstruction.
It seems clear, given the above, that what the US has most to fear (recall that Lincoln held that America would be brought down NOT by any external player, but by her own foolishness) is such extremism within the country. If one wants a good measure of who it is that threatens a balanced and deliberative political system, look to who it is that seeks to remove or disempower the structures and institutions which temper and obstruct power. Some can be identified below.
I happen to think that this particular administration is itself extremist. Moreso than any I've seen in my lifetime, including the Nixon administration. Disempowering and demonizing political opposition within the nation is de rigeur. Strategizing for a thirty year dominance (the view of David Gergen and others) assumes a level of self-righteousness and zest for power which could only be supported by people who have already bought into the demonization which is the necessary precursor. The broad and purposeful drive to eliminate any and all international structures, institutions and agreements which might also serve as oppositional checks is deniable only in the same manner - if you've bought into the propaganda campaign which necessarily precedes such an attempt. UN bashing is but the most evident instance.
These guys in the middle who cut this deal, bypassing the rabid partisan forces at work, did something pretty fukking cool. I love every one of them for it.
