The Arrogance of Power

The nuclear option has been decided on. President Obama and the Democrat majority leaders in Congress have decided to use the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation to pass their unpopular health care reform bill, a bill that the Republicans oppose, a bill that some liberal Congressmen oppose for not being liberal enough, and a bill to which the majority of the American people, according to most polls, are vehemently opposed.

Here, you can see a compilation of leading Congressional Democrats lambasting the procedure… when Republicans tried to use it back when they had the majority and the Democrats tried to filibuster every bill and nomination they could. Pot, meet kettle.

My favorite quote is the one by Harry Reid. The “arrogance of power” is an apt summation of the main problem facing the United States; it is applicable to not just our politicians, but the unions and big business.

It is not merely having power that produces this corrosive arrogance — it is the certainty that comes from possessing that power for so long a time that the bearer becomes convinced of its permanence. The two-party system mandates that one party or the other will be in majority, and one in the minority. The electorate has only two potential choices, and has but one alternative to their usual choice when they inevitably grow tired with the corruption, ineptitude, or radicalism of one party. And so it goes, back and forth, the parties alternating between majority and minority, having the White House or not having it, and the politicians are well aware of this. For many it is not about the interests of the electorate, but a game they have to play to maintain their careers. Such politicians don’t care about the issues or ideology, just the gravy train; “Hey, look, sometimes your guys get this seat, sometimes my guys get it, but we’re all in this together, right?”

The presidency and the Congress demonstrate this fruitless cycle. People were disgusted by Nixon and embarrassed by Ford, so they elected Jimmy Carter. Carter turned out to be even more of a failure, so went back to the GOP and elected Reagan. More recently, the nation grew fed up with Bush, and picked Obama, hoping that a young Democrat would bring some change. It has been said that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is a clear indicator of madness: If that is true, then the nation is certifiably crazy.

That is where the Tea Party enters. While largely in opposition to higher taxes, big government, and liberal health care reforms-single-payer, public option, requiring everyone to buy insurance, etc. — the Tea Party is, at its core, an expression of the deep-seated distrust and dissatisfaction with the status quo in American politics. Many Tea Partiers, contrary to the media stereotype of being racist rednecks with misspelled signs and GOP Astroturf stooges, are just as dissatisfied with the GOP as they are the Democrats. Between the handling of 9/11, its later exploitation as an excuse for any and all actions by the Bush Administration, the Patriot Act, the unnecessary invasion in Iraq (and the lying about our motives), and the first bailout, there was something about the Bush presidency for everyone to hate. In fact, it’s likely that if asked, the average Tea Party attendee would say that were upset about at least one of those.

Despite the recent victories in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts, and the general animus against the President and Congress, the Republican Party is rightly cautious. The zeitgeist is antagonistic to all incumbents, Republican and Democrat. Approval ratings for both parties are down, independents are growing more numerous, and a common cry at the rallies is to “throw all the crooks out”. The near-victory of an independent candidate in a recent special election in New York was a sterling example of the potential for a major sea change in American politics.

Changing the political culture from one driven by selfish ambition and greed to one committed to the will of the people and the good of the country will not be an easy task. A massive electoral defeat for the Democratic Party combined with the defeat of as many entrenched incumbents as possible, while a massive victory for the people, would be just the first needed step in a long campaign towards a better, “more perfect union”. I could fill an entire separate blog entry on how we can, and, in my opinion, should reform our political system. I’ve become politically cynical in my short life; I still am hopeful that our nation can still change for the better. Contrary to the wisdom of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the others who have tried to subvert the Tea Parties and turn them into GOP cheerleaders, it may indeed be time for a Third Party to emerge, and the Tea Party very well could be the first stirrings of such a party. Whether it will disrupt the two-party system and lead to the U.S. becoming a more of a multiparty democracy, or simply displace one of the parties (most likely, given the base of the Tea Party, the GOP), remains to be seen. The fact that libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul won the straw poll for President (a fact much bemoaned by the likes of Rush Limbaugh) and the aforementioned near victory of independent Doug Hoffman candidate in a special election in New York highlights the emerging cracks in the two-party system.

