White House photo
Rules are rules. When it comes to the political establishment discussing what ails the American system, the rules dictate that "both sides" are always to blame for everything in all instances. Even if reality clearly shows one party more responsible than the other, no one's allowed to say so -- to assign responsibility to those who deserve it is to be biased and irresponsible.
With these rules in mind, it was a delightful surprise to see Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein publish a Washington Post op-ed over the weekend, headlined, "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.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges.
"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.
For those unfamiliar with Mann and Ornstein, these aren't just two political scientists who occasionally write about current events. Mann and Ornstein enjoy almost unparalleled credibility with the Beltway establishment, and are generally accepted as centrist observers, not ideologues or partisan bomb-throwers.
This context matters. When Paul Krugman or Eugene Robinson says the radicalization of the Republican Party drives the dysfunction of our politics in the 21st century, they're correct, but the impact of perspective is limited. When Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, present the same argument, their observation raises eyebrows.
What's more, consider the real-world implications of the GOP's radicalism.
Many of the examples Mann and Ornstein rely on in their piece point to a modern Republican Party filled with intemperate children, throwing around reckless conspiracies, driving moderates from their midst, and rejecting their own ideas the moment Democrats think they have merit.
But the way in which the radicalization of the GOP affects modern policymaking cannot be overstated. A system designed to govern through compromise stops working when an entire political party refuses to make concessions. Policymakers have honored certain norms for generations, but once those norms have been abandoned -- filibustering every bill of any consequence, for example -- institutions begin to break down.
Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, who advised Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, told Fareed Zakaria yesterday that his Republican Party will eventually move back towards the middle, but I have no idea where his confidence comes from.
Indeed, Mann and Ornstein argued that the GOP is unlikely to become more responsible anytime soon.
If our democracy is to regain its health and vitality, the culture and ideological center of the Republican Party must change. In the short run, without a massive (and unlikely) across-the-board rejection of the GOP at the polls, that will not happen. If anything, Washington's ideological divide will probably grow after the 2012 elections.
Parties respond to electoral incentives. So long as Republicans become more extreme and keep winning elections, they'll see no reason to change.
As for the "rules" I mentioned at the outset, Mann and Ornstein offered the media some good advice: "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.... Our advice to the press: Don't seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?"
Leave a Comment:
Americans are fed up with Republican intransigence, arrogance, stupidity and partisanship. This "party of no" refuses to play by the rules and take responsibility for governing this country. john Boehner has consistently abdicated his authority as Speaker of the House and simply cowered behind the Tea Party radicals that have taken over his party. There is no respect for the office of the President among Republicans in Congress. None of these idiots deserve the gold-played taxpayer salaries they currently enjoy. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Quoting myself:
//Brian Regan these republican idiots that are saying passing health care for all americans in unconstatutional and government over reach. what is the patriot act? and messing with womens health care ? and making it harder for minority to vote? seriously i,ll take the obama over reach any day . and the majority of americans feel the same way .//
Brian Regan, that is where both parties have hypocrites.
Both have politicians who are making anti-constitutional decisions.
So I go back to what I earlier said:
"When politicians in BOTH parties refuse to compromise on any issues that the US Constitution DOES allow for, the general population loses.
When politicians in BOTH parties refuse to compromise on any issues that the US Constitution does NOT allow for, the general population wins! :D"
Activist, you are correct -- as the article states, the Republicans ARE to blame.
However, you seem to be saying that ALL Republicans are to blame for this. Olympia Snowe is quitting because of the Tea Bagger Takeover, because she feels there is no room for true conservative Republicans in Congress.
I suspect there may be a few other Republicans in the Senate and the House who are true conservatives, not wild-eyed, oppositional reactionaries. Perhaps, like Ms. Snowe, they ought to take the high ground and walk out. But perhaps they are hunkering down there, cold-shouldered by the rest of their colleagues, but trying to make a difference.
Maybe it's all my imagination. But I really do not like the idea of blasting everyone in any group for the actions of part -- even a large part -- of that group.
Ducking off the field with her tail between her legs isn't exactly a profile in courage.
As long as the Republicans in Congress maintain rigid party discipline by voting en bloc against Democratic proposals (even when they were originally Republican proposals) then, yes, every single one of them is to blame.
I'll start using a narrower brush when they start voting like responsible individuals with principles and consciences instead of robovoters.
