Possible outcomes of the recent elections

[catsittingstill]

This post began as a response to bedlamhouse's post about the recent elections at http://bedlamhouse.livejournal.com/52274.html?view=217650#t217650. My response rapidly expanded to the point where I figured it was kind of big for a reply, and maybe ought to go in my journal.

If the Dems who were stomped on when they were in the minority now want to show the GOP how it feels, that would be a very human impulse (which I even share, in my harsher moments). Not productive, of course--we should be *better* than that. But human.

Holding the people who got us into this mess responsible seems like a good idea to me. Accountability has been sadly lacking up to now. Certainly Bush's end run around the FISA courts about warrants was a criminal act--I'm willing to consider letting him off the hook the way Nixon was pardoned, i.e., not because he deserves to be, but for the good of the country. But I've never seen any credible explaination of how it could be a matter of interpretation whether you have to get a warrant to tap a phone. Furthermore, in a more general sense, it is past time that Bush's tendency to sign laws while announcing that he won't obey them unless he feels like it is curbed. The president is a powerful person--but not above the law.

As I recall, judicial appointments never "ground to a halt." Something like 2% of them were held up as being too right-wing reactionary. If you meant to average 60 mph and you average 58.8 mph that's nothing to complain about.

Holding up a potential third Supreme court nomination until Bush is out of office would be only decent common sense. He's appointed *two* already, which is way more than his share. And between them the last two Republican presidents have appointed four. Let somebody else have a turn; the Republicans shouldn't *own* the court.



We've already dumped Rumsfeld. I have high hopes that his successor will listen to the experienced military commanders and make better decisions and plans.

One thing I think a divided government is likely to give us is reduced spending and possibly even a reduced deficit. This has been the case over the last century anyway.

If (and I admit it's an if), a Democratic Congress can wring a bit more transparency out of the Bush administration we will be able to find out who's setting policy (remember the Energy policy?). I think that in itself is more likely to get us more honest policy--things like no-bid contracts will be more vigorously questioned, which I think can only help.

Solving the mess in Iraq... eh. My present belief is that George Bush smashed an egg. I don't have a plan to make it better, because I don't believe it *can* be made better. With Shiites and Sunnis taking this chance to get revenge on each other for genuine wrongs old and new, and Kurds hoping to finally have their own country de facto if not de jure, and everyone wanting the revenue from oil fields they can't get working because of sabotage, I think it will descend into civil war no matter when we leave--the only question is how much money and blood do we want to pour down that rathole before we accept that there's no fixing it and pull out and let it collapse in flames behind us.

I'm sick about this; I would really like for it to be different. I feel horrible that we've done this to the Iraqi people, and guilty that I didn't personally do more to try to stop the war before we started it. But I've seen "turning point" after "turning point" after "turning point" pass, and things don't ever seem to get better over there. Now, if someone can show hard evidence that this or that plan will make things better, I'm willing to look at the evidence. But I can't help but remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council about WMD--and I want harder evidence than a picture of a warehouse with and without trucks and a transcript of a phone conversation.

Wait, darn it. I was trying to be positive.

Well, maybe if Congress demands to see the evidence, maybe there will actually be some. Or maybe, with new minds looking at the situation with more information, someone smarter and more informed than I am will see how to solve this problem. I would love that. I will happily forgo shoving this failure down Bush's throat if someone can find a reliable way to turn it into a success.

Comments

[bedlamhouse]

Good points here, and of course I am not advocating that no accountability or even blame should be assigned. I am concerned that, consistent with the "look at me and how I can bring wrath upon the mighty" politics of the 21st century, it will be the main focus of the next two years. The main focus should be looking for solutions (to which I agree there are few, if any) or at least ways to lessen the pain of the consequences of this fiasco.

The point of "holding up a third Supreme Court nomination" because the luck of the draw has given Republicans a chance to pick more recent justices I have a bit of a problem with. I'm sure that if the situation was reversed most Democrats would not say "well, we've picked our share, let's allow the Republicans to pick the next one" which sort of leaves that reasoning in the cold in regards to some sort of unwritten fairness rules. Now, reasonable politics in a divided government should mean that the nominated justice should be at least minimally acceptable to all sides so that there is a chance of confirmation. A vote on confirmation should take place quickly and NO is a perfectly valid vote. Both sides (and I understand this is also not likely) need to be able to compromise, and a quality judge will often take a completely unexpected turn once on the court.

