Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

At this moment in our nation's history, one party rule simply is a "bad thing" -- perhaps a one party Democratic government would be far worse than a one party GOP government. But that is not the question we face tomorrow.

Both parties are filled with buffoons. Checks and balances is how we the people minimize the damage those buffoons can do.

Posted by Bill White at November 6, 2006 08:38 AM

What is it unique about this point in our history that makes "one-party rule" so bad?

Checks and balances apply to the branches of government, not to political parties. They all remain in place. The Founders never even anticipated parties, and the Dems cannot be trusted with power at this point in time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 09:00 AM

Interesting how so many Democrats are opposed to "one party rule" when it isn't their party but didn't have a problem when they were in charge. Examples include most of the 1960s, the Carter Administration, and the first two years of the Clinton Administration.

Besides, Rand is exactly correct about the proper definition of checks and balances between the branches of government, not political parties.

Posted by Larry J at November 6, 2006 09:14 AM

rand is stooging for the GOP again.

If he really believed in his "Principles" he'd be
urging people to vote Libertarian.

There are lots of Libertarian's out there, you can write in

Posted by anonymous at November 6, 2006 09:35 AM

And you're "stooging" for the Idiotarians again.

The Libertarians became a joke after September 11th. Until we develop a new small-government party, and while we're at war, I'll continue to vote against Democrats.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 09:46 AM

Rand -

What many people - including now many conservatives and conservative publications - have an issue with is that the framework for the checks and balances exists, but is not being exercised - i.e., the belief that the Republican dominated Congress has functioned as an enabling rubber-stamp for the executive branch, rather than as a check. And vice-versa (one obvious example being the rather un-conservative runaway spending and the single presidential veto so far).

The so-called GOP "mavericks" in Congress have confined themselves to making symbolic stands where it doesn't matter. Nothing wrong with that - one has to make compromises when one belongs to a Party. It's done on both sides. But the net result is that the checks and balances have been mostly symbolic and the GOP-led Congress has made every effort to stymie the Democrat minority from engaging in that role, whatever their motivations whether partisan, patriotic, misguided, or what.

Bill White is correct because there is a de facto single-Party rule right now, no matter the de jure existence of the checks and balances. Larry J is correct because single-Party rule isn't so good - no matter who's doing it. Although the Carter years and the first two years of the Clinton Administration aren't the best examples, as the Democrats failed to leverage to even a fraction of a degree the kind of lockstep unity the current GOP-controlled government has done. Nor even the first half of the 1960s. One would probably have to go back a lot further.

The problem is that the GOP Congress so strongly aligned itself with Bush and his policies, most notably Iraq, that it's a bit difficult to extricate onself at this point without sounding Kerry-ish with "I was for the war before I was against it." Iraq hasn't turned out the way it was planned, predicted, and wished-for. People eventually look at what they see as someone who has big ideas, crappy execution, unceasing optimism and promises in the face of realities that say otherwise, and makes large bets with other people's money on gambles that are long shots at best. That reminds people these days of Jeff Skilling.

Posted by Matthew at November 6, 2006 09:59 AM

Rand -

I'm interested in your views, if you don't mind (I just read your comment above mine about the "small-government party").

Do you consider yourself more of an advocate for the return of the "traditional" conservative GOP platform (smaller government, tight fiscal policy, etc.)?

I'm curious because there does appear to be rumblings of a growing backlash in the conservative movement and GOP against the direction the GOP has taken the last several years and mroe of a desire to return to roots.

Posted by Matthew at November 6, 2006 10:06 AM

Do you consider yourself more of an advocate for the return of the "traditional" conservative GOP platform (smaller government, tight fiscal policy, etc.)?

Yes, though I'm not a conservative (at least not a social conservative). I'm a transhumanist libertarian, who understands that there are people who want to kill us or convert us.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 10:15 AM

Rand -

Interesting (just finished glancing over transhumanism). Thanks for the reply.

Posted by Matthew at November 6, 2006 10:33 AM

> Checks and balances is how we the people minimize the damage those buffoons can do.

Checks and balances work only if the "correct" position is somewhere between the parties involved.

On which issues is does White believe that the "correct" position is between the Dems and Repubs?

I'll go first - the correct position on the Iraq war is NOT between the Dems and Repubs. Moving closer to the Dems (cut and run) would be even worse than the feckless fight that the Repubs favor.

Does White want to argue that the Feds should spend even more than they have under the Repubs? (Spend even more is the Dem position.)

Posted by Andy Freeman at November 6, 2006 10:58 AM

Andy, as for spending both political parties thrive on pork. With divided government, opening the pork spigot requires both parties to agree on who gets what.

