What if it all goes right?

[Nightgaunt]

@scottagibson

So the House passed the Senate bill as it stood, then drafted an amending bill containing budget-related changes which could be passed by the Senate through reconciliation.

Thanks for this reminder. I agree that if that’s “shenanigans” at all, then it’s very light shenanigans! (Wikipedia also tells me that to take up the bill in the Senate, they hollowed out a previously passed tax bill from the House, which is weird, but for all I know happens all the time.)

Anyway, I’ll withdraw the point. As far as relevance to today, I think health care reform is one of those things that really helps common folks and therefore is in the realm of the kinds of things Dems should push if they gain power. I don’t disagree that Republicans fought the ACA in bad faith and made it as divisive as it was.

@scottagibson

It’s easy to find things that died in McConnell’s Senate during the Obama era. Here are a few:

Thanks for the reminder. I don’t know how many of these qualify as the kind of bills I’m proposing for Democrats now, as far as being broadly acceptable and directly beneficial to most voters (probably the stimulus, depending on what was in it?). Obviously (and unfortunately) anything related to guns was too touchy, and carbon regulations are corporate-level concerns. The DREAM Act, though worthy, directly affects less than a million people.

I want to be clear, when I’m advocating for certain types of bills, they’re not necessarily the bills I think are the most urgent or the most beneficial. I’m making a purely pragmatic argument about how the Democrats might be able to diminish the power of an intransigent GOP and boost their chances of repelling a midterm blowback, for the sake of proving that governance is possible and that Congress is not elected just to wrangle about justices and procedure. There are a bunch of historical reasons that those things take the center of gravity in Washington–one of which is the bad faith of Republicans–but I don’t think that gets solved by starting that cycle again.

@Rock8man

Wow, it’s disheartening to hear that this is what you recall from the passage of the ACA, not the fact that Republicans didn’t even try to compromise in any way or bring any of their own ideas to the table, and only pretended to do so in order to delay the passage of the bill enough so that the filibuster proof majority in the Senate would be gone.

Oh, I remember thinking exactly that–that the Republicans should have their own vision for health care reform, and didn’t. I also recall thinking that if the Dems lost a vote in Massachusetts that everyone, including the voters, knew could impact the ACA debate, that maybe that meant Dems needed to find a different compromise. But I take the point that perhaps compromise was impossible.

@Rock8man

Just curious, what was your primary news sources during that time? The major networks, NPR, CNN, PBS, etc?

It would have been NPR, mostly.

@Rock8man

On the one hand you say that it’s good that they passed much needed health care reform, but at the same time, they shouldn’t have used reconcilliation at the end? Do you feel similarly about McConnell using reconciliation to almost pass the repeal of the ACA?

Dude, I didn’t even remember what the details were, so I am happy to drop the point. And I’m certainly not defending or whitewashing anything McConnell has done. I don’t know what you think I’m arguing for, but it’s not “Why can’t those sneaky Democrats be more like the noble Republicans.” It’s “Someone needs to break the procedural wrangling in Congress and start fucking writing some legislation that people want to vote for!”

If I have any criticism for the Dems at the time–or rather, if I would compare then to what I think Dems should do next–it would only be “Maybe pick a different issue to pour all your political capital into first.” But I recognize that that might be naive.

Sorry to have frustrated you.

[Rock8man]

@Nightgaunt

I’m making a purely pragmatic argument about how the Democrats might be able to diminish the power of an intransigent GOP and boost their chances of repelling a midterm blowback, for the sake of proving that governance is possible and that Congress is not elected just to wrangle about justices and procedure.

And we’re saying procedure changes are necessary just to get bills passed, even if McConnell is in the minority. Your point is valid. It would be nice if it could happen like that, and like I said, maybe it is possible because Biden is White, I don’t know how much McConnell’s obstructionism was motivated by that part. But most likely, he’ll just back into full lockdown mode. Automatically filibuster everything. So given that, it’s impossible to pass something that can gain Democrats any good will with the public. The procedural part has to come first.

[scottagibson]

I am genuinely confused here.

@Nightgaunt

I admire the Democrats pushing for health care reform because it was (and is) clearly needed.

…and

@Nightgaunt

If I have any criticism for the Dems at the time–or rather, if I would compare then to what I think Dems should do next–it would only be “Maybe pick a different issue to pour all your political capital into first.”

You admire them for tackling health care because it was sorely needed, but they should not have spent their political capital on tackling health care.

Democrats ran on health care, won the Presidency and the House and a supermajority in the Senate on health care, adopted a market-based solution to health care, cooperated with Republicans to help design the bill, and passed it using regular order despite unanimous obstruction from Republicans. I feel like you think this is somehow the fault of Democrats.

