Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
All public unions.

Why are you anti-capitalist?

How does "public unions" really fit anywhere under any definition of capitalism?

The people selling a service banding together to form a corporation is OK, but a Union isn't? Why do you hate freedom, you communist?

Unions are ok, except when they start actively harming the overall economy.

Unions are at a point where they're really desperate to try and justify their continuing existence, especially since Union membership has taken a nosedive.

The reasons we needed unions in the past don't really exist anymore, they've made themselves obsolete.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As they've picked up steam, they certainly don't help anything. I'm sure we all can see some kind of relationship exists, even if it isn't necessarily Cause and Effect.

I agree that 24 hour news is definitely part of the problem, one part of a complex system

Also, we can look to the rise of the internet. It used to be that Dems from "the South" were quite a bit different from those from the Northeast, the Northwest and even California. The same could be said of Republicans. Each state seemingly had their own stances on issues, and Conservative or Liberal were a label that were applied to an individual, regardless of his/her party affiliation. Now, you almost cant do that, because you have the "Tea Party Republicans", or super conservative; the fiscal conservative types, the "RINO" (I really hate that term) type all within one party, and it's much the same on the other side, where much more rarely you'll hear "DINO", Liberal democrat, etc.

Yeah, I think the decline of regional identities is a big part of the problem. When parties were more complex and diverse internally then the kind of people and the kind of culture that would succeed would be more willing to work with the other side. These days you just keep bashing heads and back your side to win absolute majority in the next election.

I remember a while ago I was reading about the evolution of the value voters of the Republican party. When they originally came to the party there was friction because while they strongly on board with conservative social politics, they largely disagreed with conservative economic politics - they weren't automatically opposed to taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Over time that changed, they blended in to the party line - their religious convictions changed to suit their political allegiances. On the other side of the floor, how often do we hear unions complaining about immigration anymore - used to be they recognised their own best interests and opposed immigration quite strongly, but again their convictions are changing to suit their political masters.

Here's a strange thought - were the old super-racist Southern Democrats actually a good thing overall? I mean, sure, they were racist, but as a distinct faction within the Democrats who kept their own identities and thought nothing of voting against their colleagues when it suited them, they were part of that old order of give and take politics. Southern Democrats - America's most useful racists?

Also, since I end up talking politics with people my age and younger (I am in college ATM afterall), I do think that there is hope... Most of us currently in our 20s are sick and tired of the BS party lines. At least anecdotally, many people around my age group detest all party affiliations because they feel strongly about a wide variety of issues, and the way they feel doesn't line up with ANY party's stance. Of course, this isn't universally true, because I just had to unfriend someone on FB, because he's of this cancerous mindset that if you don't think like he does, you're a liar a cheat, a dirty liberal commie, etc (he's seriously that republican) and I just got tired of his gak.

Here's hoping there's a change coming up through the electorate. The problem, though, is that even if the majority of the electorate wants moderates, it's the hard liners who vote in primaries.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.


With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"

I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.

Agreed, It's why I'm not particularly excited by a two party system as it stops the public discussion of ideas as these things tend to get heated. People generally hold up the two party of system as better than multi party as it's stable and things get done, it doesn't seem to be working that way in the US atm. It also makes the parties less likely to be able to negotiate to get things done.

Yeah, here in the UK we have what basically amounts to a 3 party system when it comes to national government.

It doesn't help that those three parties are effectively exactly the same in practice and all come from the same elite schools and universities with soft degrees for the role they intend to fill (2:1 in History makes you qualified to run an entire nations economy, apparently. Amusingly he didn't appear to have studied the Great Depression judging from his tactics of coming out of the recession). Having that limited a scope of candidates and the fact that they are loyal to party first and the voters never (such as voting to give themselves an 11% pay increase when all other public sector personnel had a pay freeze and were paid less, to boot) and it just makes ridiculous arguments and cooperation next to impossible (as can be seen by the hate spewed at the idea of having another coalition government).

Compare that with Germany and some other countries with political systems that result in governments formed as coalitions of different parties and how that affects their politics. Much more focus on working together (from the outside at least) to get stuff done and help the country.

I'm not sure who votes are tallied in the UK, but here we do FPTP. FPTP is a bad system, that almost always leads to a two party system. Not only that, the problems we have with gerrymandering allows extremist to get in that would not otherwise. We also have the problem that there is very little intensive to so a good job. They get paid the same, regardless of how bad the economy is doing, and are prretty much guaranteed to get a "consulting" job or whatnot as soon as they leave office.

This 3 part video series goes into more detail if anyone is interested.

We have First Past The Post here too.

A couple of years ago there was a referendum on changing it to an Alternative Vote system (which I had hoped would be the first step to proportional representation) as part of the Tory-LibDem coalition deal.

The Tories promptly took a hatchet to it in the run up to the referendum in the form of a massive smear campaign claiming it would let in parties like UKIP and the BNP and allow someone who came in third in a local election to win (?)

