The Republicans are the Problem

[Falvlun]

Article from the Washington Post: Let's just say it: The Republicans are the Problem.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party... "Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

To be honest, in the relatively small amount of time I've actually been paying attention to politics, this does seem to be the case. Republicans have become increasingly obstructionist and hostile to any attempt at cooperation or compromise, and their stances have swung far to the right side of the fence. Democrats, of course, have also played their fair share of partisan politics, but never to the extent or solidarity as currently seen by the Republicans. Also, Dems are far more willing to compromise/cooperate, and are not nearly as Left as the 'Pubs have went Right.

I also agree with the article's main point that media shouldn't act as if two stances-- whatever they are-- have equal merit or equal responsibility just to maintain an "unbiased" persona. The fact of the matter is that often some positions are just more reasonable than others, or one group is causing more problems than another group. Pretending that both groups are equally at fault is false reporting, not "fair and balanced".

We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality.

The last page further develops this point.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Nashitheki]

Indeed. This perpetual two party squabbling is detrimental to the well being of the American people as a whole.

Caesar said - 'Divide and conquer'

How a divided people are so easily subjugated and misruled.

 

[YmirGF]

Sound like confirmation bias - on steroids, to me.

 

[Falvlun]

Sound like confirmation bias - on steroids, to me.

The data on the use of the filibuster is pretty straight-forward. The Rise of Cloture.

It's important to note that there's not a direct and complete correlation between cloture and filibusters.

"We don't know, always, whether these jumps in cloture are because there's more obstruction or because majority leaders need it to lend some degree of predictability to the floor," Binder said. "In reality, it's probably a bit of both."

But clearly, Binder said, "the behavior of the minority is largely responsible for what the majority is doing here."

So while it isn't the whole picture, the rise of party-line filibuster threats has at least contributed to the increasing frequency with which majority leaders have employed cloture.

Besides, the whole point of the article was to dispense with bias... the bias against appearing to favor one party over the other by pretending that the tactics and policies of both parties are perfectly equatable in every way. That's just silly.

The Republicans are fighting more aggressively than the democrats, and the result is that nothing can get done in Congress. You might applaud their fortitude, but there is no reason why it should be off limits to point out that the gridlock is largely driven by republican fighting tactics.

And it also seems pretty clear that, as a party, Republians have shifted further to the Right, while the democrats have shifted closer to the center. Again, why should we lie in the name of fairness and say that both parties have polarized, when really, only one party, as a whole, has done so?

 

[Levite]

Article from the Washington Post: Let's just say it: The Republicans are the Problem.

To be honest, in the relatively small amount of time I've actually been paying attention to politics, this does seem to be the case. Republicans have become increasingly obstructionist and hostile to any attempt at cooperation or compromise, and their stances have swung far to the right side of the fence. Democrats, of course, have also played their fair share of partisan politics, but never to the extent or solidarity as currently seen by the Republicans. Also, Dems are far more willing to compromise/cooperate, and are not nearly as Left as the 'Pubs have went Right.

I also agree with the article's main point that media shouldn't act as if two stances-- whatever they are-- have equal merit or equal responsibility just to maintain an "unbiased" persona. The fact of the matter is that often some positions are just more reasonable than others, or one group is causing more problems than another group. Pretending that both groups are equally at fault is false reporting, not "fair and balanced".

What are your thoughts?

The Republicans are the problem. Yes. But so are the Democrats. They're just the problem in a different way. I think a lot of the Democrats are essentially well-meaning, they're simply too focused on greed and their personal power. And the Democratic leadership is weak, and prone to roll over, sacrificing opportunities and political capital to try and get the Republicans in bed. Democratic senators and congressmen take just as much money from corporations and big business special interest groups as do Republicans. They do just as much tainting of necessary bills with stupid pork-barrel amendments as do Republicans. They take idiotic stances on important issues for the sake of political polling statistics nearly as often as the Republicans do. They sell out the poor and the suffering for the sake of the rich almost, thought not quite, as much as the Republicans do.

I'll vote for Obama again in November. Not because I am a fan, but because he sucks less than Romney, or anyone else on the Republican field. But Obama is not a good president. He sacrificed a crapload of political capital, to say nothing of domination of both houses of Congress, by trying to get the Republicans in bed. It was pathetic: it was like watching a milquetoast geek desperately trying to nail the hot cheerleader when everyone around him knew he was never gonna get it.

Republicans do and embody all the negative things the OP article accuses them of: I believe that to be true. But the Democrats are utterly not free of responsibility for the mess we're in, because they are enablers of the Republicans, either passively or actively.

 

[YmirGF]

Besides, the whole point of the article was to dispense with bias... the bias against appearing to favor one party over the other by pretending that the tactics and policies of both parties are perfectly equatable in every way. That's just silly.

OK, so the Republican's are at it a bit more so than the Democrats. The graph provided isn't particularly flattering to the Dems either, so it's not hard to see where the Republican's got their inspiration from. Obviously, it is an effective tactic, otherwise it would be unlikely that either camp used it so much in recent history.

