I continue to be impressed at John Boehner's actions since November. Yes, there's a lot of garbage in the rules reform package, but I think from the point of view of the Republican majority, it's a good package: it makes it easier to run the large deficits they prefer, and there's plenty of nonsense for Tea Partiers to enjoy. The various choices for committee chairs seemed, at least from what I noticed, to be sensible and relatively smoothly accomplished.
I also think it's smart of him to keep a relatively low profile, compared to Nancy Pelosi and especially Newt Gingrich. Even better, it's smart of him, or at least his press office, to convince the WaPo to go with the spin that he's keeping a relatively low profile compared to Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich. I particularly love the chutzpah of spinning that the reason they're not going to try to pass anything quickly is because, unlike previous Congresses, they're focused on Big Issues which just can't be done quickly. And, no, I'm not being sarcastic here. Spin should follow substance, not force it. If Boehner and the Republicans don't have legislation they agree on and are ready to pass, they're way better off finding some way to sell it, no matter how preposterous, then they would be rushing a bunch of stuff to the floor of the House that they aren't really interested in. That said, it would be much less good news if it indicates he's overly buying into the Sonny Bono explanation for Newt's fall.
I think Boehner's path over the next year is going to be very difficult, and perhaps impossible -- I just don't know if there's any way to reconcile the preferences of his conference with economic, budget, and political reality. So far, at least, I think he's off to as good a start as can be hoped.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Fair & Balanced
From FoxNews.com (emphasis, eh, added):
I'm not sure exactly what bureaucratic, nit-picking, undemocratic "congressional rules" FoxNews is referring to. Perhaps the veto? Perhaps the even more unfair rule allowing the majority of the Senate to vote down things they don't like? Perhaps the existence of the Senate? Perhaps the outrageous practice of actually seating Democratic Senators who manage to steal elections by getting a plurality of the vote?
Unreported, so far, is whether the House intends to get their repeal bill scored, and if so how they're going to deal with the likely result that simple repeal will raise the deficit. Well, beyond ignoring it, obviously. Gosh, if only there was some rule mandating that legislation did not increase the deficit..
What It Takes
If you're a political junkie and for some reason have never read What It Takes by Richard Ben Cramer, I certainly recommend you do so. If you have read it, you'll enjoy the recent Politico profile of him. Ezra Klein is pushing for everyone interested to buy the book today, by the way, so you might consider doing that.
A few notes on the book, which I agree is terrific. One is that while I guess he was unlucky in the original reception of the book, he's been pretty luck about the longevity of its main characters. As with the original reviews of the book, it didn't start out that way, oddly enough. The nature of the thing was that he was going to get a president out of his six candidates for the presidency in 1988, and he did -- but George H.W. Bush only lasted four years, and Bush's VP didn't come from the book. However, the 1996 Republican candidate did. And then Richard Gephart wound up as House Democratic leader for a while and eventually ran for president in 2004, and after that Joe Biden ran again in 2008 and became VP. So while Michael Dukakis was old news pretty quickly, as a group the six of them have stayed timely for a good long run, and still going strong.
I've assigned What It Takes a number of times, and I always enjoy re-reading, especially the bits on Bush, Dole, and Biden -- each of whom I think he captured perfectly, as far as I can tell. It's a remarkable accomplishment of reporting. Most usefully, I think the sections on Biden and Gary Hart are particularly useful in helping us understand the relationship between politicians and the press, and the skills needed for politicians to handle it. I also think that he's excellent on the pathetic nature of the national press corps.
(Which is why, by the way, that it's no surprise at all that it's initial reception was so negative. Of course the national political press hated it!).
I do agree with those who find the writing a bit much, although as cringeworthy as I find some of his prose, it's also true that I gobble it down and have no problem re-reading, so I don't know where that leaves me.
