Voting for Gridlock

[babylonsister]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/03/voting_for_gridlock.html


Voting for Gridlock


Ezra Klein: "From the perspective of actually getting anything done in the next two years, there was perhaps no worse outcome. Republicans don't fully control Congress, so they don't have enough power to be blamed for legislative outcomes. But Democrats don't control the House and they don't have a near-filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so they can't pass legislation. Republicans, in other words, are not left with the burden of governance, and Democrats are not left with the power to govern. Republicans don't have to be responsible, and Democrats can't do it for them."

First Read: "The likely next House speaker, John Boehner, couldn't have asked for a better result from last night. With Democrats in charge of the White House and the Senate, Boehner's GOP-controlled House now has the potential to pass legislation at will, but blame the Obama administration and the Senate for the inability to get things done -- or to pass THEIR versions of legislation (like, say, repealing health care). Which ever party wins the spin war over the expected gridlock in Washington will have the upper hand heading into 2012."

Can't wait. :eyes:

[Igel]

1. "Govern" seems to have changed its meaning.

The president still governs. It's just that there's a check on his governing, so he cannot govern unilaterally.

What Democrats cannot do--even to the extent that they did before--is unilaterally shape government and what laws and budgets look like.

"Govern" does not mean "rule without limitation or constraint," "to execute one's will without serious impediment." It does not mean "dictate," least not in a representative democracy.

I recently heard that Obama's "governing" the country consisted of entirely legislative and regulatory acts--the activities of executing the laws and keeping the regulatory and civil-service apparatus up and running didn't, it would seem, constitute governing.

Then again, what do I know? I was trained in shared governance in grad school, where all the stakeholders are consulted and have a voice--seldom did anybody get what they wanted, although most people were reasonably content with the outcome. It shifted at times from governance that wasn't very shared to government that was absurdly diffuse, as required. I thought that it was a great system, albeit a bit slow and messy. Silly me. The chancellor should have made all the decisions and told off the Academic Senate and student governments whenever they disagreed.

Eh. Sometimes I'm more in favor of a democracy that I don't like than a Democracy that I would like. (Or maybe that should be a "Democratocracy"?)

[mstinamotorcity]

2. I don't

care it they do get gridlocked