The GOP will propose that Jack Abramoff's buddies get a banquet and the Dems will say "No!" and the Dems will propose that Pelosi's pet pork projects get funded and President Bush will veto.

Current animosity between Dems and GOP helps assure they will not scratch each others' backs, as it were. (Pelosi approves billions for a GOP library or bridge to nowhere in exchange for billions for a Pelosi pyramid).

When offered (a) or (b) to chose (c) "none of the above" is a position not necessarily between the two options.

Posted by Bill White at November 6, 2006 11:04 AM

Bill, reeling in pork spending (as much as I'd love to see it happen) is not my highest priority, reeling in fanatical Islamic fascism is. And on that count the Democrats are decidedly weaker than Republicans.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 6, 2006 11:37 AM

Defeating Islamist nut-jobs will be a marathon, rather than a sprint. Remember how long the Cold War continued before we won, for example.

Finding a group of leaders who can sustain the effort across multiple Administrations is the mission critical task. Rather like the space program in that respect. Given the large number of traditonal conservatives who have abandoned the Bush Administration I submit that "staying the course" is not a long term option.

New leaders need to step forward to articulate a persuasive message on why (and more importantly HOW) to fight the Islamists. Very likely, those new leaders will come from outside the current political aparatus of either party.

A call to "rally behind the President" becomes inoperative in January 2009 and Bush will be a lame duck long before then.

To give approval to the Rove - Abramoff - Delay - Hastert - Frist - Bush "Axis of Incompetence" will only postpone the emergence of these new leaders. Two more years (2006 - 2008) like the last two years (2004 - 2006) may well cause a much larger Democratic landslide in 2008 with all of Congress and the White House going Democratic.

Pendelums swing. Public reaction to Nixon's scandals gave us Carter foir example.

The nation is better off (IMHO) when those pendelums swing less vigorously rather than more vigorously. A Democratic House in 2006 - 2008 will allow the nation to observe how both parties act and will dampen the excesses of both.

Posted by Bill White at November 6, 2006 12:15 PM

Bill,

I respect your words and believe you mean what you say. However, if Democrats were really trying to reel in pork, then they wouldn't be alienating Lieberman and instead Byrd. I understand the argument against the current Republican Congress not being fiscally conservative, but are the Democrats really pro-small government? Sure, they can claim less pork, but then the party not in power can easily claim that, since by design (at least two party design) they get less of their agenda passed.

Still the important issue is the issue of resolving exterior threat. Again, if Democrats took this seriously, Lieberman wouldn't have been alienated. I give them points for throwing off members they disagree with, but in this case, they tossed under the bus a guy I could agree with on most issues. Indeed, if the 2000 ticket was reversed, I would have voted for the Lieberman/Gore Administration.

Keep fighting the good fight, because you give me hope in the party.

Matthew, great comments, thanks for participating.

Posted by Leland at November 6, 2006 12:19 PM

Yes, a marathon indeed. And thus far Democrats haven't shown the stamina to stay in the race for 5 years much less for the many more years ahead that we are sure to face in this fight.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 6, 2006 12:26 PM

Leland

To quote Stephen Colbert "My favorite Republican,
Democrat Joe Liberman".

The reasons you like Lieberman is why the CT Dem's
tossed him.

Posted by anonymous at November 6, 2006 12:33 PM

Cecil,

I assert BOTH parties must change. The traditional Democratic party must die. I agree with that.

But I note some interesting comments by Glenn Reynolds about Jim Webb. Reynolds expressed surprise that the so-called "netroots" were so supportive of Webb given his positions on a number of other issues.

Today in the mail (thanks, Amazon) came Webb's book Born Fighting about how the Scots-Irish have shaped America. Webb's book appears to fall well within the mainstream Anglo-spherian tradition advocated by people like Jim Bennett. But note that Jim Webb is a Daily Kos favorite while Hillary Clinton is most certainly not.

Back when I first dared comment here at Rand's site I was threatened with being banned for my strident opposition to our Iraq adventure, before we did it. Not because I wish to appease the Islamist nut-jobs or because I doubt Saddam deserves hanging (he does) but because I believed it would be a strategic blunder that would result in the empowerment of Iran. That argument is in the archives from 3 and 4 years ago.

But Laurie Myrolie's misunderstanding of our Islamic enemy prevailed and here we are.

= = =

Our war with the Islamists is more about ideas and less about military firepower. I assert that very few Muslims wish to live in the 13th century yet the mullahs use a rumped up threat of the Great Satan (America) to keep the people in check.

