At what point does "bipartisanship" begin to erode the democratic process?
Here's my answer: When it's used to take decision-making power away from voters and place it in the hands of a governing elite - an elite which acts in secret so that its members cannot be held accountable to anyone for their actions.
Democrats traded away some of the most critical elements of health reform for bipartisan comity that never appeared - and yet didn't bring those elements back when the other side of the aisle rebuffed them. Now they appear to be doing the same thing with financial reform.
I'd like to know if my two Senators are in favor of a strong and independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency or not. That will help me decide whether to support their re-election. Yet if Senators Dodd and Corker have their way, I'll never get to find out. They'll work out their deal in private, either with the tacit support of the Administration and the Senate leadership or not (I won't know that either), and voters like me will never know where their Senators stood on this important issue.
Did you know that under Dodd/Corker it would be hard for individual states to enforce stronger consumer protection rules those set by the Federal government? One reason you might not know is that there's been no public debate of the Dodd/Corker compromise. "Bipartisanship" sometimes means keeping the public in the dark.
Here's how democracy's supposed to work: One politician stands for a certain set of ideas and values. Her or his opponent stands for others. We, the electorate, choose between them. But apparently this model of governance is considered too inefficient and messy in some circles. The current "bipartisanship" vogue would end the interference of all those meddlesome middlemen - the voters, that is.
In the New Bipartisan Order Washington elites get to decide what will be debated publicly and what will be decided privately. Any ideas that might require politicians to take controversial positions are hashed out behind closed doors and then presented as a "bipartisan" solution (after, of course, having been ritually blessed by David Broder and other cheerleaders).
It's time to give the proper label to this new, fetishized version of bipartisanship: It's an ideology. It's a new philosophy of governance that challenges our current system. Not so coincidentally, it also serves the interests of those promoting it, strengthening those currently in power and weakening the influence of voters and political outsiders.
It has other advantages for its advocates, too: Politicians can adopt a Good Cop/Bad Cop approach, for example, even when they hold a decisive majority. "Sure, pal, I'd give you a private option and a strong CFPA, but my partner here won't let me."
Do I have any hard evidence that's what has happened with financial reform? Of course not. I can't know anything about my politicians or their motivations under this system. That's the point. I don't even get to learn whether they'd vote for the policies I support.
Don't get me wrong: Compromise has its place. It's how legislation gets passed. We don't need to repeat the cliche about how "laws and sausage get made" any more. But in an ideal system compromise takes place after the votes have been counted. That's why it makes sense to put the ideas like the CFPA or the public option to an up-or-down vote. That forces politicians to declare their positions in public. If those measures fail, then it's time for some horse-trading - but out in the sunshine, where people can see it.
Instead we're being presented with faits accompli written in secret chambers, and we're supposed to celebrate the "bipartisan" manner in which they were designed. It's like being ruled by Plato's Guardians - except that these Guardians have been chosen for their wealth and salesmanship, not for wisdom and selflessness. And remember: Plato's Republic was not a democracy.
Take that recent rash of pro-Rahm Emanuel stories. Whether they're true or not, the "virtues" they perceive in the Chief of Staff aren't democratic in nature. Consider this embarrassing genuflection from Dana Milbank:
"Obama's greatest mistake was failing to listen to Emanuel on health care. Early on, Emanuel argued for a smaller bill with popular items, such as expanding health coverage for children and young adults, that could win some Republican support. He opposed the public option as a needless distraction."
The American people support the public option by a wide margin. But in Milbank's world - the world of Washington's elites - allowing voters to learn where their representatives stand isn't important. It's better to have a "smaller bill" (i.e., one that does less to fix this critical problem) as long as it has "popular items." And in Milbank's world "popular" doesn't mean popular with voters - like the public option - but popular with the elites (including the party that the electorate just overwhelmingly rejected.)
Some democracy.
Now Barney Frank is saying that the Dodd compromise is a "bad joke." He's speaking for a great many voters, and the residents of his district will know where he stands. Apparently he hasn't gotten the memo: These matters are supposed to be decided in private by the elite, not argued in public where the hoi polloi might overhear.