The hilarity is now the Tories are clamouring to steal votes from UKIP with promises like ending the ban on fox hunting, EU referendum etc.

 sebster wrote:

I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.

It's almost as if "compromise" is becoming a lost art.

I mean, just look at the recent filibuster by Senate Democrats on the DHS funding, which contain riders to prohibit money spent on Obama's executive immigration policies.

Here you have the majority in congress legitimately using the "power of the purse" to "check" executive overreach. Alas... party-line tribalism strikes again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The issue stems from collective bargaining rules and union protectionisms... as there is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated, ie TAX PAYERS.

You don't think the politicians have an incentive to negotiate a lower rate of pay? Afterall, their job will be on the line if they pay too much and their budget blows out.

Public Unions heavily contribute to Democratic candidates. So, no... the incentive is to keep those contributions flowing... thus, negotiating with these unions is heavily slanted towards the union side, as opposed to any honest negotiations.

It's an incestuous relationship.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.

It's almost as if "compromise" is becoming a lost art.

I mean, just look at the recent filibuster by Senate Democrats on the DHS funding, which contain riders to prohibit money spent on Obama's executive immigration policies.

Here you have the majority in congress legitimately using the "power of the purse" to "check" executive overreach. Alas... party-line tribalism strikes again.

So were the republicans actually trying to compromise there or was it similar to their government shutdown "compromise" offers?

Because if they weren't then that's not really an example of the Democrats refusing to compromise, just using what ability they have to block a bill which is what they should be doing if it is in the best interests of the people they represent.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.

It's almost as if "compromise" is becoming a lost art.

I mean, just look at the recent filibuster by Senate Democrats on the DHS funding, which contain riders to prohibit money spent on Obama's executive immigration policies.

Here you have the majority in congress legitimately using the "power of the purse" to "check" executive overreach. Alas... party-line tribalism strikes again.

So were the republicans actually trying to compromise there or was it similar to their government shutdown "compromise" offers?

Because if they weren't then that's not really an example of the Democrats refusing to compromise, just using what ability they have to block a bill which is what they should be doing if it is in the best interests of the people they represent.

Yeah... by fully funding the DHS and putting caveats on that budget that Obama couldn't use the money to fund programs that Congress deemed the executive branch is overstepping it's authority.

 whembly wrote:
Public Unions heavily contribute to Democratic candidates. So, no... the incentive is to keep those contributions flowing... thus, negotiating with these unions is heavily slanted towards the union side, as opposed to any honest negotiations.

Well yes, given the close ties in that situation there's a clear issue. But it's no different to, say, politicians negotiating the sale of mining rights, when the companies making the bid contribute heavily to the campaigns of the politicians involved. That is, the issue is the potential for corruption in any representative system... it isn't inherent to, or exclusive to negotiating with unions.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Public Unions heavily contribute to Democratic candidates. So, no... the incentive is to keep those contributions flowing... thus, negotiating with these unions is heavily slanted towards the union side, as opposed to any honest negotiations.

Well yes, given the close ties in that situation there's a clear issue. But it's no different to, say, politicians negotiating the sale of mining rights, when the companies making the bid contribute heavily to the campaigns of the politicians involved. That is, the issue is the potential for corruption in any representative system... it isn't inherent to, or exclusive to negotiating with unions.

I'd argue that there is a distinct difference.

Companies contributing to politicians (usually to both parties) in the hopes of getting some favorable legislation is VASTLY different than Public Unions contributing to one party (Democrats in this case) to steer public policies to the Union's benefit (and to hell what makes sense for all taxpayers).

Why do you think Right to Work laws are so vehemently opposed by Unions/Democrats?

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... by fully funding the DHS and putting caveats on that budget that Obama couldn't use the money to fund programs that Congress deemed the executive branch is overstepping it's authority.

Why is it a failure to compromise when you want nothing to do with what the other side is putting up?

As we've discussed plenty of times before, especially on ACA, the issue comes down to the actual substance of the issues being debated - simply saying no isn't obstructionism by itself, it is only obstructionism when it can be clearly established that the proposals in place are being rejected only out of tribalism, that there is nothing of substance that we know the party would normally be in favour of.

I mean, I agree with you in general that there's a strong tribalist element in 'executive authority' - that whoever has one of their team in power is fine with expansion, while the team who don't have the White House will make lots of noises about expanded powers being a direct threat to freedom etc... but it's a long bow to see any instance of the two sides butting heads on the issue and declaring it can only be tribalism to blame.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... by fully funding the DHS and putting caveats on that budget that Obama couldn't use the money to fund programs that Congress deemed the executive branch is overstepping it's authority.

Why is it a failure to compromise when you want nothing to do with what the other side is putting up?

As we've discussed plenty of times before, especially on ACA, the issue comes down to the actual substance of the issues being debated - simply saying no isn't obstructionism by itself, it is only obstructionism when it can be clearly established that the proposals in place are being rejected only out of tribalism, that there is nothing of substance that we know the party would normally be in favour of.