It's also the case that the candidate's-eye view is very limiting, which isn't Cramer's fault, but is a danger for those who read it. For me, it goes with The Candidate -- Cramer shows how the process tends to turn even the best of our politicians into blithering idiots. But it's important to also step back from that view, and realize that there's a lot more to elections than candidate quality, and a lot more to candidate quality than the things Cramer emphasizes. Again, that's not a fault of the book as much is it is a fault with, well, us as readers; we tend by far too quick to jump to explanations based on individual personalities at the expense of impersonal systematic analysis. From the perspective of a political scientist, the proper way to read books like this in general (outside of just the sheer fun of it) is for the data, which in this case are terrific, and not for the conclusions, which are usually uninformed by the research we have on these things.
It's by far my favorite campaign book ever, and I endorse Ezra Klein's "Richard Ben Cramer Appreciation Day." Enjoy!
A few notes on the book, which I agree is terrific. One is that while I guess he was unlucky in the original reception of the book, he's been pretty luck about the longevity of its main characters. As with the original reviews of the book, it didn't start out that way, oddly enough. The nature of the thing was that he was going to get a president out of his six candidates for the presidency in 1988, and he did -- but George H.W. Bush only lasted four years, and Bush's VP didn't come from the book. However, the 1996 Republican candidate did. And then Richard Gephart wound up as House Democratic leader for a while and eventually ran for president in 2004, and after that Joe Biden ran again in 2008 and became VP. So while Michael Dukakis was old news pretty quickly, as a group the six of them have stayed timely for a good long run, and still going strong.
I've assigned What It Takes a number of times, and I always enjoy re-reading, especially the bits on Bush, Dole, and Biden -- each of whom I think he captured perfectly, as far as I can tell. It's a remarkable accomplishment of reporting. Most usefully, I think the sections on Biden and Gary Hart are particularly useful in helping us understand the relationship between politicians and the press, and the skills needed for politicians to handle it. I also think that he's excellent on the pathetic nature of the national press corps.
(Which is why, by the way, that it's no surprise at all that it's initial reception was so negative. Of course the national political press hated it!).
I do agree with those who find the writing a bit much, although as cringeworthy as I find some of his prose, it's also true that I gobble it down and have no problem re-reading, so I don't know where that leaves me.
It's also the case that the candidate's-eye view is very limiting, which isn't Cramer's fault, but is a danger for those who read it. For me, it goes with The Candidate -- Cramer shows how the process tends to turn even the best of our politicians into blithering idiots. But it's important to also step back from that view, and realize that there's a lot more to elections than candidate quality, and a lot more to candidate quality than the things Cramer emphasizes. Again, that's not a fault of the book as much is it is a fault with, well, us as readers; we tend by far too quick to jump to explanations based on individual personalities at the expense of impersonal systematic analysis. From the perspective of a political scientist, the proper way to read books like this in general (outside of just the sheer fun of it) is for the data, which in this case are terrific, and not for the conclusions, which are usually uninformed by the research we have on these things.
It's by far my favorite campaign book ever, and I endorse Ezra Klein's "Richard Ben Cramer Appreciation Day." Enjoy!
Filibuster Reform Week
I've spent much of last week talking about Senate rules over at Greg Sargent's place...and again, thanks to Greg for the opportunity. Still, I guess I can look forward to another filibuster week over here, as the Senate prepares to consider procedural reform at the beginning of the new Congress. So, here's a reset of how I see the issues.
1. In the historic 111th Congress, we finally saw the triumph of the complete 60 vote Senate. Nothing passed without 60 votes (and, because minority Senators often fully exerted their rights under Senate rules, many things did not pass despite having more than 60 votes because Senate floor time is scarce). It's important to realize the context for this development: the filibuster is not Constitutionally mandated, and it has not been employed on most routine legislation and nominations until very recently.
2. I believe that the current situation is unstable. There simply is no way that majorities, over the long run, will put up with the full 60 vote Senate. I agree with Walter Mondale and others that current Senates can change Senate rules by majority vote, but in particular I disagree with those, such as the New York Times today, who claim this can only be done on the first day of a new Congress. Near as I can tell, there's a consensus among political scientists who are students of Congress that, one way or another, the only real obstacles to changing the rules by majority vote are political, not legal or Constitutional.