I would also hesitate to jump to conclusions about the criminality of the ongoing "struggle" for alignment between the three branches of the government. Whether one personally agrees with an interpretation does not necessarily mean no room for interpretation exists. If room for interpretation exists then FUTURE action can be prohibited by clearer law (in some cases) or by Supreme Court decision (in the case of the highest level disagreements between Legislative and Executive). Being on the losing side of interpretation does not and should not ipso facto make one a criminal. When many of those professing dissatisfaction with the actions can't keep themselves from supporting them at other times (look at the number of members on both sides who started out voting for restricted civil liberties in the original 'Patriot' Act - many are coming to their senses but it is still ridiculous) it makes it even more difficult. When "security" is still one of the hicghest issues mentioned in exit polls it makes it extremely unlikely that any action to increase it - no matter how "misguided" - would be prosecuted. After all, way too many Americans still think that only criminals are subject to the kinds of things legislated out of existance and run around, it could never happen to an innocent person...

In sum, I think my definition of constructive work is to look at things without emotion and anger (which, as you say, is hard since the newly elected majority are just as human as the old one) and decide how to make sure they do not happen in the future. The Republican Revolution started out with an agenda that many disagreed with but was very specific; it was not meant to be focused on revenge. It degenerated quickly into a shouting match and then an arrogant ruling class, but before it did so it managed to actually put forward the specific things it was elected to do. The current Democratic Ascendency comes into office with the handicap that the agenda is not specific; it is only promising to Not Be The Old Regime - a much harder thing to focus on and much easier to fall into the trap of proving We are not Them by punishing Them.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

I'm sure I remember reading that the Democrats have set down several specific goals, including raising the minimum wage. The fact that I cannot at this time remember the others should not be taken as an indication that there are no others, simply that my memory sucks. :)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

You have some good points too. I agree that we can't afford to waste a lot of time punishing people.

Regarding Supreme Court nominations, I will just mention that when liberals were nominating Supreme Court justices (I can't remember when this ever happened, but I take it on faith that at some point it must have) the nuclear option was never on the table. Liberals had to choose nominees acceptable to 60% of the Senate. Bush got to pick two far right nominees, without worrying about whether they were acceptable to 60% of the Senate; as far as I'm concerned that ends his turn.

" A vote on confirmation should take place quickly and NO is a perfectly valid vote." Yep. And if we have the majority, NO is what it should be until we get a liberal justice. If Bush can't pick one, that's his problem, over which I will shed few tears. If Bush can pick a genuine liberal, I'm willing to consider going with it. But you can bet I'm going to check *that* horse's teeth! (I suppose I ought to face up to the possibility that not all Democrats in the Senate are going to agree with my perfectly reasonable and well-thought-out position. But I can hope.)

As for quality judges taking an unexpected turn--you do have a good point there too. Was it Thurgood Marshal who was initially going to take the opposite position on Brown vs. Board of Education? But then found that when he had to write up the judgement he couldn't justify it and had to change his mind? Anyway, I understand that can happen, and while I might be mad at the judge (depending), I probably wouldn't be mad at the person who appointed the judge.

I completely agree with you about the abuses of civil liberties in the Patriot Act (and later, even more severe, abuses in the military tribunals bill, whatever they ended up calling it). I think that part of the problem with the Patriot Act was that anyone who disagreed with it (especially anyone in the minority party) would promptly be beaten with the "unpatriotic" stick and the "soft on terror" stick by the party then in power. I would like to see that stop with them. Another part of the problem is that with everyone afraid to delay it in any way, it passed Congress so fast that people didn't even get to read it before they voted. There's something very wrong about that. One of the things I'd like to see is some way to require that Senators and Representatives *read* the bills they pass, all the way through. That wouldn't be too much to ask, I don't think. Maybe we could set it up so that they read the bill with some study questions in hand, then take a quiz, and they don't get to vote until they pass the quiz.

My mom used to say that everybody in Congress ought to be required by law to do their own taxes too. Just the Senator (or Representative) and the tax forms and a calculator, and whatever explanatory books the Senator (or Representative) thinks might be helpful. But no accountant, no tax preparer. She figured that would simplify the tax code in a hurry.

The FISA court came into being (IIRC) because Nixon thought he could just wiretap anybody he wanted anytime he wanted and claim it was national security--while the necessity of national security taps was recognized, it was deemed inappropriate to put that power, unchecked, in the hands of a single person. The *purpose* of the FISA court is to authorize those wiretaps genuinely necessary for national security. Unless I'm completely off the mark here, wiretapping for national security without a FISA warrant is not a grey area, or a matter of interpretation, it's a crime. I thought I understood the unitary executive theory, at least vaguely, and while it grants a president a remarkable amount of excess power, I didn't think it authorized breaking the law.

It is possible that people's fear of terrorism means they will not countenance enforcing the law against a president who utters the magic words "national security," but that is a different issue.