Ms. Ansari desires to live within a veil, drink beer with the Russian cosmonauts and fly in orbit. She does not desire to renounce being Muslim but rather desires to create a new "liberal Muslim" identity.

We cannot encourage that way of thinking via direct military action.

= = =

If we can eliminate Iranian nuclear weapons with an Osirak on steroids mission, I support that. But to attempt that and fail would be worse than not trying.

Posted by Bill White at November 6, 2006 12:56 PM

Sorry for the typos:

Ms. Ansari desires to live without a veil yet remain a self described liberal Muslim.

Posted by Bill Whikte at November 6, 2006 12:58 PM

Back when I first dared comment here at Rand's site I was threatened with being banned for my strident opposition to our Iraq adventure,

By whom? You have a very vivid imagination, Bill.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 01:04 PM

rand

you and your lackies are hardly the model of open-minded
free spirited debate, but rather oblique threats,
name calling and denunciation of anyone who doesn't
follow the neo-con line.

Posted by anonymous at November 6, 2006 01:39 PM

The problem is that the GOP Congress so strongly aligned itself with Bush and his policies,...

But the alignment didn't happen after he became president, or because he became president. It was a prior alignment, that's why the GOP congress agrees with Mr Bush. They were all Republicans, reasonably conservative and of similar thought to start with. That's why they are all in the same party. It's called ideaology.

That's what forms political parties. Ideaology. I guess when the Democrats approved of what Clinton wanted, it was through careful thought and research, but the GOP congress is just lock stepped into being a rubber stamp?

As for the Dems booting Joe Leiberman, hows that working out for them. Even Conn. Democrats don't like how liberal the party has gotten.

Posted by Steve at November 6, 2006 01:49 PM

Is it a done deal that Lieberman will caucus with the Republicans?

(For this post I will assume Joe wins.)

If the GOP holds onto the Senate without Joe's seat, perhaps Joe is more useful to the GOP remaining as a Democrat so he can go on FOX and offer a dissenting Democratic view.

If the Democrats win 52 seats (unlikely, IMHO) why would Joe switch? Instead he'd demand that Hillary and Harry Reid punish those who supported Lamont with his staying Democratic being the compensation given.

The interesting case is 50 D & 49 R and Joe.

Seems to me he could start a bidding war and caucus with whoever gives him the best deal. Very interesting possibilities. I have also read that many Democratic Senators have been quietly supportive of Joe behind the scenes.

There probably are back room deals here that would make your average Kossack go ballistic.

Posted by Bill White at November 6, 2006 01:55 PM

Ah, more projection from the loony left. Note that the creature can offer no examples of "threats" oblique or otherwise. And the language and name calling is quite restrained here, relative to, say, Kos, or DU.

And what's wrong with denouncing people who are wrong? That's exactly what a "free-spirited debate" is all about.

What a maroon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 02:12 PM

Steve - Sharing a general ideology or, more realistically - a desire for a particular Party affiliation since ideology can be all over the place (Jim Webb the Democrat? Strayhorn the Democrat/Republican/Independent?) - isn't what defines the relationship between the branches right now.

We all recognize that the Democratic Party is, and has been for decades, fragmented across a spectrum. It's why as Bill White points out, DailyKos has a strong dislike for Hillary, who is viewed as "way too conservative" (pretty ironic, as she's viewed as "way too liberal" by many conservatives - she's probably barely left-of-center just like her husband when pragmatism requires - another great example of the adversarial relationship between Congress and the President seeking a balance).

The Republican Party - unless we're too deny all of the well-publicized Karl Rove machinery and organized Party apparatus - has been one of the most successful consensus shops we've ever seen, and it's not because everyone shares the same ideology. Even in the Republican Party, there are a range of conservatives - Chafee, McCain, Stevens, Inhofe... There is a greater amount of carrot-and-stick arm-twisting to present a unified and cohesive force since probably the days of Rayburn or LBJ. Even so, the close association with what the public now views as an unsavory situation in Iraq has forced Republicans to begin to break ranks, probably too late for several of them.

Back in November 2004 following the Presidential election, I told dejected Democrat friends not to worry, because Bush had accomplished getting another 4 years, but he would accomplish very little. They asked why I thought that. My explanation was simple and very matter-of-fact: Bush ran his last campaign and could look forward to retirement in 2008. Career politicians in the House and Senate have to run for re-election every few years. They will align with a President and his oddball policy ideas when it's convenient for them, but they see Presidents come and go, if they're successful. I said that Iraq was going to be even less popular by 2006, and here we are, and as I said, Republicans are breaking ranks. My main surprise has been that they embraced Bush as strongly and for as long as they did and associated themselves so closely to his vision (long-shot gamble). I can understand McCain doing it because he believes he can still get something out of it.

