I'm still confused about this

[jpgray]

How is it that we were unable to force concessions of any significance from the GOP when we:

Had no majorities in Congress and no president in office.

Had a majority in the House.

Had bicameral majority in Congress and the Presidency.

The GOP congressional delegation has been able to force significant concessions from us consistently. They did so when they were completely out of power, and are doing so even more now that they control the House.

We haven't been able to similarly compel concessions when in opposition or in control of one house. We haven't been able to sneer at opposition ultimatums when we have been in power, whether wholly or just largely.

So why the difference?

It's true that our delegations are more fractured and less amenable to control, and I think it's also true our leaders in general are more passive and adverse to risk than GOP leaders (which is no bad thing in some ways--c.f. Walker). But if one were hoping to move the country left, what should one make of the fact that the GOP has dragged it to the right consistently, either slowly or rapidly, both in power and out of it? What is the image of Democratic representation in government one should look to build in order to effect that movement left? How big a majority do we need? Is it a problem of our candidates? Leaders? Election strategy? What?

I don't want a mirror image of the GOP, but I think at some point in the past decade we should have been able to mount an effective push back to the left. If not after myriad GOP disasters, if not while we held the whole government, then when?

[Teaser]

1. Because they don't CARE if they break America

and we do.

[jpgray]

3. But we don't threaten them with what they care about. Why not?

We'll never threaten to jack up the tax rate, corporate or otherwise. We'll never threaten seriously to cut defense drastically. We'll never threaten to enact strict regulation on graft-soaked industries, or to enforce an exacting policy on the revolving door betwixt regulators and those industries. We'll never cap the size of banks, allow drug re-importation, reconsider NAFTA, or any of that.

Yet they have been trying to wreck the social safety net for more than fifty years. They threaten to ruin the poor and weak, while we fear to inconvenience the wealthy and powerful. Isn't it just bizarre?

[Curmudgeoness]

4. Well said. It is bizarre. nt

[Teaser]

5. that's a bit easier

The poor are not a powerful interest group. The rich are. So the rich inspire fear in both parties. At best, the poor inspire pity, not fear.

If the underclass ever got a little more "threatening", politicians would respond.

[Tesha]

2. That would be because a lot of folks who claim to be Democrats *AREN'T*.

And this goes all the way up to the White House.

Tesha