3. I think there are good reasons in both the construction of the Senate and in democratic theory to expect, and to justify, something beyond simply majority party rule in the Senate. So I'd like to see careful reforms to return the Senate to what it had traditionally been -- a place where individual Senators retained considerable influence, but without an absolute 60 vote requirement to do anything. My guess is that without careful reform, we'll eventually get a blunt elimination of the filibuster, and the Senate will then look a lot like the House does now. I believe that would be a loss.
4. From that perspective, I think that the Udall/Merkley proposals that the Senate will probably consider this week are underwhelming at best. The emphasis on sunshine -- eliminating secrecy in holds, trying to devise a way to force filibusterers to act publicly -- is, in my view, unlikely to really change anything. (Eliminating one procedural step -- the possible filibuster on the motion to proceed -- is probably a minor gain).
5. On balance, I do think the reform package as I understand it wouldn't hurt, and might help a little, even though it wouldn't be the way I would go. So I suppose I hope it passes. However, the real key here is that Democrats should think of this as a first round of reform, and spend the next couple of years being ready to go with a more comprehensive package should the 2012 elections go their way. Republicans, too, should be ready if they wind up with unified control of Congress and the presidency in 2013, although things being as they are it's somewhat more likely that the GOP will be slow to act because they will have spent six years defending the filibuster.
6. Democrats should also be ready to threaten drastic actions if Republicans insist on 60 votes for nominations in the 112th Congress, and then have the party unity to block numerous confirmations. I don't want the Democrats to actually go full nuclear and unilaterally eliminate minority party rights -- but that's the only meaningful weapon they have to prevent chaos. Remember, we've never had the combination of a true 60 vote Senate along with a minority party that can easily produce 41 votes for almost everything. In legislation, it's always possible to find compromises (and given the Democrat in the White House and Republican control of the House, we're going to get compromises whatever the Senate does with its rules). But there's a fair chance that Republicans are simply going to shut judicial nominations down, and play havoc with executive branch nominations, and the majority Democrats need to be prepared to fight back by threatening to use their ultimate weapon.
OK, I think that's enough to start with. I suppose I'll finish up by referring those who are interested and new around here to what I think rules reform in the Senate should look like.
1. In the historic 111th Congress, we finally saw the triumph of the complete 60 vote Senate. Nothing passed without 60 votes (and, because minority Senators often fully exerted their rights under Senate rules, many things did not pass despite having more than 60 votes because Senate floor time is scarce). It's important to realize the context for this development: the filibuster is not Constitutionally mandated, and it has not been employed on most routine legislation and nominations until very recently.
2. I believe that the current situation is unstable. There simply is no way that majorities, over the long run, will put up with the full 60 vote Senate. I agree with Walter Mondale and others that current Senates can change Senate rules by majority vote, but in particular I disagree with those, such as the New York Times today, who claim this can only be done on the first day of a new Congress. Near as I can tell, there's a consensus among political scientists who are students of Congress that, one way or another, the only real obstacles to changing the rules by majority vote are political, not legal or Constitutional.
3. I think there are good reasons in both the construction of the Senate and in democratic theory to expect, and to justify, something beyond simply majority party rule in the Senate. So I'd like to see careful reforms to return the Senate to what it had traditionally been -- a place where individual Senators retained considerable influence, but without an absolute 60 vote requirement to do anything. My guess is that without careful reform, we'll eventually get a blunt elimination of the filibuster, and the Senate will then look a lot like the House does now. I believe that would be a loss.
4. From that perspective, I think that the Udall/Merkley proposals that the Senate will probably consider this week are underwhelming at best. The emphasis on sunshine -- eliminating secrecy in holds, trying to devise a way to force filibusterers to act publicly -- is, in my view, unlikely to really change anything. (Eliminating one procedural step -- the possible filibuster on the motion to proceed -- is probably a minor gain).
