The Senate vs. the future

[Mass]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/31/AR2011013105908.html

Two weeks before Obama's address, however, Sen. John Kerry delivered the speech that Obama should have given. Like Obama, Kerry emphasized that "developed and developing countries are making far-reaching choices to reshape their economies and move forward in a new and very different global era." Like Obama, Kerry intoned that "we as a people face another Sputnik moment today." Like Obama, Kerry argued that "unprecedented levels of investment in science and technology, engineering and R&D" had provided the foundation for American leadership in the 20th century, and would be required to build on it in the 21st.

But Kerry's explanation of the way our political system is impeding our efforts to adapt to a fast-changing future and meet the obstacles in our path was much more ambitious, and much more precise. "On issue after issue," he said, "enduring consensus has been frayed or shredded by lust for power cloaked in partisan games." He noted that the individual mandate began as a Republican idea, that cap-and-trade was a favored policy of the first Bush administration, that treaties that were much more far-reaching than START once passed with 90 or 95 votes.

The grim reality, he said, is that "in the 21st century where choices and consequences come at us so much faster than ever before, the price of Senate inaction isn't just that we will stand still; it isn't just that America will fall behind; it's that we will stay behind as we cede the best possibilities of this young century to others who are more disciplined."

The incentives, structure and customs of the contemporary Senate are not well-suited to good governance. It's arguable, in fact, that they do not even permit good governance. Kerry illustrated the problem by quoting from a PowerPoint presentation that Senate Republicans used to open the session. "The purpose of the majority is to pass their agenda," the slide read. "The purpose of the minority is to become the majority.

My guess is that Klein (and Kerry) will get hell for that (how did he dare say Kerry was better than Obama at something?), but it is so rare to see a paper touting Kerry (even by liberal leaning Dems, that it is amazing in its own right)

BTW, while I dont always agree with Klein, I agree that this Senate reform is really underwhelming.

[Inuca]

1. Good article, thanks Mass

"lust for power cloaked in partisan games" is a perfect quote.

[karynnj]

2. Wow - I knew from his first reaction to Kerry's speech, but this shows

just how much.

I agree with you that many liberals will attack both Klein and Kerry (who likely had some influence with the themes they had in common). I hope that at some point, liberals who bought Trippi and other Dean people's definition of Kerry, might begin to see that though they were very publicly holding their delicate noses, Kerry was the most progressive and liberal nominee the party has had for decades - including Obama.

I think that part of the difference with what Obama said was not just that it was less precise, but it was unwilling to state the obvious - that the Republicans established their goal as stopping Obama. The Senate Democrats DID try to compromise. There is a narrow line that Obama was walking - and he might have felt that stating that went against bipartisanship, but not saying it almost conceded the RW point that they had been excluded. It was all his concessions (tort reform, etc) to them.

[ladym55]

3. Kerry gave an excellent and timely speech

And aside from what I see here, all is *crickets.*

JK was the point man and was able to speak more powerfully than President Obama. I wish President Obama could have been as blunt as Senator Kerry, but sadly we would have had heads exploding all across the media spectrum if he had.

Why on earth would anyone listen to the a long-time Senator who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee? I mean, there is a half-term governor who has Facebook and a Twitter account?

While we as a nation focus on the silly and sensational and parse the words of the "Democrat" president, the people suffer.

[MBS]

4. excellent, thanks. n/t

[beachmom]

5. It isn't just Senate rules.

Frankly, if Dems lose the Senate in '12, they need to obstruct the Republicans, because they have morphed into an extreme right wing party. I mean, we basically only have one party left in this country and the other is just a bunch of crackpots.

I may get in trouble for saying so, but I'm glad the filibuster wasn't reformed because Dems are going to need it in the future. If we had two fairly normal parties, then I would be for a true reform. But not when one party is essentially controlled by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. There is a good chance that we will lose the Senate in '12. Filibuster those group of nuts is what I say.

I feel like filibuster reform is just fighting last year's battle. Too little too late. As to Sen. Kerry's speech he is spot on. But it is something bigger than the Senate. It's about the GOP and by extension those who follow them. Think about how a show like Glenn Beck stays on the air. How sad a story about America is that?

[wisteria]

6. I agree with you, but I do worry that our Dems will resort back to voting with Republicans

simply because many do not like confrontation, don't know enough about the issues to argue them, and our lack of ability to frame issues. I really hope things improve enough, and people decide they want more checks and balances, and the Democrats hold onto the Senate.

[beachmom]

7. I think on security, some cultural issues & some fiscal issues, you are right that

red state/swing state Democrats may break ranks. But on bread and butter issues, I think they'll stay with the caucus.