When I heard the authors of this op ed this morning on NPR, I was hoping that the op ed and the authors would appear some where on this blog. Any chance to do a segment on the show on this? Pretty please with sugar on it!
I don't normally go along with the idea of Rachel following viewer suggestions. Can you imagine how dull that could get? But this op-ed is something momentous on the scale of the Earth shifting it's orbit. Steve has it right: the media just are not supposed to blame just one side for anything in the all-important quest for balance. Partisans are one thing, but these guys? This is like Gandhi eating a Whopper, or Jesus punching a Pharisee in the face, or Mr Rogers dropping the f-bomb. It's just not supposed to happen. It deserves attention.
...and it took too long for these scholars to step forward. The banality of evil works at a much faster pace and once its roots gain firm ground, no amount of sanity, objectivity effectively changes course. We have problem.
Agreed. Observant people of even limited intelligence have been able to see this phenomenon for several years now. Why has it taken so long for these two experts to finally speak up? They look like hangers-on rather than the leaders they should be.
"If the people will lead, the leaders will follow." (attributed to Gandhi)
I see no discernible change in the GOP anytime soon. the automatic stabalizers of our political system are broken whereby political parties respond to election returns. There was no rethinking by the GOP after defeats in 2006 and 2008 -- in fact quite the reverse as conservatives merely blamed those defeats on the liberals and moderates who stabbed them in the back as they moved the party further to the right. Blood is thicker than water and a radical ideological party is not likely to ever give up its religion just because voters rejected it at the polls. This is further complicated by the fact of unlimited money being poured into politics by reactionary billionaires, the rise of right wing conservative media and the fantastic fortunes still to be made economcially and politically for those who reside entirely within the right wing, reactionary bubble. A split of the GOP into two separate parties -- a Republican Party and a Conservative Party -- seems far more likely than a general shift of the GOP to the center.
Ain't happenin'. The American system is set up so that it really only allows two parties.
Given the fanaticism and pavement-pounding numerical advantages that the extreme Right has, they're going to continue to dominate Republican internal politics. If and when sanity drives less extreme members out of the Party, the extremists will just gain more power.
Normally, the Party establishment would have some control over the rabble, but they have their own funding sources that can continue to support the poor-but-numerous out of petty change, so don't expect that the POG will change spots any time in the foreseeable future.
It's going to take demographics to break their hold on the Party.
While I applaud them for speaking to the obvious, their "opinions" aren't likely to produce "change within the GOP's" (mis)behavior. Sadly, FACTS as presented by Rachael on "Meet the Press" are NOT relevant to any position! "Policy" and it's effects on working Americans - totally NOT taken into consideration!
These badly behaved children need to be sent home in November with a sound spanking by the electorate!
Of course the Post, in the perfect self-parody, accompanied the Ornstein Mann piece with pieces by both Jonah Goldberg and Frank Luntz. Talk about false equivalence . . . .
Try reading comments from wingnuts on any of those 3 articles. There couldn't be more clear testament as to the disabling effect the Fox/Republican anti-reality campaign has had on the least capable amongst us.
Thanks for calling the Post out over this.
We're now way beyond "Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" with all the right-wings false equivalences being aired and unchallenged. Republicans and conservatives are the new Thelma & Louise with the petal to the metal in a climatic downfall.
BTW, Mitt, I still haven't seen your long form birth certificate in the media! Remember what Reagan said, "trust but verify" - oh wait, is he now too liberal for you?
Skowcroft's confidence comes from knowing that when the Republicans lie their way to power utilizing the power of the hordes of Useful Idiots, they will then return to positions of compromise. Of course this will be after they have crippled the New Deal and Great Society with ever increasing tax cuts and claiming the country can't afford any safety net because it is broke.
After this has occurred, Republicans will then be magnanimous and compromise on whether 90% or 95% of the safety net is dismantled while Democrats claim victory that compromise has returned.
I don't see how the tealiban is going to move "back" to the middle when it is now occupied by the dems.
This has been bothering me for ages. I am reading Battle Cry of Freedom right now, and it is shocking how this current situation reminds me of the pre-civil war period of partisanship. It was only mildly amusing this morning when I heard these guys being interviewed on NPR and that exact point was made. Off the rails indeed.
Amen to this op-ed in the WP, and to their inclusion of facts to support their opinions. This statement in their piece sums up today's reality of the GOP, and the lack of governing that results from it, perfectly:
I hope that voters will realize in time that it's not a "both sides of the aisle" behavior.
