Matthew Yglesias: The year when nothing happened

[babylonsister]

The year when nothing happened

The year that was: The Democratic takeover of Congress promised a progressive agenda - and the result was inaction.
Matthew Yglesias

December 31, 2007 7:30 PM


For liberals in the US, 2007 seems destined to go down as a year of dashed hopes and frustrations. After six years in the political wilderness, including an infuriating 2005 when we were treated to several essays and at least two books about the doomed state of the Democratic party, the good guys were back in the saddle. It's hard now to remember the sense of elation that greeted the results. Pickups were widely expected, and a change in control of the House even forecast as somewhat likely, but almost nobody believed Democrats would secure control of both chambers of Congress. And yet, they did! Things were gonna change.

Except, by and large, they didn't.

The hoped-for dramatic expansion of the child health insurance programme S-Chip? Didn't happen. Transformation of American energy policy? Didn't happen. The "carried interest" loophole that lets private equity billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries? Still open. No Child Left Behind? Unchanged, despite the hubbub. Surveillance? Same as ever. And, of course, the war in Iraq continues despite its steady unpopularity.

What went wrong?

Many lash out in anger at the Democratic leadership for fumbling the ball. And it's true that the leaders, especially senator Harry Reid, have made some mistakes. Mostly, though, the problem isn't the Democrats - it's the Republicans. The combination of George Bush's veto pen and the Republican party's unprecedented use of the filibuster has made it essentially impossible to pass much of anything that's worthwhile.

This isn't the fault of tactical errors on the part of the Democrats. Frustrated liberals are urging Reid to keep the Senate in session and force the Republicans to "really" filibuster rather than just giving up when he can't muster 60 votes for his bills. Reid tried this once, however, and there was no sign of it working. Nor did threats to do this intimidate Democrats when they were in the minority. The reality is that filibustering works, and there's nothing the majority can do to stop the minority from using this tool. Back when the GOP was in the majority and upset about filibustering, I predicted Democrats would come to rue the day that they fought hard to keep it in place. If mistakes were made, they were made back then in 2005, not in 2007.

Or perhaps if mistakes were made, they were made in raising expectations too high. When the Democrats unveiled their campaign agenda in 2006, you'll recall, nobody actually expected them to win. The agenda was supposed to win votes, sure. It was supposed to win seats, even. But winning the House and Senate was considered so unlikely that perhaps nobody really considered the dangers of promising too much.

more...

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matthew_yglesias/2007/12/year_when_nothing_happened.html

[ThomWV]

1. Can you try to restate part of that - it doesn't make any sense as its written

I understand what is being said and I think I agree but what on earth did you mean when you said:

"Back when the GOP was in the majority and upset about filibustering, I predicted Democrats would come to rue the day that they fought hard to keep it in place."

Are you trying to say we should have accepted the 'nuclear option' back in 2005 and accepted a straight up or down vote to stop debate in the Senate? Why on earth would we have done that? Without that one rule we might as well send our Senators to the House and let them whore around with the common rabble.