I mean, I agree with you in general that there's a strong tribalist element in 'executive authority' - that whoever has one of their team in power is fine with expansion, while the team who don't have the White House will make lots of noises about expanded powers being a direct threat to freedom etc... but it's a long bow to see any instance of the two sides butting heads on the issue and declaring it can only be tribalism to blame.

DHS budget that was passed in the House and filibuster'ed in the Senate is being fully funded.

That is, the wages/hikes for TSA/Border Patrols/Immigrations Officers/Coast Guards/$$$ for Pet projects are ALL included.

However, the budget stipulates that Obama can't use $$ from that budget for his executive amnesty program.

One could argue that the people who elected the current majority were promised that funding for that would not be supported. If Obama would really like to see it happen, I’m sure the majority could draft up a separate bill funding just those activities and see how many votes it attracts. Who knows, maybe if he compromised on other things, things can happen.

But, all I've seen in these last few years is this "my way or the highway" mindset. That's tribalism in action.

I put the blame squarely on both parties... but, at this point on this DHS budget, there's opportunity move forward. Something gotta give man.

I mean, if Republicans were smart (and they ain't) and the Democrats maintain this filibuster (or Obama vetos the final bill). Then, the republican can then go back to the public and say: "Democrats and President Obama puts the rights if illegal immigrants over your safety" or whatever easy zinger. Then, we'd be back to square one again as the two sides drift further apart.

Representative Democracy is fugly, eh?

Or Democrats will to "the Republicans would rather have another 9/11 than give a penny to immigrants, they hate foreigners more than you love your children!"

But hey, it's easy to pretend that politics are simple when viewed through partisan rose-colored glasses.

 d-usa wrote:
Or Democrats will to "the Republicans would rather have another 9/11 than give a penny to immigrants, they hate foreigners more than you love your children!"

But hey, it's easy to pretend that politics are simple when viewed through partisan rose-colored glasses.

I can see that too!

Part of the problem for the Republicans is the fact that they now control both sides of Congress.

It was beneficial for both parties when Congress was split because both sides could go "The House/Senate did their job and passed a bill, it's the guys in the Senate/House who are preventing stuff from passing". Because in the end the burden will be on the majority as we often saw with Reid getting hammered for not being able to get anything past Republican filibusters. Both sides could dig in and blame the other side.

Now they run the risk of developing a case of "you control both chambers, and you still can't get anything done" syndrome. They ran on a message of "the Senate will be less dysfunctional than when Reid was in charge", so it is in their interest to get stuff done even if it means going moderate.

 d-usa wrote:
Part of the problem for the Republicans is the fact that they now control both sides of Congress.

It was beneficial for both parties when Congress was split because both sides could go "The House/Senate did their job and passed a bill, it's the guys in the Senate/House who are preventing stuff from passing". Because in the end the burden will be on the majority as we often saw with Reid getting hammered for not being able to get anything past Republican filibusters. Both sides could dig in and blame the other side.

Now they run the risk of developing a case of "you control both chambers, and you still can't get anything done" syndrome. They ran on a message of "the Senate will be less dysfunctional than when Reid was in charge", so it is in their interest to get stuff done even if it means going moderate.

I think you're absolutely right.

The big fireworks would be is if the Supreme Court rules Halbig in favor of the plantiff this summer, thus removing the subsidies from the Federal Exchange... what would Congress, and by extension Republicans, do?

 whembly wrote:

So... what's your proposal?

Changing House terms to 4 years might help, but not much, and its politically impossible as the only people who really take an interest in altering term length or instituting terms limits want to see more turnover in Congress, not less. Plus there's that whole matter of amending the Constitution.

But, honestly, I don't think there's all that much wrong with the basic structure of Congress. The problem is with the American political climate, and the effect information technology has had on it. I mean, it wasn't so long ago that finding out what a candidate said a year ago at some obscure political event would have taken actual effort, now there's Google. The real issue is that the American people, and by extension politicians, have yet to adapt to this new phenomenon; this especially true of older generations who aren't as internet savvy.

 d-usa wrote:

Now they run the risk of developing a case of "you control both chambers, and you still can't get anything done" syndrome. They ran on a message of "the Senate will be less dysfunctional than when Reid was in charge", so it is in their interest to get stuff done even if it means going moderate.

For the Republican Senate as a whole, perhaps, but not necessarily for individual Republican Senators. And, even if they can function as a unified body, I suspect it will be a while before we see the "feth the Democrats!" high wear off, if it ever does.

 whembly wrote:

The big fireworks would be is if the Supreme Court rules Halbig in favor of the plantiff this summer, thus removing the subsidies from the Federal Exchange... what would Congress, and by extension Republicans, do?

The same they do every night, Pinky...try to repeal Obamacare. Though if Supcom rules in favor of the amalgamated plaintiff they will likely have an easier time of it.

The Democrats would likely propose an amendment to Obamacare striking the word "State" from the disputed section of the law.