Summary: politicians align themselves out of expedience far more than ideology. That's how alliances form, and that's why they break apart.

Posted by Matthew at November 6, 2006 03:10 PM

The November surprise from Karl Rove - Robocalls...if you haven't heard you'll hear about it after the elections when, once again the Rethugs manage to subvert democracy.

Simberg, be honest, please. You are a Republican operative and you know it. Stop calling yourself anything else.

Posted by AnonElections at November 6, 2006 03:42 PM

Really? A "Republican operative"?

Yes, I'm sitting here breathlessly, waiting for my next fax from ROVE. And my check, and ride on the executive jet.

<SOUND=Twilight Zone Theme>Doo de doo doo, doo de doo doo, doo de doo doo, doo de doo doo</SOUND>

Better loosen the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat--it's cutting off the blood to whatever brain you have left, or ever had, anonymous moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 03:53 PM

> Ms. Ansari desires to live without a veil yet remain a self described liberal Muslim.

This subject has been beaten to death. As best anyone can determine, she has never described herself in any religious terms.

Posted by at November 6, 2006 04:42 PM

Rove was a little testy I gather, after being snubbed in Florida. Maybe you are too, eh? The prognosis isn't good. CNN gives the Dems a 20 point lead over the Rethugs. Oh well.

Posted by AnonElections at November 6, 2006 04:49 PM

Rove was a little testy I gather, after being snubbed in Florida.

I wouldn't know, Anonymous Moron, other than what I read on the news. I see you haven't loosened up the chinstrap on the tinfoil hat. I'm indifferent as to who attends Bush's rallies.

I'm also indifferent as to what CNN thinks...

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 04:54 PM

Sorry I ruffled your feathers...

Posted by Anonymous Moron at November 6, 2006 05:43 PM

Bill, I'm not going to let this slide (though you were hardly the only one to express the sentiment):

> The GOP will propose that Jack Abramoff's
> buddies get a banquet and the Dems will
> say "No!"

Jack Abramoff and his buddies are in jail. One difference between the Republicans and the Democrats -- at least on the national stage -- is that the Republicans are far more self-correcting than the Democrats are. When Republicans do something unseemly, they resign (or are forced to by their party). When they do something illegal, they go to jail. Not so with the Democrats, who rally around their fallen comrade. Mark Foley and Robert Ney resigned. William Jefferson and Patrick Kennedy did not. Duke Cunningham is in jail. Sandy Berger is not.

> and the Dems will propose that Pelosi's pet
> pork projects get funded and President Bush
> will veto.
>
> Current animosity between Dems and GOP helps
> assure they will not scratch each others'
> backs, as it were.

Nice theory, but it doesn't work that way. Even now, with the Republicans in charge of the House, Senate, and the White House, over 40% of the earmarks are sponsored by Democrats. And the guy who will be chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee if the Democrats re-take the House promised to "earmark the shit out of" any appropriations bill he gets his hands on.

Not all Republicans are fiscally conservative, and not all Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, but there is a strong correlation. The bill mandating the publishing of earmarks was written by Republican Tom Coburn (with some help from Obama). The driving force behind the more fiscally restrained appropriations bills this year was the Republican Study Committee composed of -- you guessed it -- Republicans.

If you want more details, take a look at the Porkbusters scorecard, and see how many of the Congressman with the best anti-pork voting records are Republican. It's a lot.

Oh, and as far as Matthew's comment on "runaway spending" is concerned, the federal budget deficit is now down to 1.9% of GDP -- very low by the standards of the last forty years, and lower than France's or Germany's.

Republicans are hardly perfect when it comes to fiscal conservatism -- real life doesn't contain much perfection -- but they are a whole lot better than the Democrats are. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians would do well to remember that on Tuesday.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at November 6, 2006 06:14 PM

Hmmm. Rand's posting software seems to have eaten the URL of the Porkbusters scorecard. Let's try this:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/07/435_districts_435_blogs_agains.php

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at November 6, 2006 06:19 PM

Well stated Mike.

Rand, you have the patience of Job (excuse the biblical reference) as I would have long ago required registration of posters to rid myself of the "Anons" if this were my blog.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 6, 2006 06:21 PM

I would have long ago required registration of posters to rid myself of the "Anons" if this were my blog.

