(First published on October 2, 2013)
Okay, so it’s happened: The Republicans have shut down the government. In two weeks, they may cause a much greater disaster, namely a government default, as happens in banana republics.
Applying the cui bono principle, it’s obvious why the 1%-ers don’t mind shutting down the government. The plutocracy isn’t affected. It’s no skin off their nose if government services are shut down. The overwhelming majority of the federal government’s activities is for the benefit of the 99%-ers.
Still, I am amused at the thought of the old Tea Party geezer on his way to Yellowstone in his $200,000 motor home, only to find out that he can’t enter the park.
* * * * *
As to the specific issue at hand: The Republicans are holding the federal government hostage in order to repeal Obamacare, even though it is the law of the land, approved by majority vote and found constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Most of us remember the moron a couple of years ago with the picket sign saying that he wanted the government to keep its hands off his Medicare. Similarly today, abysmal ignorance remains the foundation of the Tea Party’s version of democracy: Jimmy Kimmel asked people which health insurance program they prefer: Obamacare or The Affordable Care Act? Every single respondent replied that they dislike Obamacare (it is socialistic) but like the Affordable Care Act (it is not socialistic).
On the other hand, on October 1, the Republicans’ last excuse - that most Americans don’t want Obamacare/The Affordable Care Act - was demolished: nearly three million Americans inquired about how to sign up, on the FIRST DAY!
* * * * *
As to the shutdown and our government’s increasing dysfunctionality in general: I was thinking, what happens in European and other parliamentary democracies, when the government becomes deadlocked?
I don’t know whether a European government would shut down over something that has already been voted into law. I’m sure it’s happened. The history of Europe is replete with revolutions that wiped out all previous legislation and re-started a country from scratch.
However, there is one advantage which European-style, multi-party, parliamentary democracies enjoy over our strong presidential democracy: In places such as France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Scandinavia, and Canada too...), what tends to happen is that the premier or prime minister dissolves the parliament, resigns, and calls for new elections. There is nothing sacrosanct about holding elections exactly every 2 or 4 years, and for terms of exactly 2, 4, 6 or 8 years. In many countries, when the composition of parliament brings the government to a halt, the recourse is to call for new elections so as to alter the parliament’s make-up.
I am not saying that such a system is necessarily better. Historically, no country (in Europe or elsewhere) has been as stable as America. In France, Italy and elsewhere, governments have come and fallen with such frequency that there are many jokes about this. When I lived in France, the appointment and the collapse of new governments was daily news. Until the presidency of Charles De Gaulle, the country was ungovernable. The new system he introduced with France’s Fifth Republic was modeled after the American system. As a result, France became stable and prosperous.
Italy has been worse: It has had 60 governments since World War Two. Today, its problems continue. With or without the buffoon Berlusconi, Italy continues to teeter.
But what about us? Our vaunted political stability now seems to be biting back. Were we a multiparty parliamentary democracy akin to most European countries, here is what could happen at this point of paralysis: The government and Congress would be dissolved; there would be new elections. The outcome could be worse, or better. The Tea Party, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party could each gain or lose strength. President (prime minister) Obama could be replaced by someone from another party, or he could return to power with greater parliamentary support.
In sum, the outcome could be disastrous, or it could be beneficial. One thing that would be different, for sure, is that the current deadlock would cease. But listen: I am not advocating this solution!
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
Tom, a few points of disagreement. First, it is really a stretch to say the Republicans shut the government down. The truth is that the Republicans want to fund ALL of government, except Obamacare. That in itself is a major concession in that most conservatives feel that perhaps as much as 50% or more of government programs are unnecessary or at minimum inefficiently administered. Obama and the Democrats in contrast, are willing to shut down ALL government programs if they can't have Obamacare included. Who has taken the extreme position? It is also somewhat hypocritical for liberals to play the "Obamacare is the law, passed by the majority" card. Wasn't it liberals who claimed during the anti war sixties and the civil rights movement, that the majority is sometimes wrong, and that the minority has a duty to do all they can, peaceful and otherwise to overturn laws passed by the majority? MLK in fact, was in direct defiance of local laws passed by the majority when he marched in violation of local ordinances. The argument was always that the ends justify the means. Do all you liberals who claim Obamacare is the law of the land think those participating in the civil rights and anti war movement were wrong? And regarding your Tea Party comments, even liberals are aware that by and large most tea party people are very well-informed on economic matters. The Obamacare / Affordable Care Act example you used was actually from a Fox News Report of lower income Democrats and independents who thought Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were distinct entities. One thing we may agree on is that beginning in the 1960's there has been a relentless attack on traditional America, in politics, religion, social, and culture. Maybe the present standoff is a good thing, if the conservatives have finally woken up and realized the attack on the great American experiment. I doubt it. My suspicion is that within the next few days the Republicans will cave. So, for the liberals, no worries. The descent to barbarism in our society will continue unimpeded.
