Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
In Search of a Congress
If you were one of the Americans waiting for Congress, under Democratic control, to show leadership on the war in Iraq, the message from the Senate is clear: "Nevermind." The same goes for those waiting for lawmakers to fix the damage done to civil liberties by six years of President Bush and a rubber-stamp Republican Congress.
The Democrats don't have, or can't summon, the political strength to make sure Congress does what it is supposed to do: debate profound issues like these and take a stand. The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush's increasingly narrow agenda.
On Wednesday, the Senate failed to vote on two major bills. One would have restored basic human rights and constitutional protections to hundreds of foreigners who are in perpetual detention, without charges or trial. The other was the one measure on the conduct of the Iraq war that survived the Democrats' hasty retreat after last week's smoke-and-mirrors display by Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush.
There were votes, of course, but not on the bills. They were cloture votes, which require 60 or more Senators to agree to cut off debate, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster, so Senators can vote on the actual law. In both cases, Democrats were four votes short, with six Republicans daring to defy the White House.
We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that's too risky, since Congress could look like it's not doing anything. But it's not doing a lot now.
The country needs a lot more debate about what must be done to contain Iraq's chaos and restore civil liberties sacrificed to Mr. Bush's declared war on terrorism. Voters are capable of deciding whether Republicans are holding up the Senate out of principle or political tactics.
The current Republican leadership, now in the minority, has organized its entire agenda around the filibuster. In July, the McClatchy newspaper group reported that Republicans were using the threat of filibuster more than at any other time in the nation's history.
Remember, this is the same batch of Republican senators who denounced Democrats as obstructionist and even un-American and threatened to change the Senate's rules when Democrats threatened filibusters in 2005 over a few badly chosen judicial nominees. Now Republicans are using it to prevent consideration of an entire war.
If anything was clear from General Petraeus's testimony and the president's prime-time speech, it was that Mr. Bush has no idea how to end the war in a way that salvages as much as possible of America's treasury, blood and global image while limiting the chaos that would follow any withdrawal, whether it comes quickly or slowly. Mr. Bush's only idea is to keep the war going until he leaves office, and that means that other co-equal branch of government, the Congress, will have to lead the way out.
Democrats and Republicans who oppose the war have a duty to outline alternatives. Those who call for staying in Iraq have a duty to explain what victory means and how they plan to achieve it. Both sides are shirking an obligation to deal with issues that must be resolved right now, like the crisis involving asylum for Iraqis who helped the American occupation.
Congress is the first place for this kind of work. Right now, it seems like the last place it will happen.
© 2007 The New York Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
27 Comments so far
Show Allmilitantliberal,
Your comment shocked me because I have had very similar thoughts (representatives chosen randomly through a computer-based lottery with open software that anyone can check out, with the seed number in my version being chosen by some noncontrollable event), except that I would not limit the qualifying degrees to the extent that you did, and I would have one house chosen according to profession, rather than geographically.
Of course it is not going to happen. I guess we can dream, can't we?
abolish congress. they don't serve anyone's interests but the rich.
Instead they are out there scolding MoveOn.
They can count. Get your damn votes lined up, lock step, geezus, the Pugs can pull it off, and hold plum committee positions, hold the hometown pork--we don't want no bipartisan cooperation with the freaken NeoNazis and corporate whores--we want you to fight for the country. If you can't do it, if you are too scared, timid and wimpy, move aside. And don't try to feed us "we never have the votes" excuse. We know what levers of power you control and we know how you have refused to use them and have been dishonest about your intent.
We will hold you accountable as the enablers of the most criminal gang inside the beltway. Because it is your duty to stop them, history will view you as complicit.
The dems biggest failing in the senate is that they don't MAKE the republicans filibuster. They just stand by and say "oh, if we don't drop it, they will filibuster". MAKE THEM DO IT. Then it will be OBVIOUS who it is that is standing in the way of EVERY bill that comes along. MAKE them stand up and talk until they drop. MAKE them show the American people who it is that is obstructionist and keeping what they people want from being done. MAKE them do it! FORCE their hand! Stand up like MEN and WOMEN of conviction, not men and women who SHOULD be convicted.