I think there's value in giving the anonymous cowards sufficient rhetorical rope with which to hang themselves.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 06:25 PM

Simberg mistakes name calling for vigorous debate,
a tragic failing of his upbringing, I imagine.
Calling someone a leftist or a socialist describes
a philosophy(albeit oftentimes inaccurately),
calling someone a moonbat or numerous references to
tinfoil hats is just derisive.

When I refer to Simberg as a neo-con it's to describe his
slavish endorsement of the PNAC agenda. An agenda
which is destroying the national security of this nation.

Simberg of course views this as some sort of ethnic slur,
which says more of his psychology then of his ideology.

Posted by anonymous at November 6, 2006 07:00 PM

Mike -

Stick with truth and neutral analyses. A partisan slant blinds us to realities as they are. You simply cannot make broad statements that Republicans punish their leaders who have fallen from grace while Democrats protect theirs - particularly with the examples you provided.

Ney finally pleaded guilty last month and just resigned a couple days ago from an investigation that's been ongoing against him for up to a year. It's pretty ironic that in the case of Jefferson, the unlikely pairing of Pelosi and Hastert united to protest the search of his offices on constitutional grounds, but Pelosi still called from his resignation from the Ways and Means Committee and they voted him out when he wouldn't step down.

Politics does not consist of a noble Party and a purely evil one. Every scandal that gets publicized is followed by a "Heh, think we can slip through this one?" In the case of folks like Ney or Jefferson, the answer ends up being, "Heh, guess not." Republicans are at a slight disadvantage in being vulnerable to scandals dealing with moral issues (Condit, Foley, etc.) because the Party has made moral issues part of its platform and has openly developed its relationship with churches and organized Christian evangelical groups. Democratic supporters therefore tend to be more forgiving when one of theirs dips his wick where it doesn't belong. The same cannot be said for Republicans who follow the same paths of transgression.

Fortunately, graft might be an equal playing field. Unfortunately, the GOP has also developed its ties to lobbyists in a more sophisticated manner than have Democrats, whose war chests thus always lag behind (other than magnanimous big rich kids like Soros). The GOP thus has probably a greater likelihood of being involved in graft-related activities, or those involving larger sums of money. Dems tend to fall over sometimes laughably small amounts, particularly at a local level.

Listen - these guys are folks like you or me or anyone else here, except that rather than pursuing a dull, stultifying career, they happened to choose the noble life of, ahem, public service out of the goodness of their hearts. Either that or they just like working a fraction of the year. They have the capability to be screw-ups, and frankly, they can do so in very public and embarrassing ways as they make spectacles of themselves while the crowd hide their faces behind their hands from the sidelines, perhaps thinking, "What a dumbass," or even charitably, "There, but for the grace of God, go I. Thank God I didn't go into politics and stuck with this boring job."

The point of all this: you're going to find incompetents, liars, and goofballs in both Parties. You'll even find those like Kerry who've become so steeped in Senatorial machinations and ceremony that it's a bit difficult for them to resemble you or I because they fall back on those old habits. And Congress and politics have been much more boring ever since dueling was abolished. It's rather sad it arouses such passion with no outlet. All the pent-up stuff has to go somewhere, I suppose.

Posted by Matthew at November 6, 2006 08:28 PM

A small prediction:

Joe Lieberman will win and he will caucus with the Democrats.

Why? Because the Democratic Senate leadership can offer Joe something the GOP cannot. A sustained campaign to marginalize the influence of Ned Lamont supporters within the Democratic party.

Joe will (or has already) contacted Hillary & Obama and Reid and cut a deal.

Joe is for Joe first.

I could very well be wrong but that is my prediction.

Posted by Bill White at November 6, 2006 08:58 PM

> Andy, as for spending both political parties thrive on pork. With divided government, opening the pork spigot requires both parties to agree on who gets what.

Nice theory. However, a divided govt of the form proposed (Repub president, Dem Congress) didn't work that way.

It's true that Bush isn't Reagan and Pelosi isn't O'Neil, but the differences aren't in the direction required for "it will be better this time".

> to chose (c) "none of the above" is a position not necessarily between the two options.

Cute but irrelevant because "none of the above" is not actually an option.

Either Dems will win or Repubs will win, no matter how wonderful things would be if something else happened.

However, proposing such irrelevancies does tell us that the proposer is either not serious or incapable.

Posted by Andy Freeman at November 7, 2006 09:12 AM

Just to wipe the smile off of Chris Matthews' face.

The only reason I would have, but I didn't, so it doesn't matter.

Posted by Wickedpinto at November 7, 2006 12:15 PM

Post a comment