Don't get me wrong. Elites have their place, too - when they're meritocratic elites. The Olympics are the ultimate elitist event, and we saw a lot of very impressive people there. People should excel at what they do in order to win positions of leadership. But in a democracy, the people decide who leads and who doesn't. They have the right to know where their elected officials stand so they can decide accordingly. The elites don't get to choose their own membership ... or at least they shouldn't.
Bipartisanship ends where a voter's right to choose begins.
________________________________
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant and writer, is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard blogs at:
No Middle Class Health Tax
A Night Light
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
One only a few steps away from having elections like Saddam did where he got 99% of the vote.
If you see a man in need of bread, you could easily give the man bread from your plate. Neither Jesus nor the conservative would hear the man's plea for food and then force the person sitting next to them to give the hungry man some bread. Individual charity is fine, but forced charity is not.
Many believe that Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.
Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious posts do not prove that the posters are charitable or that their opponents are selfish.
So the tax payer bailout of the banks wasn't a redistribution of wealth? Transferring funds to the wealthiest banks and their investors so they wouldn't lose their wealth and status, i.e. welfare for the rich. Tax cuts for big business that send jobs overseas is charity (FOR THE RICH). Yeah I hate the fact that I was FORCED to give this CHARITY to the wealthy.
What's actually occurred is the repeated tax cuts for the rich and overseas corporations has directly raised the taxes or funds needed for the gov't to function. The funds used for school, fire, police depts. , etc. has been taken away to pay for the tax cuts(FORCED CHARITY) for the rich. These tax cuts that were suppose to generate jobs for everyone never occurred, which further created deficits.The rich never invested (job creation) in this country they invested in gambling on Wall St. with derivatives.
So what again do 'CONSERVATIVES' stand for ?
Government continues to over reach, and we should stop it now.
We should cut taxes and focus government on the areas government should be doing.
In general terms, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.
By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man, not over man. The creature (government) cannot exceed the creator in a democracy.
Not when you're printing fiat currency out of thin air it's not. That's what people don't seem to get--we don't HAVE the money. Nobody's "redistributing" any revenues--you can't possibly believe for a second that the revenues taken in by the U.S. government (whether from taxes or trade) are anywhere CLOSE to covering the government's expenditures. LOL! The United States is now basically a banana republic--our government has been reduced to conjuring up counterfeit money and sprinkling it on the nation's citizens and corporations, in the vain hope that this will somehow bring back the good ol' days of rabid consumption. We are DONE--whether you want to believe it or not....
Legislation providing Trillions of dollars for the Elite, Wars, Spying on Citizens, etc. all gets quickly passed with no debate, no comment, and no coverage from the Elite's media.
Watch as even more Insurance Company Windfall Profits are put into the Health Care Bill at the last minute by Obama and Rahm.
Using that measurement - bank bailouts and funds for global wars they like, healthcare for average citizens and bank reform, not so much.
Billions of dollars of defense spending are waved through every year, while the State Department has to justify every purchase of a new printer.
Joe Lieberman will threaten filibuster of health care because he is "concerned about the deficit." Then he proceeds to vote for new war appropriations.
In Mexico in the mid-'90s Wall Street engineered a currency coup that tripled the debt owed by small businesses and family farms and also allowed for them to be massively ratejacked on top of it. Mexicans consequently formed the "el Barzon" movement and pushed back Wall Street and deposed their ruling party of 60+ years. In this country YouTube phenom Ann Minch has already declared the debtors' revolt and begun going after them http://www.revoltstartsnow.com
If you've been pushed under, you can read my book for free: http://www.scribd.com/doc/25443175/Debt-Hope-Down-and-Dirty-Survival-Strategies-Evaluation-Version-Complete
Power companies have been privatized. It hasn't worked out so well for them so far when the drug mafia provides better pensions that the government. It's not as simple as you are stating here.
"Any bill that comes before me I want the public to have five days to review it online."
"Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
Hmmm...
Therefore, no bill is subject to the (already broken) five day review promise or subject to Pay-go.