[scottagibson]

@Nightgaunt

Thanks for the reminder. I don’t know how many of these qualify as the kind of bills I’m proposing for Democrats now, as far as being broadly acceptable and directly beneficial to most voters (probably the stimulus, depending on what was in it?). Obviously (and unfortunately) anything related to guns was too touchy, and carbon regulations are corporate-level concerns. The DREAM Act, though worthy, directly affects less than a million people.

I chose all of them because I recall there was majority public support for them at the time, except possibly the cap and trade proposal. But cap and trade was the preferred conservative approach to climate policy, which is why Obama elected to pursue that approach in the first place. Both gun issues were advanced in the wake of Sandy Hook.

[BennyProfane]

Regardless of whether a part of McConnell 's motivation was racism, he now knows that obstruction WORKS, and he will continue to employ it until shown that it won’t work.

[Rock8man]

And the rules of the senate have to be changed on the first day (week?) of the new session at the start of the year after everyone is sworn in, right? I vaguely recall January being really big with regards to whether Reid would change the Senate rules or not, and he disappointed every time.

[KWhit]

@scottagibson

I feel like you think this is somehow the fault of Democrats.

Yeah, this thread is so frustrating.

[KevinC]

Somehow, somewhere, bothsides must be to blame. It is known.

[Matt_W]

@Nightgaunt, in general Democrats try to enact popular policies. That’s what we do. That’s what we stand for. That’s what the Democrats’ governing coalition is based on and what all of our policy proposals and political tactics are bent towards. Democrats, in general, want policies that benefit the greatest number of people in the maximum possible way. In effect, you’re saying that Democrats should try to do the things that Democrats will already inevitably try to do and have been trying to do for my entire life.

Republicans, in general, want lower taxes on rich people and reduced economic regulation. These are not popular policies. Thus the Republicans have to resort to “shenanigans” like minority governance, voter suppression, gerrymandering, hypocrisy, propaganda, coalitions of undesirables and dupes, exploitation of rules of order, loopholes, corruption, election interference, and any other nefarious tactic they can think of to win elections and/or pass their policies. They’ve been doing this for my whole life. And it works. They win. They get the policies they want and are destroying our democracy in the process.

Now you want Democrats to just retry the same thing they’ve been doing for 40 years in the hope that this time, this time the American people will finally realize that they’re the good guys and those evil Republicans deserve rejection.

Holy shit dude, if they didn’t reject Limbaugh and Gingrich and Bush and Palin, they’re not going to figure it out. It’s time to bring out the big guns. The moral arc of the universe doesn’t bend anywhere unless we make it.

[easytarget]

@Matt_W

The moral arc of the universe doesn’t bend anywhere unless we make it.

Quoted for absolute truth.

[Alstein]

Bend the moral arc of the universe by bashing it over a fascist’s skull.

[jpinard]

Get rid of the filibuster

[ArmandoPenblade]

@Alstein

Bend the moral arc of the universe by bashing it over a fascist’s skull.

This is now my favorite post on Qt3 ever.

[Gordon_Cameron]

Yeah, it is rather eloquent.

[Nightgaunt]

@scottagibson

I chose all of them because I recall there was majority public support for them at the time, except possibly the cap and trade proposal.

Fair enough. I think that’s generally true. Although there are different ways of measuring support. Nationwide poll is one (which is probably what you’re talking about), but if we’re talking about what helps preserve a majority, doesn’t it have to be a measure of popularity in battleground states? And then there’s an “intensity” factor, which I think applies to gun laws. Most people might support them, but those who fear them (no matter how irrationally) do so strongly. I understand that no one wants to cater to that irrationality. But perhaps from a practical standpoint, you need to?

@KevinC

Somehow, somewhere, bothsides must be to blame. It is known.

To be clear, I don’t think both sides are to blame. Only that given the circumstances, from a practical perspective, perhaps Democrats have to strategize differently to navigate the shit that Republicans are spraying around.

And again, I think you guys make strong arguments that history has shown the only strategy left is immediately changing the procedural rules. My reaction to that is just that I don’t think that will be effective either, because it will appear as both a pure grab for partisan power and ignoring the issues that need to be addressed in favor of Washington power struggles. And then the voters whose votes make a difference in elections will come to the midterms and say “We gave the Dems the reins and all they did was have vitriolic cat-fights about the rules in congress and the makeup of the Supreme Court, and managed nothing else” and they’ll vote for the Republicans who they might hate just as much, but are the only alternative option.

I get the catch-22 there. You guys are right: If you really can’t pin the obstructionism as a scarlet letter on the Republicans and make the electorate punish them for it–if the dynamic of the Obama years still applies–then there isn’t another option. But then I think this democracy is sorely fucked. The Republicans are to blame, but it almost doesn’t matter.

