Ezra Klein: Can Democrats Govern?

[flpoljunkie]

Can Democrats govern?

It's worth taking a step back from health-care reform for a second. What Democrats are doing isn't just abandoning a particular policy issue. They're proving themselves unable to govern.

Democrats spent most of 2009 with 60 votes in the Senate and about 256 in the House. They had a popular new president who was following a disastrous Republican administration and a financial crisis. The opposition party was polling somewhere between foot fungus and spoiled meat. You don't get opportunities like this very often. The Senate majority, in fact, was larger than either party had enjoyed since the 1970s. And what have Democrats accomplished?

Well, not much. You can see a list here. A stimulus that was too small. Ted Kennedy's Serve America Act. Credit card regulations that were largely an acceleration of rules the Federal Reserve was going to impose anyway. I guess they almost passed a compromised health-care bill, but you don't go down in history for almosts.

If Democrats abandon health-care reform in the aftermath of Brown's victory, the lesson will be that they can't govern. No majority within the realm of reason will give them the votes to move their agenda swiftly and confidently. Even the prospect of the most significant legislative achievement in 40 years, an achievement that will save hundreds of thousands of lives, will not keep them from collapsing into chaos when they face adversity.

At that point, what's the pitch for voting for Democrats? That they agree with you? A plumber and I both agree that my toilet should work. But if he can't make it work, I'm not going to pay him any money or invite him into my home. Governance isn't just about ideology. It's also about competence and will. That's where Democrats are flagging.

You could argue that it's not fair to brand "Democrats" as at fault here. There's something to that. The leadership and the president would happily pass and sign legislation. But a party is as a party does. Democrats often run on the need to have enough votes to act. If they can't act even with those votes, then there's a real problem. Would Republicans be so terrorized if they were in a similar circumstance? The GOP forged ahead with its attempts to impeach Bill Clinton even after voters cut them down for it in the 1998 election. Those were some odd priorities, but at least the party was committed to the agenda it ran on. Democrats may not want to go quite that far in terms of party discipline, but they need to get a whole lot further than they are now.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/can_democrats_govern.html

[Teaser]

1. apparently not.

failures.

[ananda]

2. Democrats can govern.

Dems in name only, disguised Reeps, cannot.

[frazzled]

9. It has nothing to do with whether they are corporate toadies or not

The issue here is: can they pass something. In other words, can they govern. Toady, progressive, or something in between. They have failed to pass any of those three options. And as Klein says, "agreeing" with ideas is not governing. You actually have to get something on the books.

Both sides of our party have been (a) delaying; (b) grandstanding; (c) threatening. Both the left and the right. I'm equally pissed at both of them. Which doesn't mean I'm a centrist. I'm for cracking heads and saying: okay youse guys on the right. You've had your fun. Okay youse guys on the left, you've held this thing back, too. All sides need to suck it in, get something passed, and then take the next steps to amend it. Otherwise, you're all out on your kiesters. The American people think you are all incompetent and incapable of producing anything.

To be more clear: the progressives are not going to get a more progressive bill. They are now opting for nothing. The toadies aren't going to get more abortion limits or more corporate handouts. There was enough compromise there already. It's not a question of whether the bill is good or bad now: if you fail to act, you will lose the American people and be unable to act on anything in the future. Period. The toilet isn't gonna get fixed on its own.

[DrDan]

3. EXCELLENT question.

unfortunately - we have too many right here that would still pay that plumber - and criticize any who won't.

"He can't fix your toilet? That's ok - please bend over and pay him . . . again."

[TheKentuckian]

4. The corporate toadies cause massive instability

They bring nothing thats worth having them for other than the mere illusion of numbers.

[frazzled]

5. 100% agree, and our senators and representatives better understand this

If they fail to pass a health care reform bill ... and soon ... they might as well pack up and go home. Because it's true: no one will think they are capable of governing. I don't even care if it's a pretty crappy health care bill. They have to deliver on something.

The plumber analogy is perfect. It's not enough for him to agree with you that the toilet needs fixing. If he can't fix it, you get rid of him.

Problem is: with a plumber I can look in the Yellow Pages and find another one. I'm sort of out of luck next election if my Congressman fails to band together with his colleagues to do something. I'm not going to vote for a Republican, and staying home is tantamount to voting for the Republican. But maybe they will need that hard lesson to learn.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. This reminds me of two posters that were in a "Simpsons" episode once

"Republicans: We're Just Plain Evil"

"Democrats: We Can't Govern"

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. Not until we resolve the conflict between real and fake Democrats.

It would be fine with me if the Blue Dogs all changed party. I wouldn't be surprised if they did if they feel an ill wind is blowing towards the Dems and they want to save their seats. I'd rather have fewer, better Democrats of the old model. I don't think this is being "purist". I just can't see why I have to watch all democratic legislation whittled and watered down to please the far right fringes.

[DrDan]

8. how can you blame the bluedogs

Look what Nelson accomplished for his state.

How about Lieberman - we reward him with a chairmanship.

Landrieu? What did that vote cost us?

Who is really to blame here. Not these cretins - but those that continue to reward them.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. You are correct.

I posted earlier that the Repubs do what they have to do to get their legislation passed, and it's a lot more stick than carrot. Errant Repubs will sent to on a fact finding mission to Outer Mongolia and be given wedgies in the cloakroom until they scream uncle.

[DrDan]

11. atomic wedgie for lieberman - get his attention . . .

[PHIMG]

12. Big business bought off enough Senators to have a BLACKBALL on legislation

Lieberman is the worst example of it, but there are 5 or 6 others and more in reserve in case they are really needed. I'd bet there are only 30 real Democratic Senators committed to our parties values. The rest are toadies for corporate power. They will only reveal themselves when absolutely necessary.

Clearly Ezra Klein is smart enough to know this. Why won't he expose them. Why does he act like this is novel or strange? The Dixiecrats were the same problem for the Democratic party.

The Republicans have kept the pressure on moderates to tow the party line. On the Democratic side is the conservatives that have all the power because when they throw thier little pissy fits the media showers them with praise for their "moderate, centrist" views and for acting "bipartisan" when Progressives in the house draw a line in the sand the press scold them for the "circular firing squad".

I don't have his education or pedigree yet this is all very obvious to me as a follower of American politics.

Is Ezra Klein ignorant or is he just playing dumb?

[jacksonian]

13. Playing dumb

this is all part of the media bullshit. He has bosses who want to hear this stuff, so that what he says.

[democracy1st]

14. Obama can't govern let alone lead!