http://nymag.com/news/politics/nationalinterest/government-shutdown-2013-10/
Washington couldn’t have gone dark without a radicalized Republican Party. Or maybe it was destined to all along.
In a merciful twist of fate, Juan Linz did not quite live to see his prophecy of the demise of American democracy borne out. Linz, the Spanish political scientist who died last week, argued that the presidential system, with its separate elections for legislature and chief executive, was inherently unstable. In a famous 1990 essay, Linz observed, “All such systems are based on dual democratic legitimacy: No democratic principle exists to resolve disputes between the executive and the legislature about which of the two actually represents the will of the people.” Presidential systems veered ultimately toward collapse everywhere they were tried, as legislators and executives vied for supremacy. There was only one notable exception: the United States of America.
Linz attributed our puzzling, anomalous stability to “the uniquely diffuse character of American political parties.” The Republicans had loads of moderates, and conservative whites in the South still clung to the Democratic Party. At the time he wrote that, the two parties were already sorting themselves into more ideologically pure versions, leaving us where we stand today: with one racially and economically polyglot party of center-left technocracy and one ethnically homogenous reactionary party. The latter is currently attempting to impose its program by threat upon the former. The events in Washington have given us a peek into the Linzian nightmare.
Traditionally, when American politics encountered the problem of divided government—when, say, Nixon and Eisenhower encountered Democratic Congresses, or Bill Clinton a Republican one—one of two things happened. Either both sides found enough incentives to work together despite their differences, or there was what we used to recognize as the only alternative: gridlock. Gridlock is what most of us expected after the last election produced a Democratic president and Republican House. Washington would drudge on; it would be hard to get anything done, but also hard to undo anything. Days after the election, John Boehner, no doubt anticipating things would carry on as always, said, “Obamacare is the law of the land.”
Instead, to the slowly unfolding horror of the Obama administration and even some segments of the Republican Party, the GOP decided that the alternative to finding common ground with the president did not have to be mere gridlock. It could force the president to enact its agenda. In January, Boehner told his colleagues he’d abandon all policy negotiations with the White House. Later that spring, House Republicans extended the freeze-out to the Democratic-majority Senate, which has since issued (as of press time) eighteen futile pleas for budget negotiations. Their plan has been to carry out their agenda by using what they call “leverage” or “forcing events” to threaten economic and social harm and thereby extract concessions from President Obama without needing to make any policy concessions in return. Paul Ryan offered the most candid admission of his party’s determined use of non-electoral power: “The reason this debt-limit fight is different is we don’t have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves,” he said at the end of September. “We are stuck with this government another three years.”
When one party doesn't recognize the elected legitimacy of the other, in spite of a majority of votes, and even a larger majority of votes for the Democrats in the House... you just have to wonder if it's possible to exist as a nation with such an attitude.
And it's not like they just started this attitude. They went after Clinton, and it didn't matter that the American people re-elected Clinton. Their supreme court five made a one-time ruling in their favor. Under the Bush administration, they tried to prevent Democrats from participating in committees, etc... I mean, after a while, you have to wonder if you want to share political real estate with a party who, for decades, refuses to accept the legitimacy of the majority of the population's voter preference.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/on-this-issues-cover-the-worst-congress-ever-20061016
Jonathan Turley: "The 109th Congress is so bad that it makes you wonder if democracy is a failed experiment."
Now, apparently, the current Congress is going to overtake the 2006 record...
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/13/12726689-worst-congress-ever?lite
= new reply since forum marked as read