Convenient...
corporate sponsored reality
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
-- Noam Chomsky
We need either a word or a succinct phrase to describe it. Something like "preemptive compromise" or "Riding with Republicans" (prison slang).
Any suggestions?
corporate sponsored reality
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
-- Noam Chomsky
I just thought of a great idea on how to get rid of all those Robber Baron Stooges in the U.S. Congress.
The U.S. Congress passes a law stating that all elections for the U.S. Congress will be nonpartisan in both the primary and general elections where the 3 top vote getters in the primary runs in the general electiion.
Requirements to run will be the same for all candidates; 40 nonpartisan signatures and a $1000 filing fee and a free 250 word statement on the ballot and all TV, radio and newspapers will be encouraged to give free time and space to all the candidates running.
All campaign contributions will have a $50 limit and can only be obtained from private citizens living in their district or state and if the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't like it just tell them that they are suppose to be working for the well being of the American people not for the Robber Barons.
This new election law will also mean that the people will once again have a government of the people, by the people and for the people and wouldn't that be nice???!!!
Until EVERYONE starts talking and blogging and marching for Campaign Reform we are just spinning our wheels discussing anything that might challenge the special interests.
This is just another case of special interests having their way over the best interests of the American people. Does that surprise anyone?
The will of the senate is the will of the special interests.
NOTHING will change unless we the people change it.
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/volunteer/petition (FENA)
http://change-congress.org/
sign the petition
I personally think the revolving door problem is so much worse of a problem because our regulatory agencies are loaded up with political appointments with people that formally worked in those same industries they are now tasked to regulate. Then without putting it on paper agree to go easy on these industries in return for a future job for them or their family members. Is this corruption? You better believe it. Is it hard to prove? Extremely. Is it obvious to see? How isnt it? Billy Tauzin anyone(medigap-d 2003/prescription drug bill)
I personally believe our two party system is horrible but doubt seriously congress will do anything to weaken their power. Just look at how they draw their congressional districts with gerrymandering.
When did elites not run this country in total? And if there was a time when the people had more of a voice in our government, when was it and why were things more democratic at that time?
I'm seriously asking, I don't have a particular answer or ax to grind.
It has become apparent that until elites qualify as such by some more social metric than accumulated wealth we cannot afford to indulge their will to write laws to favor their selfish interests. America, as the de facto global economic (no longer industrial) power, must either lead, follow, isolate itself from, or war-with other social leadership. If, as every politician claims, our ambition is to lead, then we need to start doing so.
In office March 4, 1933 – April 12, 1945
As soon as he died, it reverted to the status quo
This state of affairs was already the case and had been the case probably since about the time that Eisenhower gave his farewell address:
“The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Substitute (or add) Wall Street to "military industrial complex" and we're on the mark in the modern era. The US government is now no more than a wholly owned subsidiary of finance and defense contractors. We the people are simply here to be of service. Any illusion of actual freedom is just that, an illusion.
Campaign Reform is the only answer
As soon as we emerged from WWII and became one of the few superpowers again, the elites found ways (truman, the house unamerican activities commitee, the cia etc.) to take back what had been earned and it's been bad since, can we agree, a certain gunshot in Dallas. Does that paraphrase what you said okay?
Nations with parliamentary governments have workable systems with multiple parties. They can have a Green party, a Libertarian party, ... People can have their actual political views represented. That simply is not possible with two parties. For example, why would those who oppose abortion also favor tax cuts for the rich, and therefore vote Republican? The parties can't stand for anything, because those against will not join the party, and eventually you have no members.
At least for the House, we need to go to some form of representative voting.
What fewer people remember is the margin by which Bush's tax cut finally passed the Senate. As it happens, the number of yeas was 62--including 12 Democrats. That would qualify as a bipartisan love-fest by contemporary standards.
62--including 12 Democrats
Healthcare is a social bill with no real deadline, except the one artificially set by the president.
Reconciliation is not an option if the Senate follows the rules of the Senate.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/02/entitlement-entitled-to-endless-war.html