Americans are fed up, with the Democrats, the Republicans, with spending, unions, Wall Street, special interests, and corruption. The people want politicians who are beholden to no one but their voters; whether the two-party system can achieve this remains to be seen.

6 Responses to “The Arrogance of Power”

1. Jeffrey says:

   March 10, 2010 at 1:09 pm

   How is reconciliation a “nuclear option” if the Republicans also used this technique dozens of times when they were in power (including when they passed Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy)? Where I’m from, when something goes nuclear everything’s vaporized and toxic. That’s certainly not the case here.

   Is an option only “nuclear” if you don’t like it?

   Health care reform is not “unpopular” unless you only listen to the poll numbers being parroted on Fox News. Americans who are asked their opinion on the concept of health care reform say they dislike it by a thin margin, but when you ask them about each individual provision of what’s actually being proposed, the vast majority of them are in favor.

   The fact of the matter is that health care reform bills have already been passed by both the House and the Senate. Reconciliation is the standard procedure whereby differing versions of a bill are brought into alignment. That’s why it’s called reconciliation. It’s a very common part of parliamentary process in our system of government.

   I’d be awfully surprised if the average tea partier is actually “just as dissatisfied with the Republicans as with the Democrats,” as you assert. There’s really no evidence for this in any practical sense, although it may be a convenient talking point. At any rate, throwing support to third parties has historically proven to the one of the least effective tactics for institutional reform available in the American political system.
2. Peter says:

   March 10, 2010 at 2:54 pm

   This is a great blog post in that it really highlights the heart of the tea party movement: “the Tea Party is, at its core, an expression of the deep-seated distrust and dissatisfaction with the status quo in American politics”. Uninterested in proposing solutions to problems, tea partiers are more focused on kvetching that the government is ineffective while promoting the “small government” policies that helped make it that way. They whine of crippling partisanship and politicking but then laud the GOP for their solidarity in opposition to healthcare reform (not to mention paygo). They complain that congress has forgotten the constitution (which requires only a simple majority vote in the senate), all the while referring to reconciliation as “the nuclear option” and treating the Filibuster as sacrosanct.

   Rather than understanding government, economics, healthcare, or even simply the constitution, the tea party regurgitates right-wing talking points without a modicum of critical thought. They are aimless populist rage directed by large corporate interests against their own self interest. The only good thing I can say about the tea party is that they are mercifully few in number, despite the massive media attention they receive from their corporate sponsors. Oh, and they do make for great entertainment.
3. Peter says:

   March 10, 2010 at 3:07 pm

   Oh, and while I found your post naïve at best, I would like to thank you for not being a _complete_ GOP lickspittle. I wish I could say the same of regular Nexus neocon columnist Begakis.
4. Jeff Nettleton says:

   March 12, 2010 at 11:47 pm

   The Democrats still poll higher than the Republicans. Health care is going to pass next week or the week after, and once the incessant lying and misdirection spouted by the Republicans and their talking-point spewing pundits filters off the airwaves, and people begin seeing the effects of its provisions, the rain clouds everyone insists are hanging over the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects will begin lifting. The student loan package getting tacked onto the reconciliation package will also restore some party confidence, not to mention the fact that eight months remain until the midterms, a reasonable amount of time to pass one or two more pieces of medium to large sized bills.

   Additionally, even if the Tea Party had five million followers, which I highly doubt, what percent of the voting electorate is that? Three percent? Two percent? Come on.
5. Brian says:

   March 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm

   Dude, watch some CSPAN, they have been covering this. Reconciliation is an existing rule and is used often, notably for the medicare prescription benefit.

   The “Nuclear option” in the Senate is passing a new rule with a simple majority which would un-do the super-majority tradition of the Senate. The best time to do it would be at the start of a Senate, otherwise it could be filibustered.
6. Jeff Nettleton says:

   March 14, 2010 at 7:38 pm

   Here is a great infographic that lists the instances in which the usage of reconciliation led to the passage of a bill. Note who has used it more, and how much two of those reconciliation uses, the Bush II tax cuts cost.

   http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/03/07/opinion/07opedchart_graphic.html

   The Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on here. It has become quite evident that they are desperately trying to avoid any progress, unfortunately for the American people, because of their stubborn dedication to serving those who already have so much.