I also hope the media pay particular attention to the advice offered in the closing paragraphs of the piece. Since GW Bush was in office, the media seem more interested in protecting their access than in covering the abuse, lies, and self-serving of the "unbalanced phenomenon" that is the GOP.
We can talk about it. We can over-analyze it. But the solution remains the same. Vote them out. Literally. If you or I couldn't do the job we were hired for, we'd be fired. Simple. The American people hired them, we can fire them.
From the day President Obama took office, the Republicans made their agenda abundantly clear. "We will simply say 'No' to everything." And they have - even to the things they brought to the table and the Dems thought those things may be good ideas. Good heavens, we can't have that! That looks like we're actually interested in working together!
The sad part of this whole fiasco is that they think the American people actually ADMIRE them for what they're doing - even though all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Why? BECAUSE WE KEEP HIRING THEM FOR A JOB THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN DOING.
Now, seriously folks. Do you really think ANY business would survive by hiring a bunch of incompetents? No. The only thing we can blather on about is how inefficient the system is, and how much we distrust government. Wake up. You're NOT going to get that job until the economy improves - and with the party of no in power, you won't see that. Period.
I find it sad that so many refuse to see the obvious. That so many are just willing to "follow" instead of leading a charge to show Washington that you KNOW what's going on and it's time to put on their Big Boy pants and suck it up for the betterment of that mass of humanity that outnumber their ilk. Vote them out. And be very careful who you think might fill the shoes of the one you try to replace. The Tea-Party always lurks behind a smiling Republican face.
Rant over.
The thing that really makes the situation impossible is that the Republicans are "unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science". Which underlies Rachel's comments on Meet the Press this weekend. There's no place to even start a conversation about the problems facing the country and the world. It's not just that politicians differ in how they view the appropriate role of government or what the best solutions to any problem is. Really depressing.
Ornstein's critique should carry weight; back in my college days, I had the impression that he was a longtime Congressional scholar and he was all over the videotaped materials for the US Congress class.
That was 1989. I'm surprised he's only done this for 40 years.
//Brian Regan these republican idiots that are saying passing health care for all americans in unconstatutional and government over reach. what is the patriot act? and messing with womens health care ? and making it harder for minority to vote? seriously i,ll take the obama over reach any day . and the majority of americans feel the same way .//
Brian Regan, that is where both parties have hypocrites.
Both have politicians who are making anti-constitutional decisions.
So I go back to what I earlier said:
"When politicians in BOTH parties refuse to compromise on any issues that the US Constitution DOES allow for, the general population loses.
When politicians in BOTH parties refuse to compromise on any issues that the US Constitution does NOT allow for, the general population wins! :D"
I spend a lot of my time doing ancestry, and the GOP reminds me the idiots who went around burnning people at the stake. They did this to people who did not conform to their ideal of proper Christians, like women who spoke their minds, and had the nerve to disagree with the males.
There are a number of pundits who have remarked about the false equivalence argument. Dems continue to reward Republican radicalism and intransigence with compromise after compromise. There is no incentive for the Republicans to reform their slash and burn politics because voters keep voting for them and Dems keep moving to the right. The reason why the Dems keep moving right is because they have sold out to the same special interests that support the Republicans. It is telling that Dick Durbin said the banks own the Senate.
So the question is how to move this country back toward a centrist political view. It is possible that the demonstrations in Wisconsin, Ohio and the Occupy Movement may be the start of the Dems building a new coalition centered around middle class values. But it will also take Dems to make bold proposals and solutions to a multitude of problems including the structure of our political system. If Obama is reelected, the Dems should propose a Constitutional amendment overruling Citizens United and reform of our election system to provide public financing and eliminate the lobbying system with its financial rewards to our elected representatives. The second item is for Dems to garner public support to end the Republican intransigence. That should include ending filibusters and holds. I believe that these items will move the public opinion. These suggestions may even be a part of the Dem platform for the upcoming elections. I see these items as a potential solution for voters to support to end the gridlock. Give voters some hope that change can be accomplished and public opinion will follow.
Mitch McConnell will remove the filibuster as the Republicans take the House, Senate, and Presidency. Then it's goodbye to the New Deal and the Great Society. And the EPA, ...
Given your, what I refer to generally as "delusional hallucinations", how exactly do you believe that such an outcome would, in fact, be of great value to the American people?
