DICTATOR IN AMERICA

The reason I like to listen to Steven Kornacki’s UP (MSNBC) on Saturday and Sunday morning is that the discussions are usually on an intellectual level and not reduced to nonsensical political bating by reporters with a self aggrandizing agenda. This morning was no exception. The Republican Party was competently represented within the discussion group composed of Michael Steele, Richard Wolffe, and Jane C. Timm. Steele is the highly respected ex-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Jane Timm is a reporter associated with Morning Joe but seems more rational than most reporters are. Richard Wolffe, British-American is a journalist and MSNBC commentator and author of the Barack Obama books Renegade. He has definite liberal leanings. The discussion centered on what is wrong with the U.S. congress from the point of view of how to fix it. Actually, the center of reference was an article in Esquire Magazine with the awkwardly long title: Over two days in July 2014, Senator Tom Daschle, Representative Barney Frank, Representative Bob Livingston, Senator Trent Lott, and Lawrence O’Donnell convened in Washington, D. C., and came to unanimous consensus on the following recommendations to reform Congress for the Twenty-First century. This committee developed 22 remarkably simple reforms that would correct the dysfunctional congress. Of course, the given is that everyone accept the idea that congress is dysfunctional. The reforms, although simple, are too long to reproduce here but are on the internet. Steve Kornacki invited Lawrence O’Donnell, one of the committee members who happened to be one of his fellow MSNBC staff members, to discuss the article.

During the course of the discussion reporter Richard Wolffe made the point that the Republicans in congress “intentionally” created a dead lock in congress and that their strategy is working beautifully as evidenced by the upcoming election that favors that party. Ex chair of the RNC, Michael Steele, responded to Wolffe by saying he thinks the Republicans did not have a plan to do what happened, they just stumbled into it. What is the truth; did the Republican Party plan or did it not plan an “Intentional Gridlock in Washington?

It is a matter of record; elected Republican leaders in congress met in Washington D.C. shortly after the election of President Obama to “plan to make him a one term President”; thus, Michael Steele is clearly wrong. McConnell (R-Kentucky) actual voiced that precise statement; “his” number one priority was to make Obama a one term president, two years after Obama was sworn in as president. Regardless of the time line, the fact remains, the movement initiated by that small group of Republicans in 2002 even before the Chief Justice swore Obama, swept the country across radical right wing talk radio, Fox TV, and numerous right wing publications like the bubonic plague. My point in this blog post is to question the consequences of what happened. Why are Republicans willing to tear apart our government by creating an intentional gridlock in Washington?  They are quick to claim they are flag waving, patriotic Americans who love their country and quickly add the counter intuitive nonsense, “that is why they are doing what they are doing”. People do not destroy what they love.

I read the 22 recommendations of the bipartisan committee described in the title of that article and see something else. Primarily, every one of the committee recommendations clearly intended to help move legislation forward by preventing efforts to stop congress from acting. The startling point is that the rules of order in congress, as they now exist, appear structured to prevent legislation from advancing, which diametrically opposes the purpose of congress in a democracy. Congress has evolve, one small step at a time, to enable one Political Party to block operations as if the Party leader was a dictator.

Step back and look at Washington political reality. Republicans vote in block; most often, there is little or no deviation in voting; 100% of Republicans vote the same. In comparison, Democrats tend to vote by issue, meaning invariable a small percentage of Democrats vote against their own party doctrine according to the political environment in the states they represent; classically, so called “Blue Dogs Democrats” vote with republicans. However, Republicans quickly claim this happens in both partiers and can point out examples. The truth is that it does happen but rarely. I like to think in terms of a flock of ducks flying overhead and we look up and see one goose flying with hundreds of ducks. Only in politics would we see this and then turn to a neighbor and say, “Look the geese are migrating”.

Put this in the context of current issues, as only one example among hundreds. Legislation to give subsidies to oil companies passed into law when 80% to 90% of people in our country say they are against giving the most profitable business taxpayer money; the vote in favor of doing so was 100% Republicans with 90% of Democrats voted not to pass it. Clearly, something is terribly wrong with our democracy; our representatives are not representing the people. Some might believe this is right but no way would all representatives of the people vote that way. This makes no sense unless some one is telling Republicans how to vote—perhaps a dictator but who is in a position to be dictator. In our government, the people do no elect political party leadership and that is what is wrong with our democracy as it evolved over the past 238 years. The committee alluded to in the first paragraph found the answer. Unfortunately, congress is responding to Republican Party leadership as the intentional gridlock has proved. We worry about politicians being bought but seem to forget that some one has to buy them; that is who is the party leader is. What is certain is it is not “we the people” as our constitution says. Who then is the true leadership of the Republican Party, who is telling the Republicans how to vote?       

By now Republicans, who are reading this diatribe, are screaming no, no; it is not my party, it is both parties. No, it is not. It is the Republicans. Who are the people who met in 2002 and swore to destroy our duly elected president? Which party shut down the government? Who was caught firing Federal Judges and replacing them with Republicans? Who corrupted the Supreme Court? Who primarily benefits from that Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision? Is it the people or is it corporate interests? Congress has evolved over 238-years to respond to a dictator. That party has slowly installed a set of rules to respond to a dictator, the question is who or to what dictator is congress responding? Who are the Dictator in Washington? The answer is obviously the ones who benefit from income disparity.       

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated