Does Congress Want to Tackle America’s Problems?

[babylonsister]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/does_congress_want_to_tackle_americas_problems.php

Does Congress Want to Tackle America’s Problems?
Matthew Yglesias





Back during the campaign, and in darker moments since inauguration day, one worry you heard expressed about Barack Obama was that he might turn out to be another Jimmy Carter—well-meaning, reformy, but ultimately ineffectual. I thought those worries were always a bit unfair to Carter. There’s a tendency, when assessing presidents, to assume that anything is possible and that if Carter had just employed better tactics in 1977-78 or if Clinton had employed better tactics in 1993-94, then his administration might have accomplished dramatically more. And certainly there’s something to that point of view. But at the same time, it really does take two to tango. The legislative accomplishments of 1933-34 and 1965-66 were partially the result of tactical acumen in the wake of an electoral victory on the part of the White House.

But in part, they reflected a genuinely willing congress. There was a key block of legislators in the mid-1960s who really wanted to dramatically advance social justice in the United States. They wanted black kids and white kids to attend the same schools, and they wanted the schools to be better. They wanted equal voting rights and equal rights to public accommodations and a guarantee of health security for the poor and the elderly. They though it was obscene for extreme poverty to flourish in the wealthiest country on earth. Lyndon Johnson’s leadership was important to making that happen as was, obviously, the role of social movement leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. But LBJ and MLK didn’t bewitch the congress into having those priorities. A critical mass of key members really wanted to solve these problems.

When I read stories about Democrats signing letters urging the leadership not to pass cap & trade through budget reconciliation, or whining that Clinton-era tax rates will wreck the economy, or preemptively caving on permit auction, then it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s not the administration doing something wrong, it's that the key members of congress just fundamentally agree with George W. Bush and Mitch McConnell that it doesn’t matter if people die of treatable illness or if the planet ceases to support human life. It’s not, after all, as if any great mystery over how you move legislation that you think is important. Fifty is a smaller number than 60, and it’s easier to get smaller numbers of votes that bigger ones. If these guys have some genius alternative plan of preventing atmospheric carbon from reaching deadly levels, I’m all ears—but if they’re convincing then, again, I would want that plan to pass with a minimum of procedural hurdles. But it seems to me they don’t have any such plan, they just want to keep letting our problems get worse and worse indefinitely, but they don’t have the guts to admit it.

[elleng]

1. I suspect that they'd rather do nothing.

Doing something runs one into the possibility of being blamed for doing the wrong thing.

I don't think they think bush's way was good or anything of that sort, but rather would rather take the lazy way/chicken's way/coward's way out.

[babylonsister]

4. I find that position untenable, especially for Dems, given the

past 8 years of being steamrolled by the rethugs. And something has to be done, and is being done, by someone less fearful than these spineless wimps.

[elleng]

5. I wish it were 'untenable.'

Seen Rachel's rant on 'Conservadems?

[babylonsister]

6. Yes, posted it in youtube forum today. It was most excellent.

Maybe these conservative dems need to see that.

[elleng]

8. Maybe/maybe not.

The 'group' has stayed with their 'quirky' positions for some time. For example, Lincoln: never reliable, as far as I recall.

Its a BIG country, so to expect unanimity is a bit much (esp. from the group that espouses diversity of opinion.)

[C......N......C]

2. It is not Dem or Repub

It needs a reset to the default conditions prior to worshiped greed. Obama has certainly exceeded any expectations of moving toward change. He has stuck his neck out farther than I expected. The Congress can only see their share of the pie! In order to get a million for themselves, they have to vote for a billion. It is the economics of large numbers so a small share is worth while.

[bemildred]

3. Don't rock the boat, keep the gravy train running, that's what Congress wants.

They are out of luck, but who knows how long it will take to get a Congress that is willing to deal?

[stillcool]

7. Why should they?

They succumb to pressure, and the only pressure they get is from lobbyists.

[babylonsister]

9. Now there's an intelligent response. So you expect nothing? I

expect more than that, sorry.

[stillcool]

11. Not unless a small percentage..

of 'we the people' pressure them to...no.

[depakid]

10. True enough- but that's about to change for some of them

Some of the most prominent names in progressive politics launched a major new organization on Thursday dedicated to pinpointing and aiding primary challenges against incumbent Democrats who are viewed as acting against their constituents' interests.

Accountability Now PAC will officially be based in Washington D.C., though its influence is designed to be felt in congressional districts across the country. The group will adopt an aggressive approach to pushing the Democratic Party in a progressive direction; it will actively target, raise funds, poll and campaign for primary challengers to members who are either ethically or politically out-of-touch with their voters. The goal, officials with the organization say, is to start with 25 potential races and dwindle it down to eight or 10; ultimately spending hundreds of thousands on elections that usually wouldn't be touched.

"Most of the time, regardless of your record in Washington, an incumbent does not have to worry about being challenged in a primary," explained Jeff Hauser, an online Democratic operative who will serve as the group's executive director. "This only increases the power of the Washington echo chamber and the influence of lobbyists. We are trying to change that... We think there are potentially talented challengers out there who think the process of mounting a primary challenge is simply too daunting. When you bring to bear the resources of national organizations and the influence of the netroots, you can help these potential candidates."

It is a concept bound -- indeed, designed -- to ruffle the feathers of powerful figures in Washington, in part because the names behind it are now institutions themselves. With $500,000 currently in the bank, Accountability Now will be aided, in varying forms, by groups such as MoveOn, SEIU, Color of Change, Democracy for America, 21st Century Democrats and BlogPAC. FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher and Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald will serve in advisory roles, while Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos will conduct polling, with analytical help from 538.com's Nate Silver.

"This will be very much interactive and localized," said Hamsher. "We are already going out to local state blogs to help us identify well-qualified candidates in their communities. Once those people are identified we will be able to bring the strength of our resources to help them mount primary challenges."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/accountability-now-blogge_n_170163.html

[stillcool]

12. now that's great!

I suppose I'm kind of discouraged lately. Maybe I need a critical vote to come up or something.