Control of the Congress changes but that is not a reason to keep filibusters and holds. Inevitably, if legislation is really bad then the other party needs to bring public pressure to bear on the majority party. I seriously doubt the Republicans have the stomach to bring the Ryan budget for a vote in the Senate and pass it. The following elections would be devastating to the Republicans. Don't assume the Republican party is going to continue on its radical trajectory. Election losses on a large scale will force the party to change.
That's not clear. Given the uncritical coverage of Ryan and his "budgets" I'm not at all convinced that the populace would actually have a clue as to how badly they'd been screwed over.
Don't forget that the most radical aspects are set for a ten-year implementation delay for that very reason.
The voters have figured out the Ryan budget because that is why the Republicans lost the NY seat. Public opinion against the Ryan budget is high and if Romney wants to defend it, then that is better for Obama and the Dems. The idea that the Republicans would protect current benefits did not affect the vote of older people receiving SS and Medicare; they were overwhelmingly against the Ryan budget even with the guarantee. These voters know that if you take future benefits away, then the Republicans will take current benefits away.
Mike, sometimes I'm just contrary because the world ain't black and white.
I'll add to your list: a lot of us "grandfathered" over-55 geezers aren't in the "Screw you, I've got mine" [1] camp because we have brothers, sisters, friends, and children who are dead center in Paul Ryan's crosshairs.
[1] Wonderful bumper sticker, esp. with an elephant on it.
I read Mann & Ornsteins op-ed over the weekend. Excellent description of the current sad state of political affairs. The problem they point out, of Republican unreasonableness and intransigence, is in my opinion the direct result of the Right's adoption of an irrational near-religiosity regarding their philosophy and policies. They don't view their positions as the starting point of a conversation. They view their positions as the rightful end result of any interaction. They behave as true believers do and any deviation from the course is heresy, any compromise or questioning is blasphemous. They believe what they believe on "faith" despite all evidence to the contrary. If evidence contradicts what they believe, they cast doubt upon the evidence, attack the messenger. You can't reason with the Republicans because they are not coming from a position of Reason. How do you reason with someone who believes in the political equivalent of the Noah's Ark story being literally true? Any Republican making an effort at sincere dialogue with Democrats is accused of betrayal and branded a RINO. The only solution is to beat them soundly at the polls. But I'm not sure even that would shake them from their delusions.
You're probably right about the part of not shaking their delusions...but those delusions would NOT be in a position of power if they no longer held the office.
Again, this is a war; it is NOT a debate. This only stops if Republicans are defeated. If Republicans take over in November, say goodbye to the country you grew up in. It'll be no more.
Yes, they do. However, the only acceptable direction from there is to the Right.
We've seen that play out several times now, haven't we: they make a proposal, the other side accepts it, the Right rejects the acceptance and comes back with something else even more radical, repeat.
It's about damn time somebody announced that the Emperor was naked! Now if only the American people would take out the trash in November...
Yesterday marked 3 years without the Democratic-controlled US Senate passing a budget in violation of federal law. Obama's last two budgets were voted down 97-0 in the Senate (2011) and 414-0 in the House (2012). Spread the word. The Democrats either don't care about the fiscal train wreck we are facing or are deliberately avoiding doing anything about it in order to retain power. Either explanation is disgusting.
What is the penalty for violating that law? Are all members who voted against any of the proposals going to prison? Fines? Disband the Senate or the House?
I just want to point out a few things: 1. Democrats don't hold a majority in the House so you'd be accusing Republicans of wanting Democrats to stay in power when it comes to the House (seriously did you think this through?) and 2. while Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, they only hold that majority by 1 seat. So you're stating here that 49 Republicans voted to either deliberately keep Democrats in power or because they don't care about our fiscal situation.
Spread the word: Republicans want Democrats to stay in power according to Eric!'s logic.
I should also point out that we're talking about a new budget. They've been extending the budget as per the law every year since PBO got into office. They just have voted down coming up w/ a new budget. Technically speaking you are not required to come up w/ a new budget every year.
Rachel and I discussed this briefly at her LA book signing...not to be snarky, but "a pox on both your houses" is a misquote. The actual line is "a plague on both your houses". A pox and a plague are similar, but not the same thing. Figurative example: "Chickenpox on both your houses" vs "Black Death on both your houses"...and now I'm off of my soapbox...
The next couple decades will be interesting ones.
If by "interesting" you mean a seemingly never-ending nightmare of reality-shattering intensity, then yes, it should be quite interesting. Popcorn?
I thought it was spelled "repugnicans"...