5. On balance, I do think the reform package as I understand it wouldn't hurt, and might help a little, even though it wouldn't be the way I would go. So I suppose I hope it passes. However, the real key here is that Democrats should think of this as a first round of reform, and spend the next couple of years being ready to go with a more comprehensive package should the 2012 elections go their way. Republicans, too, should be ready if they wind up with unified control of Congress and the presidency in 2013, although things being as they are it's somewhat more likely that the GOP will be slow to act because they will have spent six years defending the filibuster.
6. Democrats should also be ready to threaten drastic actions if Republicans insist on 60 votes for nominations in the 112th Congress, and then have the party unity to block numerous confirmations. I don't want the Democrats to actually go full nuclear and unilaterally eliminate minority party rights -- but that's the only meaningful weapon they have to prevent chaos. Remember, we've never had the combination of a true 60 vote Senate along with a minority party that can easily produce 41 votes for almost everything. In legislation, it's always possible to find compromises (and given the Democrat in the White House and Republican control of the House, we're going to get compromises whatever the Senate does with its rules). But there's a fair chance that Republicans are simply going to shut judicial nominations down, and play havoc with executive branch nominations, and the majority Democrats need to be prepared to fight back by threatening to use their ultimate weapon.
OK, I think that's enough to start with. I suppose I'll finish up by referring those who are interested and new around here to what I think rules reform in the Senate should look like.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Sunday Question for Liberals
Barack Obama finished the year with a 47% approval rate, at least according to Gallup. Best guess (and I promise not to dig them up and hold it against anyone): where is he on that measure on December 31, 2011?
Sunday Question for Conservatives
Well, it's nomination time, isn't it? Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mitch Dainels, Haley Barbour, Jim DeMint, Mike Huckabee, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, John Thune, Rick Perry: how many and which of these candidates (or potential candidates) would you trust to be a reliably conservative President of the United States?
Saturday, January 1, 2011
What Mattered This Week?
I know, I know: not much, right?
It's possible the negotiations around Senate rules reform may turn out to have been important, but we don't know that, yet.
It's not exactly this week, but I'll go with progress in leaving Iraq. Casualty figures for Americans there continue to drop, with just five American troops losing their lives there over the last three months of 2010, and only one in December, a new low (figures are still preliminary so far, of course). That means 2010 ended with 60 fatalities, down from 150 in 2009 and 322 in 2008.
I'll also note, although I'm not sure exactly how much emphasis to place on it, that coalition deaths in Afghanistan seem to have stabilized over the last half of 2010. Over the entire year, coalition deaths were up substantially (711 vs. 521 in 2009, and compared to 295 in 2008). But the July through December comparison shows just a small increase, from 364 in 2009 to 388 in 2010. I'm not even going to try to interpret that; there are plenty of things it could mean, including absolutely nothing. But I sort of think it's worth noting.
Anyway, maybe someone else found something in the news that really mattered this week. Anyone?
It's possible the negotiations around Senate rules reform may turn out to have been important, but we don't know that, yet.
It's not exactly this week, but I'll go with progress in leaving Iraq. Casualty figures for Americans there continue to drop, with just five American troops losing their lives there over the last three months of 2010, and only one in December, a new low (figures are still preliminary so far, of course). That means 2010 ended with 60 fatalities, down from 150 in 2009 and 322 in 2008.
I'll also note, although I'm not sure exactly how much emphasis to place on it, that coalition deaths in Afghanistan seem to have stabilized over the last half of 2010. Over the entire year, coalition deaths were up substantially (711 vs. 521 in 2009, and compared to 295 in 2008). But the July through December comparison shows just a small increase, from 364 in 2009 to 388 in 2010. I'm not even going to try to interpret that; there are plenty of things it could mean, including absolutely nothing. But I sort of think it's worth noting.
Anyway, maybe someone else found something in the news that really mattered this week. Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