@Matt_W

in general Democrats try to enact popular policies.

@Matt_W

Democrats, in general, want policies that benefit the greatest number of people in the maximum possible way.

Side point, but it’s the nature of governing that these two things aren’t always the same, right? You’re treating them like they are. I don’t want a higher tax on my gasoline… but I probably need one!

[Enidigm]

I think Conservatives should spend their time fixing the GOP from the inside rather than worry about what the Dems are doing from the outside. Otherwise what’s really going on is just an extended conversation about negative partisanship. I don’t like the GOP but I’ll never vote for the Democrats until they become GOP lite.

The way to overcome negative partisanship is to vote against “your” party and put the other major party in power. The reason the political system is utterly unresponsive is voters - especially GOP voters - will vote for their party’s candidate regardless of who they are, what they say, or what they do. In that case there’s no feedback mechanism to moderate the GOP - if anything it’s an accelerant in the opposite direction.

[scottagibson]

@Nightgaunt

Fair enough. I think that’s generally true. Although there are different ways of measuring support. Nationwide poll is one (which is probably what you’re talking about), but if we’re talking about what helps preserve a majority, doesn’t it have to be a measure of popularity in battleground states?

Ok, wait. Your thesis is that if Democrats would just choose proposals that are popular in swing states then Republicans will agree to work with them, because Republicans want to see Democrats be successful at pleasing voters in swing states?

Setting aside the fact that what swing state voters wanted in 2008 was health care reform, and the fact that Dems chose that, and the fact that Republicans tried everything they could to kill it then and for the next 10 years; why do you suppose Mitch McConnell now wants to help Joe Biden please swing state voters?

@Nightgaunt

And then the voters whose votes make a difference in elections will come to the midterms and say “We gave the Dems the reins and all they did was have vitriolic cat-fights about the rules in congress and the makeup of the Supreme Court, and managed nothing else” and they’ll vote for the Republicans who they might hate just as much, but are the only alternative option.

This is what will happen if Democrats rely on the current rules and Republican cooperation. They’ll accomplish nothing and lose next time. If they want to win, they have to understand that Republicans will not cooperate, and they have to change the rules so that they can legislate effectively and be sure the courts won’t kill their legislation.

[Nightgaunt]

@scottagibson

Ok, wait. Your thesis is that if Democrats would just choose proposals that are popular in swing states then Republicans will agree to work with them, because Republicans want to see Democrats be successful at pleasing voters in swing states?

I assume it would be because Republicans want to be seen as also pleasing voters in swing states. Or not be seen as obstructing those voters interests. Right? Isn’t that how that works in a sane context?

@scottagibson

If they want to win, they have to understand that Republicans will not cooperate, and they have to change the rules so that they can legislate effectively and be sure the courts won’t kill their legislation.

You might be right. I’m afraid it’ll be worse that way, because so much political capital will get spent on that fight, it has poor optics for swing voters, and if it’s successful it basically can be viewed as Dems freeing themselves of needing to address the interests of more right-leaning voters to pursue a more radical agenda–whether they actually do or not.

[Nightgaunt]

@Enidigm

I think Conservatives should spend their time fixing the GOP from the inside rather than worry about what the Dems are doing from the outside.

I don’t know if this is aimed specifically at me as a conservative, but in this thread I’ve just been attempting to put myself in the shoes of the Democrats coming into power and trying to divine what the best practical way for them to govern and not turn the ball over to the Republicans is.

Anyway, if we want to talk about my views as a conservative and which party I should be trying to “fix,” I’m not convinced that the GOP is the more conservative of the two parties right now. We have to see what’s left after the bull (Trump) has left the china shop. Maybe I should be more interested in trying to steer the Democrats to my way of thinking. Both might be equally quixotic missions.

[scottagibson]

@Nightgaunt

I assume it would be because Republicans want to be seen as also pleasing voters in swing states. Or not be seen as obstructing those voters interests. Right? Isn’t that how that works in a sane context?

I dunno. Maybe you can explain what went wrong in 2009? Why didn’t Republicans want to help voters in swing states get better health care? Why, instead, did they put all of their energy into saying that the President was a secret Muslim Marxist Kenyan, and his health care plan was a plot to create a totalitarian state which would kill your grandmother?

We’ve established that health care reform was popular and a deciding issue in the election. We’ve established that the Dems tried to get the Republicans to participate and started with a market solution and gave Republicans a seat at the table in defining the bill and ultimately passed it in regular order; that they did not shove it done Republicans’ throats. Yet, for some reason, Republicans did not decide to help swing state voters get what they voted for. Why not?

What do you make of McConnell’s famous observation that his job was to make Obama a one term President?