Talk about terror !!!
The value of the dollar has gone South.
Now equal to Canadian $. When Bush took over Canadian $ was worth .65
Euro now $1.40 last year 1.26 2002 1.16
Saudi Arabia ready to unpeg US$ -
We are only dithering only long enough to allow rich to get their bucks out of our economy
Recession anyone? Followed by bombing Iran and expanding the Armageddon in the Middle East so the rich can get richer.
For game plan preview and acknowledgement of past successes,
check out Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism".
For the free market capitalists controlling the US Government, death, pestilence, starvation, and other sufferings are guaranteed mega-money makers. So much so that events causing these are initiated or helped along by them.
I say NO VOTING in the 2008 election. Let them all know we are disgusted and WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE! What if they gave an election and noboday came? dlz
The Congress (both the Republicans and the Democrats) ARE showing great leadership. They ARE courageously doing what their constituents want them to do. The only problem is that almost all of us have a misconception as to who their constituents are: it's not you and me, its big money, big oil and the Israeli lobby.
If you know this then you'll realize what a great job our Congress is doing.
Incorporate We the People, fire the Congress and administration, and hire a corporate administration that works for us, not for other corporations.
I'd like to have our Congress chosen by lot rather than election, with the following qualifications:
1. degree in a relevant field like history, public admin, accounting, poli sci, economic from an accredited 4-yr college
2. no prior felonies
3. applicant fills out a short and simple form and provides a certified transcript
Each member would serve one 8 yr term in one house or the other, with annual drawing of the lots for 1/8 of the house. Obviously the lottery list and software would be open for public inspection. There would have to be lots of check to make sure no one could rig the lottery but it might work.
Benefits? No campaigns, no campaign spending, no legalized bribery of officials. Then we could choose our president by lot from those who have completed their 8-yr terms and still have no felony convictions.
When are they actually going to make the repubs USE a filibuster? If the Dems are going to cry about the "possibility" of a filibuster - who cares?
Are they crying about having to listen to some repubs actually carry on a filibuster? Sit your lazy asses down and make the repubs do it!
Oh yeah, Princess Feinstein and the other Dem royalty might actually have to give up their "free" time . . . .
The reason why the Democratic Party refuses to use every measure of political influence to change the course of our country because they realize they may have unlimited power in the next administration. It is no longer a government; of the people, by the people, and for the people. The End
The reason why the Democratic Party is not providing opposition to these policies is that the Democratic Party does not oppose these policies.
The one thing that struck me during the Clinton years was how little change in policy there was from the Bush 41 years and the Reagan years before that. Clinton didn't do any major rollbacks of the Bush\Reagan policies. In fact the highlights of the Clinton years were the bills that he could pass that the Republicans couldn't that extended and expanded those policies. WTO, NAFTA, Welfare Reform, anti-terror bills, federal death penalty, yada, yada, yada, ya.
Thus its no surprise that a Democratic congress elected in 2006 follows a similar pattern. They don't do any major roll backs of Bush the Insane's policies, and they actually vote to continue the expansion of these policies in the area of spying on Americans and creating a police state in this country.
QUIT VOTING DEMOCRAT!!!!!!!!!!!! .... Please, you're killing us .
In Search Of A Newspaper
Gosh don't we all love the indignant editorials of the NY Times. At the pinnacle of fostering the illusion that the American occupation of Iraq could somehow be "ended" by those valiant opposition Democrats. Sorry folks, chuckle along instead with "Big-Time" Dick Cheney, who's planned this thing all along that Amerika's presence in Iraq will be permanent, huge iron-clad military bases and the world's biggest embassy, to make sure that even as this country declines, no-one else will grab that oil.
There is no reason for any rational realist to consider the Dims an opposition party of any kind or to place any hope for progress in them. It's time for us to either create a real alternative or stop complaining.
Yeah it's the fault of THE DEMOCRATS.
Let's all take a few minutes now to focus our hate on THE DEMOCRATS.
OOOOH.... HOW WE HATE THE DEMOCRATS!!!!
