If you want a demonstration on why it’s so easy for regular folks to despise politicians, look no further than the shenanigans that went on in the U.S. House of Representatives, yesterday. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY), who is openly gay, has been attaching a LGBT rights amendment to Republican bills. He’s able to do this because Speaker Ryan has decided to allow for a much more open amendments process than his predecessors, but that comes with a cost. The cost is that the opposition finds it much easier to mess with you by offering amendments that drive wedges into your caucus.
Gay rights is one of those wedge issues. First, Rep. Maloney attached his amendment to a military construction bill. It provided “that nothing in the underlying spending bill can undermine President Obama’s executive order barring discrimination by government contractors based on sexual orientation or gender identity.”
When it became clear that the amendment would pass, the House leadership held the vote open until they could whip enough votes to defeat it, 212-213. That was last week.
On Wednesday night, Rep. Maloney attached the amendment to an energy spending bill and it passed 223-195, with 43 Republicans and all the Democrats supporting it.
Isn’t it amazing that the same body of 435 representatives could have such a different opinion of an amendment depending on whether it was attached to a military construction bill or an energy bill?
In truth, those 43 Republicans don’t object to the amendment. They didn’t want to go on the record opposing it the first time.
But, fine, they eventually exercised their independent judgment and passed it, right?
What happened then?
The victory was short-lived, however, as the amendment proved to be a poison pill that led scores of Republicans to oppose the underlying energy bill, which suffered a crushing 112-305 defeat on the floor Thursday. One hundred and thirty Republicans voted against the package, while just six Democrats supported it.
The Republicans voted against gay rights before they voted for them before they voted against them again?
Of course, they blamed the Democrats for not supporting the energy bill, but the energy bill wasn’t crafted to win Democratic support. What actually happened is that gay-hating Republicans who supported the energy appropriations decided to vote against them once the funds became attached to an anti-discrimination provision.
This is, of course, Speaker Ryan’s fault because he decided to let the Democrats offer these types of amendments to bills they have no intention of supporting. And that allows the Democrats to have a good old time exposing the Republicans’ divisions and horrible record on gay rights.
It’s another demonstration that the GOP is not capable of acting as a cohesive governing coalition. They cannot fund the government. And they couldn’t fund it even before they opened the door for the Democrats to shiv them at every opportunity.
The average citizen doesn’t understand all the procedural and strategic maneuvering here. All they see is a bunch of politicians who shift their votes with no regard for principle, who are more interested in embarrassing each other than in getting things done, and who simply cannot preform even the most basic elements of their jobs.
I’m not making a moral equivalency argument here. The Democrats are right on the merits and, given a majority, would have no problems figuring out how to fund the government. But that’s difficult to see. What’s easy to see is why everyone now seems to hate Congress.
And in the end, what group is most advantaged by these perceptions and this type of clusterfuck spectacle?
Yes, it makes Paul Ryan and the Republicans look like blooming idiots. But the further cementing of the public attitude that the government is a fucking disaster is exactly what the long game of the wingers is, right? And since the only one who can possibly “make the government great again” is surely a gun-slinging, wildcat outsider, we end up with a Donald Trump being carted up the steps of the Capital, hoisted on a litter like some Egyptian ruler.
In a sane world, all this Congressional incompetence would get reported and covered for what it actually is. But the chances of that happening today are as close zero as you can possibly get. There is no distinction given and none perceived or accepted by a large swath of voters. We are largely a nation of ignoramuses who want to be spoon fed a simple and easily digestible story. Why else would we be potentially poised to make someone like Donald Trump our next President?
Yes, it makes Paul Ryan and the Republicans look like blooming idiots. But the further cementing of the public attitude that the government is a fucking disaster is exactly what the long game of the wingers is, right?
Yes, yes it is. And the Democrats are dumb enough not to run on it. Meaning they don’t educate voters that the GOP can’t govern for crap.
Meaning they don’t educate voters that the GOP can’t govern for crap.
Not to mention the constant drumbeat that “both sides are hostage to their extreme bases”, which people get every damn day from the media. The propaganda has been successfully catapulted and the sheeple are fully compliant in their mindset. Nothing will change it.
Mike, I’m with you on all your particulars here, except your conclusion. It’s disappointing and agitating that Republican primary voters have lost their civic education and their moral compasses so thoroughly, but we’re not poised to elect a President Trump in November.
You can’t win the Chief Executive in 2016 when you’re intentionally and severely alienating everyone except retrograde white men and severely retrograde white women. Those voter blocs can get a candidate thru the GOP primary, but they won’t carry the general election.
I remember 2008 and 2012, when many liberals/progressives were sure that the Democrats were blowing it. The Party and movement were even more divided in June ’08 than they are now. It’s good to keep our heads, our equlibrium, and our interest in organizing effectively.
We’re going to win Ohio. Again.
“Why else would we be potentially poised to make someone like Donald Trump our next President? “
Because we have someone like Hilary Clinton as the alternative.
Isn’t this what people want to lose on principle?
That certainly is one reason and logic. The far more important reason is that they not longer feel represented because of the way communications with members of Congress is structure to always be from the member of Congress to the individual voter Even focus groups do that be not allowing citizen-originated issues into the political mix.
The two-tier system of citizenship we have in this country is that big donors get represented, not matter who the member of Congress is, and voters get constituency serviced. “Contact your Congressman.” is now a fools errand.
Poll organizers who aggregate petitions about hot issues are driving their own agendas and are not an acceptable substitute.
If members of Congress were truly representing their constituents, they would know that what happened yesterday is not what their voters want them to do. It’s what local party influentials, like religious right preachers with the Republican Party, want their church members to push.
There is a failure with the communication process on the performance side as well as the electoral side, and both hinge on the party wanting to control all communication (control their message). That control has warped the entire system.
“Follow the money”
I’m not sure regular order is workable in the current hyper-polarized ideological environment. Almost no Republican can make deals now because they’ll be ruthlessly punished by the Tea Party – see Lugar, who basically got thumped for working with Obama – to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. If Republicans aren’t allowed to work with Democrats to protect our cities from becoming nuclear rubble, what can they do?
I’d prefer regular order if it could be done, because ugly as the negotiations can look, they’re probably worse when done in secrecy; but when we’ve effectively got a parliamentary system for the parties I think we’re going to have to have a parliamentary system in Congress.