"The Republican Revolution started out with an agenda that many disagreed with but was very specific; it was not meant to be focused on revenge" ???? Was the K-street project a latecomer to the party, then? I was under the impression that it was initiated on day one, but I could be wrong.

[bedlamhouse]

And if we have the majority, NO is what it should be until we get a liberal justice. If Bush can't pick one, that's his problem, over which I will shed few tears. If Bush can pick a genuine liberal, I'm willing to consider going with it. But you can bet I'm going to check *that* horse's teeth! (I suppose I ought to face up to the possibility that not all Democrats in the Senate are going to agree with my perfectly reasonable and well-thought-out position. But I can hope.)

We may just have to disagree with one another on this. I don't like the litmus test whichever direction it goes. I'd rather see good judges who are moderate rather than see judges forced to be on one side of politics or the other. I think it is bad judicial precedent to attempt to force judges to try cases in the Judiciary Committee rather than wait for cases to come before them with all the facts. I would hate to see the Court handicapped by missing one or more justices for a whole session.

The role of the Senate (though many Senators in history on all sides of the aisle would not necessarily agree with my definition) is to Advise and Consent to these nominations, not to Dictate. Like it or not (and we tend to like it when it is Our Guy and not when it is Their Guy) appointments to the Court are the prerogative of the President.

In reality I can't see the Democrats able to force a particular type of candidate simply because the Republicans will still have enough power to clog up other actions until a Justice is confirmed (51 is not enough to force cloture on a filibuster). One hopes this means we'll see more moderation. It might be best to hope we won't need another Supreme Court appointment until after the next Presidential election.

The *purpose* of the FISA court is to authorize those wiretaps genuinely necessary for national security. Unless I'm completely off the mark here, wiretapping for national security without a FISA warrant is not a grey area, or a matter of interpretation, it's a crime. I thought I understood the unitary executive theory, at least vaguely, and while it grants a president a remarkable amount of excess power, I didn't think it authorized breaking the law.

This is where things get into such a state as to keep constitutional lawyers employed. Much of the struggle between the Legislative and the Executive hinges on what Presidential powers the Congress can constitutionally restrict. In many of these cases the only way that the restrictions or unconstitutionality of same are determined are by the law being passed and the President ignoring it. The Court then makes a decision on the constitutionality of it. While I suppose if the court decided it was a "legal restriction" violation would then absolutely be a crime, I don't know what criminal penalties (if any) are spelled out in FISA (impeachable offense, perhaps?) above and beyond such evidence being inadmissible in court. There are a number of restrictions that were placed on the Executive after Watergate that have been challenged over the last 25 years either by actions not protested or by cases going to the Court - a regeneration of Presidential power is one of the things Reagan started.

Again, I don't disagree with the principle in this specific case, I think this kind of wiretapping is appalling. However, the resolution of it is not quite as obvious as it may seem without an explicit ruling.

This is the kind of question that makes me regret I never was able to figure out a way to take Constitutional Law and earn money doing something other than teach or work for the government. I'm fascinated by this type of argument.

ooh - too long - I have to break this into two responses!

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Yes, we may have to disagree about the litmus test. My point of view is that refraining from using a litmus test, when the conservatives have no such restraint, guarantees a court hostile to liberal values. Some of those liberal values are very important, like preserving habeas corpus, preventing warrantless wiretapping, preserving voting rights, etc.

A handicapped court (short a member or two), would be like King Log--not getting much done. A court hostile to liberal values would be like King Stork. I'm a frog who knows how that story ends. I don't think "Advise and consent" means "rubber-stamp any scoundrel who pleases the president," so there's an obvious way to prevent King Stork from reigning over the pond.

I also hope this is an issue that just won't arise. But I thought O'Connor had a few more years in her, and I was wrong about that.

Um. Maybe I didn't understand the theory of the Unitary Executive after all. Is that theory roughly equivalent to "The president may do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution; other laws don't apply"?

Because I thought FISA was the law and applied to everybody, and *specifically* to the government, and I don't understand how any less permissive interpretation would allow the president to break it just because he is president.

[bedlamhouse]

Because I thought FISA was the law and applied to everybody, and *specifically* to the government, and I don't understand how any less permissive interpretation would allow the president to break it just because he is president.

The quibble as I understand it involves being in a state of war sort of (while Congress didn't declare war as such they basically granted the President most of the powers that declaring war would). When in capacity as Commander-in-Chief and during times of National Crisis (I am so tempted to put that in quotes *grin*) the powers of the Executive are (and historically have) expanded, such that certain restrictions may not apply.

In other words, law is not the issue so much as a gray area about what powers and restrictions are allowed to apply during muddily defined states of conflict.

