Sunday Open Thread [3.17.13]
Tim Dickinson: “After watching voters punish the GOP in the 2012 elections, Republican elites have been talking a brave game about reforms that would make the party less repulsive to Latinos, women and gay-friendly millennials…”
“Don’t be fooled. On the ground, a very different reality is unfolding: In the Republican-led Congress, GOP-dominated statehouses and even before the nation’s highest court, the reactionary impulses of the Republican Party appear unbowed. Across the nation, the GOP’s severely conservative agenda – which seeks to impose job-killing austerity, to roll back voting and reproductive rights, to deprive the working poor of health care, and to destroy agencies that protect the environment from industry and consumers from predatory banks – is moving forward under full steam.”
Politico: “Minnesota topped the turnout list for the eighth time in the last nine presidential and midterm elections, with 76.1 percent turnout. Hawaii came in last, with turnout at a mere 44.1 percent. Overall turnout was down from 62 percent in 2008, when the possibility of the nation’s first black president caused a surge at the polls, to 59 percent in 2012. Low turnout in the nation’s three most populous states — Texas, New York and California — contributed to the drop. All saw declines of nine percent or higher.”
“The two budget proposals now in Congress present Americans with a choice even starker than the one between the presidential candidates last year,” the Los Angeles Times reports.
“Under the 10-year budget plan released by House Republicans this week, tax rates would fall for high-income Americans and corporations, defense spending would be bolstered, and more than 30 million uninsured people would lose access to government-backed healthcare. Food stamps, student loans and free school lunches for children would be cut.”
“The Senate Democrats’ plan, released Wednesday, would increase taxes on the wealthy and some corporations, cut the Pentagon budget and add $100 billion in highway and school construction spending. Their plan would make modest reductions in healthcare and other domestic programs.”
John Dickerson‘s Slate post, “Is Obama Setting a Trap for Republicans?” probes white house strategy in the budget negotiations. Sure, the president would like a grand bargain on the budget, and he has to try for one, knowing full-well that the Republicans could string him along for a while, then sink the negotiations at any time. In that event, Obama has the cover he needs to hang tough and reveal, once again, that the Republicans can’t govern because they won’t compromise — not a bad meme for 2014.
How odd that the only thing preventing safety net cuts is Republicans. That won’t last forever. I guess the only choice we get is how big the cuts are. Maybe Obama’s plan is to string them along until growth takes the deficit issue off the table.
And I think that is going to happen. The economy is showing real signs of a take off. Last year, it was predicted to only grow by 1% this year. Last month, that was revised up to 2%. Now it is up to 2.9%. We may be looking at a 3.5% growth in GDP this year, even with sequester added in.
Just like in the 1990s. Get used to hearing the phrase “Better than expected.”
In the ’90s some liberals held welfare reform against Clinton, just as I hold tax cuts for the rich against Obama. But in the end economic results can’t be argued with. Now we need to see some jobs and some wage growth. If the recovery all goes to the 1% it will be a defeat.
the DJIA doings so well might serve to validate Repiblican obstruction, among Republicans anyway. then again I guess everything validates Republican obstruction among Republicans.
Republicans took control of state houses because Democrats voted in the usual small numbers for an off year election in 2010 while Republicans angry at Obama’s election turned out in record numbers. It is imperative that Democrats put an emphasis on getting out the vote in 2014 and concentrating on state races. I don’t think we will find the same enthusiasm among Republicans. We need to flip some of these Governor’s Mansions too.
For us Swedes it was really quite fascinating to delve into the Wilmington mayoral election. We have never seen such an overwhelming majority in a general election. Forgive me for saying so, but the word banana Republic comes to mind. Yet, historically there seem to have been a sort of equilibrium between Democrats and Republicans in Delaware, which appears to have been replaced by a single party government. What happened? Can anyone explain this to us?
http://delawarereferendum.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/wilmington-mayoral-election/
Swen-Erland,
The tragedy of America will always be that the nation was founded on slavery. Because of that, race will always play a major role in our politics. We fought a civil war over it and then spent the next 100 years trying to maintain the old status quo with Jim Crow laws. The civil rights movement of the 1960’s moved things in the right direction but we still are wrestling with our roots. The fact that the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments on the Voting Rights Act, again, is a pretty clear indicator that the struggle continues. It’s very different from what you experience in Sweden. The miracle here is that we keep trying and the political process eventually evolves. I don’t see that as a path toward a banana republic but rather away from the banana republic we once were.
auntie dem, thank you for your reply. I am aware of the role of slavery in US history, and the consequences it still has, some 150 years after its abolition. However, I’m still puzzled. I have never seen such dominance by one party in a general election (c.f. the diagram at the bottom of the link in my previous comment). After digging into the political history of Delaware I’ve come to understand that there used to be a balance between the Democrats and Republicans, which appears to have been replaced by almost a single party government.