The Republicans are fighting more aggressively than the democrats, and the result is that nothing can get done in Congress. You might applaud their fortitude, but there is no reason why it should be off limits to point out that the gridlock is largely driven by republican fighting tactics.

Such is the cost of losing the House of Representatives. It's not like the Democrats were doing all that much, of great importance, prior to 2010.

And it also seems pretty clear that, as a party, Republians have shifted further to the Right, while the democrats have shifted closer to the center. Again, why should we lie in the name of fairness and say that both parties have polarized, when really, only one party, as a whole, has done so?

Personally, I don't buy into the myth that the Democrats have moved towards the center. Kudo's must be given, however, for them being able to vaporize the Left, even if it is all just smoke and mirrors. In pulling off the narrative of being Centrist, they have scored a major coup.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which ever side you're on, it's always the other side which is the problem.
Since this is true for all sides, it suggests that either all sides are the problem, or no side is the problem.

 

[Desert Snake]

Which ever side you're on, it's always the other side which is the problem.
Since this is true for all sides, it suggests that either all sides are the problem, or no side is the problem.

What about centrists?

 

[Revoltingest]

What about centrists?

They're the problem, so say the extremists.

I say there is no "the problem".

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think you will ever convince everyone that Republicans are the problem these days, just as it proved impossible to convince everyone that George W. Bush was a bad president. But I believe the evidence is so overwhelming that Republicans are, in one sense or another, the problem that you will eventually convince about two-thirds of the voters that Republicans are the problem.

Yet, the problems that Republicans are bringing to the table these days are just reflections of a deeper set of problems that have over-taken the country and that influence both Republicans and Democrats. For instance, the Republicans have been taken over by the uber-rich individuals and corporations in this country -- but so have the Democrats. As Ralph Nader remarked, the only difference between the parties is in how fast they cave to the uber-rich.

So while the Republicans are the leading edge of the problem, the Democrats are not so far behind.

 

[Sunstone]

The real problem is that the uber-rich are running the country. They control the Republicans and all but control the Democrats.

By the way, these days, the Washington Post is a neo-conservative newspaper with an undeserved reputation for being liberal. If it were a genuinely liberal newspaper, it would be pointing out the problem with the uber-rich -- not helping to mask the problem by blaming it on the Republicans.

 

[Revoltingest]

The poor think the rich are the problem.
The rich think the poor are the problem.
All have some control, & none have complete control.
Everyone carps that their own agenda is being thwarted by the other side.
That's how politics works, folks....you generally don't get your way.
But if ever you did get your way, then you would be the problem.

 

[Sunstone]

Sound like confirmation bias - on steroids, to me.

Easy for you to say, much harder for you to prove.

 

[Revoltingest]

Confirmation bias can never be proven to those afflicted.
They know they're right. All the signs are there.

 

[Sunstone]

When you belong to a dwindling minority of people who believe both sides are equally at fault, it's understandable how everyone but you would seem to you to be afflicted with incurable confirmation bias.

 

[Reptillian]

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts. - Abraham Lincoln

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and true maxim that 'a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.' So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to his reason, and which, once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing him of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause is really a good one. - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Reptillian]

More Lincoln quotes relevant to this topic:

There has never been but one question in all civilization-how to keep a few men from saying to many men: You work and earn bread and we will eat it. - Abraham Lincoln

That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. - Abraham Lincoln

 

[Revoltingest]

When you belong to a dwindling minority of people who believe both sides are equally at fault, it's understandable how everyone but you would seem to you to be afflicted with incurable confirmation bias.

I don't believe in "fault". "Equal" does not apply.
We all strive to have our own agenda implemented.
With no absolute "right" or "wrong", there is only "I prefer this." & "I oppose that."......unless you have access to divine truth.
And worse yet, whoever would gain power (even absolute power) would see results short of their goals.
Where is the fault in this, other than inherent human traits?
I strive to avoid confirmation bias by seeing my values & goals as only what I prefer.
They are neither right nor better, so no confirmation is needed.
(OK....at times I feel self righteously superior. But it's a fleeting delusion.)

 

[Penumbra]

I don't believe in "fault". "Equal" does not apply.
We all strive to have our own agenda implemented.
With no absolute "right" or "wrong", there is only "I prefer this." & "I oppose that."......unless you have access to divine truth.
And worse yet, whoever would gain power (even absolute power) would see results short of their goals.
Where is the fault in this, other than inherent human traits?
I strive to avoid confirmation bias by seeing my values & goals as only what I prefer.
They are neither right nor better, so no confirmation is needed.
(OK....at times I feel self righteously superior. But it's a fleeting delusion.)

There are rights and wrongs.