NANCY PELOSI! HATE!! HATE!!!
HARRY REID! HATE!! HATE!!!
PATRICK LEAHY! HATE!! HATE!!!
WE HATE THEM WE HATE THEM WE HATE THEM ALL!!!
There, doesn't that feel better?
Hey, by the way, how many GREENS in Congress voted to end the war?
Answer: Zero!!! There aren't any Greens in Congress!!!
Not a little green one. Wonder why that is?
WINNER TAKE ALL ELECTIONS, STUPID.
How about we stop hating the Democrats and start challenging them... in the PRIMARIES.
The Democrats don't need Republicans to end the occupation and bring the troops home. They only need *not* to send any supplemental funding bills for a vote other than those with only the money to bring troops home. All talk of threats of filibusters and needing Republicans are lies. Kucinich knows this and has said so. But the Democrats just excluded him from an Iowa debate. The corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans are in cahoots to sustain the foreign policy of empire.
Thank you, Earthian. That is the vital point: if the Dems actually wanted to end the war, they would block the funding.
Obviously, they only want to pretend to try to end the war.
Yes, the filibuster has become much too easy: the mere threat stops everything - especially when the party in charge doesn't really want to push it. They should at least have to talk themselves hoarse, as Wayne Morse and other genuine Democrats did in the past.
And speaking of the filibuster: it means that the Democrats could block the funding with only 41 votes - if they really wanted to.
Nader2000 is actually right: the reason there aren't any Greens in Congress is plurality voting. If he/she wasn't just a shill for the Democratic Party, they'd be trying to change that. Preference Voting, or IRV, is an available, proven technology. And the only way we're going to get it is to keep costing the Democrats elections. You insist on us being spoilers? We can do that.
On the other hand: 2008 is shaping up as the Great Political Singularity, when the two major parties are both so unpopular that all bets are off. Remember, in a 5-way race you can win with 21%. That lets everybody in. It's going to be verrry interesting.
oregonchuck -
So, your plan is to blackmail Democrats into giving you IRV? And why are the Republicans going to agree to this, if only Democrats are losing elections because only the left's extreme wing can't discipline itself or understand the need to either persuade or compromise with the other 90% of the electorate?
Yes, yes, IRV will solve everything for the little entrepreneurs of pretend politics, won't it?
No, it won't. You'd still need to get a plurality in order to win. Maybe, maybe, maybe you could do it in a few places. Most places, no.
And then it won't just be one big Left party that will thrive in the new environment. You'll have Greens, Socialists, New Agers, and factions thereof, all recruiting with the same pitch, "Vote your conscience and, after all, you can still vote Democrat." You'll be out there vying with the LaRouchies and Revolutionary Marxists and Marxist Revolutionaries. It'll be a circus. And in the end, the same election-day hammer will come down. Only one candidate for each office will win.
Duopoly is a product of the winner-take-all electoral structure, and IRV will not change that.
If you are serious about changing politics in this country, you either work on issues, or you work on getting power through the electoral process.
If you want to do elections, act within the Democratic Party process. Challenge bad Dems, support good ones, pressure all of them. Push them and pull them. You'll have at least some influence that way, and the stronger you are, the more influence you'll be able to have.
But trying to create a third party, in a country where every election is winner-take-all and not proportional, is pissing in the wind.
Your Great Political Singularity is a Great Pipedream. I heard the same canard in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992.... Well, in '92 you had Perot, with his $billions, splitting the Right-wing populist vote. Nader never even came close to Perot's showing, but he split the left badly enough in 2000 to give us GWB... oops, sorry, I know you guys just hate it when anybody points out that particular inconvenient truth.
and Bill Clinton gets to say on national tv that Congress is all screwed up because they are sleep deprived??? is he tripping???
Earthian___ you have more sense than most of the antiwar Congresspersons put together. You are right, just pass a bill containing only enough to get the troops home, and if that is impossible, then do nothing and let the Decider worry for a change instead of everyone else while he gloats over his great vision and blows billions and our kids lives. Maybe he could ask his rich cronies for some of the money back that he handed them when the surplus that had accummulated was raided.