Something must have created that situation.
You should ask state Republicans what happened. They are the ones who have become so non-competitive. By and large they don’t even seriously try in Wilmington. Which isn’t to say that the state doesn’t need better Democrats, but the Rs have largely stopped trying to compete in some places.
Cassandra, as we write in the blog: “What is the reason for the Republican party not being able to set up a candidate in a mayoral election who can write a check that doesn’t bounce? From an outsider’s perspective, it appears that no serious Republican contenders would even bother, since they are doomed to lose.”
Pity, the dynamics of democracy is based on polarisation and competition.
The polarization and competition need not be destructive. Any form of dialectal inquiry such as a debate, trial, or an election depends on the participants finding some common ground in terms of the the goals of the inquiry and the rules of order. What we are seeing in Delaware and the United States is a breakdown in that basic assumption. One party is not acting in good faith, and will not support the findings of the inquiry or even the legitimacy of the inquiry itself.
The Republican Party has opted out of the process. That’s the pity.
True, Jason. The only thing the Republican party is for is anything President Obama is against. If the President agrees with their position, they will change that position. It’s not only nuts, it’s dangerous.
Jason: Does this mean that the Republican journey towards orthodoxy, influenced by the Tea Party movement, has alienated voters in Delaware?
I’m under the impression that, like the people of Sweden, the voters in Delaware value competent government above ideology. If this is correct, then the Torquemadas of the GOP will fail to convince the Delawareans.
The modern Republican’s nihilistic willingness to wreck the country; to smash 200 years of democratic traditions, to undermine the economy, to fan the flames of sectarianism and racism, in order to hurt this President is astonishing.
Well there you have it, there is a reason that we suggest that Delaware secede and join Sweden: we have a government that actually works, one that combines the dislike of big government with the principles of solidarity. In Sweden, it is possible to be against big government, support lower taxes and more market economy, while at the same time be in favour of solidarity, universal health care, gay marriages, the right to free abortion and gun control.
“Does this mean that the Republican journey towards orthodoxy, influenced by the Tea Party movement, has alienated voters in Delaware?”
Correct. There is a lack of seriousness at the heart of the modern GOP that is rejected by the bankers and scientists who once controlled the Republican Party in Delaware.
The remaining Republicans value ideological passion over results. So the GOP is a keg that is tapped at both ends. One one side the serious flee in search of rationality and on the other side, the unserious indulge in pantomimes with little concern for electoral outcomes.
If you can prove that the Swedish model of unity works for some reason other than your homogeneity, I’d consider it.
We spent a decent amount of time talking about the Wilmington Mayor’s race here and I noted somewhere down the line that the GOP missed one of their better opportunities in this race. Certainly Wilmington is a blue city, but a city with a great many problems that needed to be addressed. A competent R candidate — one that wasn’t focused on the clownshow ideology but focused on Wilmington’s issues could have made a decent run for it in the General. People in the city were open to real change at that point. The R still had an uphill road, but this may have been their best chance in a very long time.
Jason, Sweden is no longer homogeneous. Out of our 9 million inhabitants, just over 1 million are immigrants. From the Nordic countries of course, but also from various conflict regions across the globe, like Somalia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Northern Africa, Bosnia etc.
Cassandra, perhaps it’s just me, but if you run for an important position like mayor and your cheque for the filing fee bounces, then I would suggest that you are unfit for office.
That is likely true and understanding what went on in this case requires knowing some of the backstory too. As in the GOP went out of its way to disavow itself of this specific candidate.
Cassandra, good point – there is always a backstory. What surprises me, however, is not that this particular candidate appears to be unsuitable, but that GOP fails to set up a serious candidate. This must mean that serious and qualified Republicans don’t even want to become associated with the current state of the party. Otherwise, there would have been a competent Republican on the ballot.