Not in the "absolute" sense, but pretty close. In reference to a shared goal, however general that goal is, there are superior and inferior ways of achieving that goal, regardless of whether it's knowable ahead of time which ones will be superior or inferior. The goal itself is subjective, but goals can be phrased such that most people agree, since we're all the same species after all. There are objectively superior ways than others to achieve environmentally and fiscally sustainable freedom, health, and knowledge, and I don't think too many politicians or voters would consciously be against those goals.

-We have among the lowest top marginal income and dividend tax rates of the last century, and people complain about over taxation and that the bottom half don't pay their fair share, despite the fact that payroll taxes as a percentage of total federal revenue have substantially increased over time.

-We have a dramatic increase in the use of filibusters.

-We have among the largest spending on defense as a percentage of GDP of any large and developed country (only surpassed by a handful such as UAE, Israel, and Saudi Arabia), and have been involved in a decade of constant war, even though we have large budget deficits and are a rarity in the developed world for not providing health care to every citizen.

-By measurements such as average CEO pay compared to average worker pay, income differences have increased dramatically. Other measurements of statistical income inequality, such as the Gini coefficient by the CIA Worldfact book show that our Gini coefficient has been rather static through decades, but is pretty much the highest of any large and developed country. And yet words like "communism" and "socialist" get thrown around in U.S. politics, particularly by the GOP.

-The map of our existing superfund sites looks like this, approximately 20% of the land area of the US is regularly covered with chemicals for agriculture, and there is an 8,000 square mile deadzone in the Gulf of Mexico, largely attributed to fertilizers. And the Environmental Protection Agency, initiated under a Republican president, has been often called for elimination by members of the Republican party.

-In terms of what NASA is allocated as a percentage of the federal budget, it has diminished to almost a tenth of what it was at its peak when the country was preparing to go to the moon (which is still viewed as a crowning achievement today), and only about half of what it was even as late as the 90's. We take these unifying and qualitatively important achievements and then discard them for the bottom line in a race to the bottom.

We can't always know ahead of time what the best policy is to achieve a goal, but let's not pretend that everything is relative, that approaches all work out equally, etc. With regards to fairly basic and shared goals, some approaches end up being wildly unsuccessful. Constant war, constant pollution, and too much concentration of wealth rarely seem to work out, historically.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are rights and wrongs.

Goodness....such certainty!
But I see it's tempered below....

Not in the "absolute" sense, but pretty close. In reference to a shared goal, however general that goal is, there are superior and inferior ways of achieving that goal, regardless of whether it's knowable ahead of time which ones will be superior or inferior. The goal itself is subjective, but goals can be phrased such that most people agree, since we're all the same species after all. There are objectively superior ways than others to achieve environmentally and fiscally sustainable freedom, health, and knowledge, and I don't think too many politicians or voters would consciously be against those goals.
-We have among the lowest top marginal income and dividend tax rates of the last century, and people complain about over taxation and that the bottom half don't pay their fair share, despite the fact that payroll taxes as a percentage of total federal revenue have substantially increased over time.
-We have a dramatic increase in the use of filibusters.
-We have among the largest spending on defense as a percentage of GDP of any large and developed country (only surpassed by a handful such as UAE, Israel, and Saudi Arabia), and have been involved in a decade of constant war, even though we have large budget deficits and are a rarity in the developed world for not providing health care to every citizen.
-By measurements such as average CEO pay compared to average worker pay, income differences have increased dramatically. Other measurements of statistical income inequality, such as the Gini coefficient by the CIA Worldfact book show that our Gini coefficient has been rather static through decades, but is pretty much the highest of any large and developed country. And yet words like "communism" and "socialist" get thrown around in U.S. politics, particularly by the GOP.
-The map of our existing superfund sites looks like this, approximately 20% of the land area of the US is regularly covered with chemicals for agriculture, and there is an 8,000 square mile deadzone in the Gulf of Mexico, largely attributed to fertilizers. And the Environmental Protection Agency, initiated under a Republican president, has been often called for elimination by members of the Republican party.
-In terms of what NASA is allocated as a percentage of the federal budget, it has diminished to almost a tenth of what it was at its peak when the country was preparing to go to the moon (which is still viewed as a crowning achievement today), and only about half of what it was even as late as the 90's. We take these unifying and qualitatively important achievements and then discard them for the bottom line in a race to the bottom.
We can't always know ahead of time what the best policy is to achieve a goal, but let's not pretend that everything is relative, that approaches all work out equally, etc. With regards to fairly basic and shared goals, some approaches end up being wildly unsuccessful. Constant war, constant pollution, and too much concentration of wealth rarely seem to work out, historically.

Oh, you engineers....so prone to looking at "right" & "wrong" analytically. I can agree that they can be determined pretty well by rational people,
provided that we agree upon premises, but most people aren't so rational, nor are the premises so agreed upon. The result....we (ie, people in
general) won't agree on "right" & "wrong". But I dare say that were you & I to ever run the country, political discourse would improve & detente
would loom. (Hah! Like that could happen.)