RichM writes:
> "Dem Party shill"
Right, I'm the Beast from Hell. Ummmm..... no. I'm speaking my own mind. I'm tired of seeing the left flail ineffectively in part because good people get led into the blind alley of third-party pipedream pretend politics. We're all angry, we're all fed up, yeah, we've had it with the corporate media and the corporate state and the two corporate parties. What can we do about it? How about trying something that can actually work for a change?
> "Nader2000's position is like a colonist in 1775 insisting, "We can try pressuring the authorities to consider our needs, but we must continue working within the framework of the British Crown."
Only if you are so completely stupid as to imagine that the way forward is to try to overthrow the state by force of arms and violence. That's what they did in 1776, remember? You want to grab your musket and start shooting at the redcoats? See you later.
My assumption is simply that we have to work within the Constitution. The only way to do that effectively is through the two-party system, because this system is what you get with this Constitution.
> ""you'll grow old and bitter before any of those things work"
No, you'll grow old and bitter and the third-party way still won't work.
> "you'll also grow old and bitter, waiting for the Democratic Party to lift a finger to defend your interests;"
Who said anything about waiting? We've got to make these people work for us, and if they won't we've got to replace them - by organizing their voters and winning their primary elections for our candidates.
> "He suggests "it'll be a circus" if we have elections allowing Greens, Socialists, & Revolutionary Marxists to compete."
No, I said IRV may make it easier to organize lots of little parties, but it will not lead to a unified Left party that can challenge the duopoly and win offices. We would still have winner-take-all, which is the fundamental reason for duopoly.
> "It means absolutely nothing to say, "Duopoly is a product of the winner-take-all electoral structure." That's an empty tautology,"
Are you really so stupid? You really don't get it? Let me try to spell it out for you. Even diehard Greens recognize that the first task has to be to build a party, with a base of loyal voters and resources needed to win elections. Well, how are you going to do that when you never, ever, ever win an election? Who is going to keep on giving you their time and sweat and money one election cycle after another, to take your party from 0.01% of the voters to 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, whatever it takes to start winning?
It's been tried over and over, from both the left and the right, and in the last 150 years it has always failed. What happens at best is that your movement's ideas and issues get coopted in some watered-down form by one of the two parties that can actually win.
The alternative is to organize independently of the major parties as a political movement and act within the two-party system to influence whichever party is closer to your views.
If you can raise money, mobilize volunteers and get voters to the polls, politicians will take you seriously, and you can get some of your own people into office as well. If you can't, they won't take you seriously, and you won't be able to win as a third party, either. You can only pretend.
The New York Times Editorial is a distraction for us to keep us from seeking them carrying water for the Bush Administration in its build up to expand their war to Iran and Syria.
The New York Times is preparing us for war against Iran and Syria
"The Republicans are simply not interested in a serious discussion and certainly not a vote on anything beyond Mr. Bush's increasingly narrow agenda."
Narrow minds encourage narrow and poorly planned agendas. That's why most Republicans will lose their seats in Congress. They apparently don't realize how many in their own party are disgusted with their deceptive fear and hate rhetoric to keep this war going at the expense of U.S. lives, in addition to astronomical debt obligations.
More and more awakening citizens of this country are fed-up with lies, misleading claims and the conscious manipulation to divide us as a people. The scheme to divide us and weaken our voice and position in this society is no longer working.
We, as citizens of an alleged Democracy, are re-learning that our Bill of Rights and Constitutional powers will be usurped by self-interested representatives if we don't remain strong through unity.
Go back and read NY Times editorials that supported Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003.
Editorials that never questioned the charade of obviously bogus evidence Bush, et al, used to 'justify' the invasion.
Editorials that whipped-up mindless masses to support corrupt US leaders.
AND NOW, the NY Times wants to lecture us about rediscovering a virtuous Congress??
The NY Times hypocrisy could only be gotten away with in a nation suffering from extremely severe short-term memory disorder - or mass hypnosis.
America has a Surgeon General. But what we really need is a Psychiatrist General.