ReplyDeleteOctober 2, 2013
Hello Tom it's Professor Gail Wallace and I just heard on NPR the expression that the government is playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette where real danger and hurt is in the making. My commentary is that our government got into this game a while back with not cooperating in the first place. To think that some type of consensus will be reached at this stage is doubtful but it is also right on the heels of the October 17th meeting to balance our Fiscal Budget to pay our bills. This looks like the perfect storm for disaster and real live danger socially and economically for all of us. As a sociologist, I argue that this is akin to a paradigm shift in our social evolution and signals all the indicators of revolutionary development stage X, whatever that means but whatever this serious emergence is we are all in for some type of change and I doubt that it will good on the surface but meaningful for our growth as a society, Absolutely Yes!
ReplyDeleteOct. 3, 2013
Tom- I agree with the first comment but let me ask two questions. First, reading your comments I assume then that you believe that the Presidents extralegal exemption of large businesses for a year should not be matched by delaying the individual mandate for the same amount of time. At the same time you agree that the political class should not be forced to live under the same rules that they ask us to live under. Those are the two issues that the President and the Majority Leader are holding up a budget for.
ReplyDeleteSecond, let's get something straight. The House has exercised its constitutional responsibility numerous times over the last couple of years by passing a budget. The Senate has failed to pass a budget or even to negotiate on a budget virtually since the current majority leader took over. The Constitution assumes that both sides of congress will participate in working on legislation like the budget but the Senate "leaders" are so pusillanimous that they have not bothered to bring the continuing resolution to a conference committee where these kinds of issues are hammered out.
Oct.4, 2013
Personally, I see both Republicans and Democrats as being to blame in this embarrassment. What in the world are these people being paid as much as they are paid if not for their efforts to reach compromises? If you haven't already seen or read Elizabeth Warren's speech, take a look at it. She may be the only sentient being in government today:
ReplyDelete"A Senator Bluntly Says what we are all thinking."
Hey Tom,
ReplyDeletethis is a very thoughtful analysis of the current political mess
I thank everyone for their reactions. Being disagreed with is a lot better than being ignored.
ReplyDeleteApparently, there is a lot of confusion even on the “Left Coast” as to who is primarily responsible for the deteriorating situation…
I can only react in a very general way:
To anonymous, Dani and Jonathan: It is not true that the blame should be shared by both sides, let alone be primarily the fault of the President and the Democrats. I am sure that Elizabeth Warren would agree with me that the Republican Party and especially the Tea Party are fully and SOLELY responsible for (1) the current crisis, (2) the worse one to come when the debt ceiling is not raised, and (3) the country’s catastrophic long-term downward spiral.
I am not going to enumerate, once again, the myriad reasons why you are so terribly wrong. Nor am I going to enumerate, once again, the myriad ways in which the President has behaved selflessly, patiently, heroically, cooperatively, statesmanly, brilliantly for half a decade, only to be treated in vile, racist, irrational, intransigent ways by the extremist hate-mongers who simply can’t accept the fact of his presidency, who personalize politics and who are willing to destroy the country so as to destroy this President and his legacy. I refer you to the 500 articles we have posted on this blog during the past four years, many of them pertaining to this issue.
As far as I am concerned, the debate is over. It has been over for quite some tome. It is way past the time to equivocate, to split the difference.
Which brings up Gail’s much more interesting and a-propos comments: Her words hit the nail on the head: A “perfect storm,” a “paradigm shift,” the signals of a pre-revolutionary stage, not necessarily for the better. She is totally correct.
Today’s situation is reminiscent of the decade preceding the Civil War. Then, too, an extremist, intransigent, racist, reactionary faction, was desperate to hold on its feudal culture and was ready to burn down the house. As Gail insinuates, things are likely to get worse (some political violence already occurred at the US Capitol on October 3, a possible preview...), and it is quite conceivable that evil will triumph, as it did in Germany and elsewhere in the 20th century.
Descent into barbarism, anonymous writes. Quite so! Out-of-control increase in inequality, poverty and exploitation; The death of trade unions; the death of public service; renewed racism, bigotry and superstition; the rejection of science. Barbarians indeed! The Michelle Bachmanns, Ted Cruz’s, Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks , Dennis Millers and the Fox News crowd.
I still prefer the "party of no" any day to the "party of gimme dat".
ReplyDelete