Beyond this point I am not qualified to discuss as I don't have the cites used by those who favor either side. In any event, there seems to be grounds (valid or not is yet to be determined) for thought that FISA does not completely apply.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd like to see Bush punished for what I think are clearly criminal acts. However, the important thing is really to put a stop to them. So...

Maybe one good thing a Democratic Congress could do would be to end the "pseudo-state of war" and strip the president of his special powers. That might put a stop to a whole bunch of abuses (habeas corpus, domestic eavesdropping, use of torture) right there.

[bedlamhouse]

Continuing...

Was the K-street project a latecomer to the party, then? I was under the impression that it was initiated on day one, but I could be wrong.

As I understand it, the K-street project started after the Republicans were in power (1995) and was not so much a matter of revenge as a matter of ensuring that lobbyists (and thus the Beltway culture) would be controlled by the Republicans. This seems to be a decent description of it. While it ended up being punitive in many ways, revenge was not the reason.

In any event, it's more the Contract With America, which specified specific goals and a timetable for their action, that I'm referring to.

Again, you might agree or disagree with its contents or be cynical about whether what took place was consistent with it, but it is hard to deny that there was a specific plan given by the Republican Party to the voters before the election. While I think everyone has talked about what the Democrats are likely to do, and Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi have given a general list of priorities, such a list was not the focus of most of the Democratic campaigns nor was it really the impetus for the change in power.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, it's true that the Democrats didn't offer a specific unified list of changes that they all pushed during the elections. (The Republican party may march in unison--the Democratic party is more like a herd of cats) We do have a list now, though.

(I've put it in the order I think they should go, rather than the order I originally heard them)

1) Raise the minimum wage
2) Undertake ethics reform, including lobbying reform
3) Change the law to allow federally funded stem cell research
4) Redirect oil subsidies to renewable energy.
5) Implement the 9-11 Comission's recommendations on security
6) Allow the government to negotiate drug prices for people on Medicare

1 I think isn't the most urgent, but will be easy and popular and a way to make a needed change and get some momentum
2 will be tough and we need to get started early. What I'd like to see is a complete revamp of the system, with public funding of campaigns so we don't end up with these enormous attention-monsters and blizzards of ads. Maybe we could set it up like a ballot initiative--a candidate has to gather a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot, and then recieves an equal share of the money set aside for that campaign. The candidate can spend it however she likes--on hundreds of yard signs and thousands of bumper stickers, or on two TV ads. Whatever she thinks is better. But when she runs out, that's it.
3 Obvious, important, and hopefully easy.
4 Maybe not so popular. But an important part of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, reducing our deficit, reducing greenhouse gases and reducing pollution. Maybe it will even stimulate our economy--I would love to see renewable energy become a bigger sector of the economy not just for all the previous benefits, but also because I think it would be sustainable.
5 Apparently a lot of these have been kind of half-heartedly implemented. We need to look at all of them and see where we need to implement them in a serious way.
6 It looks like the savings on this may not be as big as I once thought. But every little bit helps.

[(Anonymous)]

George Bush smashed an egg.

Yes, that is the perfect phrase.

[patoadam]

Oops, that was me.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Shucks, thanks.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

My thoughts on this may be found here. It's rather discursive, and got dratted long.

[sandy-tyras.livejournal.com]

If the Dems who were stomped on when they were in the minority now want to show the GOP how it feels, that would be a very human impulse (which I even share, in my harsher moments). Not productive, of course--we should be *better* than that. But human.


But the GOP does know how it feels. They were treated that way for 30 years prior to the '94 elections. How is it that folks don't seem to remember that? There was even talk after said election that the GOP shouldn't be allowed to do what they had been elected to do because 'after 30 years they wouldn't know how to lead.' Which was as obnoxious an assertion as could have been made, IMHO.

Of course the "let's do them like they did us" reaction is human, as you state, but it is certainly a disaster for the country as a whole. Maybe we should all start voting Independent. I don't know.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. So the Republicans were abused for 30 years, then turned around and became abusive, but the Democrats should be better than that.

Well, as it happens, I agree with you. The Democrats should be better than that. I have pretty high hopes that they will be.

The K-street project won't happen under the Dems. The nuclear option won't happen under the Dems. The rearranging of committees the Republicans accomplished to make it impossible for the minority party to get bills out to a vote--well it may be expecting a bit much to say the Dems should go to a lot of effort to correct that after the GOP got it all fixed up the way they want it. But for "better than that" two out of three is a pretty good start.

[sandy-tyras.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's an extrapolation of what I said that is pretty wild. ALL I said and ALL I mean was that it is pretty odd to think that the Reps. don't know how it feels to be trashed. Of course they do.

And I DON'T expect the Dems to be any better. They never have been - why start now? I find all politicians to be pretty equally reprehensible.

Yes, mine is a rather dark world.