Two years ago this week, deep into the temporal void known as the Post-Xmas/Pre-NYE Interzone, the reality of an incoming Trump presidency settled over me like a shroud over a corpse. Continue reading
The fact that they went for 40 years without ever holding it meant that they had to compromise on budgets and a vast range of measures. It’s interesting that the critical political function that the GOP excels at, obsessively focusing on judges, is one that doesn’t go through the House. It’s also interesting that a lot of their current anti-democratic focus has its strongest effect in the House. I might be wrong, but I bet the GOP remembers that 40-year run in the wilderness more strongly than Democrats do.
Imagine how Democratic policies would be affected if we couldn’t, for election after election after election, win the House? It would push us towards the centre, and this argument of whether we should compromise and accommodate the racists wouldn’t even be an argument — we’d have to.
During this postwar period of great strife and acrimony the Republicans controlled twice: 1946 to 1948, and as a result of the Ike landslide 1952-1954. They suffered devastating losses in the 1958 midterms. The Democrats lost few seats in 1962. The only significant setback for Democrats until Ronald Reagan ushered in a GOP-controlled Senate for the next six years were the 1966 midterms, the reaction against the Great Society. The insufferable encomia to George H.W. Bush and his putative moderateness failed to mention that to have any seat at the table Republicans had to compromise.
As the two parties sorted themselves in the nineties into voting blocs similar to parliamentary systems, turnover accelerated, which means that the GOP has even less reason to stabilize and why the Democrats have only in the last election cycle paid more than lip service to their left flank. Democrats, however, have a few years to go before they approximate the GOP’s inexorable purism. This won’t stop Beltway types from both-sides-ism, though.
Pressing his ears against the commentariat’s din, Matthew Yglesias comes to obvious conclusions: only a Democratic majority in the Senate could have stopped the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation. Conversely, Mitch McConnell’s legislative genius, such as it is, consisted in whipping a bare majority. Even in those halcyon days of the sixty-vote filibuster over which Harry Reid presided, Barack Obama got nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan confirmed not because a spirit of benign comity persuaded Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham to vote for them: the Senate confirmed them because he still enjoyed a fifty-plus Democratic majority that could’ve gummed up the works if it wanted to. Reid and Obama didn’t need Collins and Graham. Continue reading
If in 2005 a friend had asked me to endorse a candidate with “socialist” somewhere in her literature I’d have looked nervously over my shoulder — this is Miami, and I’m of Cuban-American descent. Andrew Sullivan bewitched me. I was proud to use my lack of party affiliation as a demonstration of my freedom from the scrim of politics. But these are strange times. Living during the Obama and Trump years occasion unexpected nudges, encouragements, and, at last, the collapse of long-held assumptions.
Looking back, it’s also striking that Crowley never actually won a competitive congressional election. He was slotted into a safe seat back in 1998 by his predecessor, who only officially retired too late to have an open primary competition for the seat, thus allowing Crowley to be crowned without really running. Crowley is well liked by his colleagues in the House, but he’s not particularly charismatic. And in retrospect, his decision to skip a couple of debates looks borderline catastrophic.
Ocasio-Cortez, meanwhile, is a young, dynamic public speaker in a city whose machine-oriented politics tends to toss up drab nonentities as its politicians. She had uncommon social media savvy, and cut a fantastic video while waging a campaign that did a brilliant job of both channeling long-simmering national progressive disgruntlement with the idea of Crowley’s eventual accession to the speakership and emphasizing her greater rootedness in the district as currently conceived.
Bring on Election Day.
While y’all tittered about Melania Trump and her Coat of Smarm, the House reminded Americans that Paul Ryan and his GOP caucus despise the poor. Although putatively a “farm bill,” it’s a cruel piece of legislation written to exact work from people who already drop dead in exchange for a pittance from Washington:
The House farm bill would also tighten eligibility criteria under SNAP — changes that would result in some 400,000 households losing SNAP benefits. Thousands of children would also risk losing their enrollment in free and reduced-price school meal programs.
Republicans contend the plan would put people on a pathway to self-sufficiency. Democrats and anti-hunger groups say it would make it more difficult for millions of needy Americans to receive nutrition assistance, and also would invest in a state-run job training bureaucracy under SNAP that has yet to prove it helps people move out of poverty.
Whether bill survives in conference despite Pat Roberts of Kansas’ altruism remains a mystery. But concentrating on ephemera is a symptom of a Beltway pundit class that doesn’t have to worry about having enough money in their credit cards to buy cashews and lamb shanks. I warrant that Nicole Wallace will spend not a second discussing the implications of this bill on MSNBC this afternoon.
I’m late to the story, but Scott Lemieux wrote the sharpest squib about the announcement that Willard Romney, Scion of the Binder and Emperor of Bain and Father of Tagg, may run for the departing Orrin Hatch’s Senate seat in Utah:
A Republican senator who is a lockstep vote for Trump’s agenda and appointments and a lockstep vote against any attempt to investigate him will be replaced by a Republican senator who is a lockstep vote for Trump’s agenda and appointments and a lockstep vote against any attempt to investigate him but occasionally gives quotes to the media suggesting that he finds Trump vaguely distasteful.
Having returned to work, I couldn’t watch the phalanx of homeless conservative Trump victims who consume MSNBC air time. Do they consider Romney a man of principle or a vulture capitalist with handsome coif who governed Massachusetts as you might expect a Republican to do with a Democratic legislature? It’s called a rhetorical question.