The Ted Kennedy seat goes to a Republican thereby dashing hopes of any progressive health care reform.
Air America, the liberal radio talk show network, pulls all programming and goes under.
The Supreme Court decides that corporations may contribute as much money as they would like to try to sway election results. According to the court, it is a matter of freedom of speech.
It is truly a crazy day in America when a former Cosmopolitan nude centerfold, pro-choice, Republican wins a Kennedy seat in Massachusetts. This Republican win perplexes the pundits: is it a beginning of a Republican revolution, or just a stern message sent by voters who usually vote liberal? And if it is a message, just what is the message?
And what does it mean that Air America cannot locate and nourish a liberal listening audience sufficient to even break even?
And what will be the results of the Supreme Court's decision that corporations need endure no limits in their efforts to influence elections?
As it turns out, Alan was right. No need to worry about what substantive changes the Democrats will attempt to bring, they will implode as they always do. If they cannot accomplish their goals with supermajorities across the board, there is no need to take them seriously. They will not have again this much power in the foreseeable future.
When the Republicans regain power, and they will, will they be able to do any better? Will meaningful health care be of any concern to them? Will health care costs continue to outgrow inflation? Will they be able to reduce the debt and deficit given their lack of being able to do so during their three previous presidencies?
I am beginning to believe that our de facto two party system may no longer be the best approach.
4 comments:
That is a lot to comment on.
I continue to be amazed that the Dems were unable to get health care done. They have majorities the likes of which neither party has seen in ages, and still the Dems and Obama blame Republicans who haven't one sliver of power to stop the Dems from doing whatever they want. They missed deadline after deadline, and cut unbelievable and constitutionally questionable backroom deals to get an agreement, and still its the Republican's fault. I shake my head in disbelief.
And what are voters angry about?
It is the massive spending, hands down.
The bottom line is that your average voter works hard to provide for his family, he pays his taxes, he does not buy what he cannot afford, and he works within a balanced budget. Then he sees the government taking his hard-earned taxpayer money and squandering it on earmarks, big bailouts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascoes, and an endless list of other wanton spending. It makes the blood boil with anger (at least it does mine). The Republicans got thrown out for it, and deservedly so. Now it's the Dems turn. Which party is going to finally understand the problem and govern in a fiscally responsible manner? That remains to be seen, but it is currently the Dems with their necks in the guillotine, and it won't be pretty in November. The party that is able to bring fiscal discipline to government is the party that will govern the longest.
As for the two party system, I think we are stuck with it. The emergence of a successful third party seems unlikely. Other options? Dare I mention the unmentionable? A revolution with the emergence of a supreme liberal leader? A military coup with the emergence of a conservative strongman? I have a hard time believing such things could happen.
I don't know if I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. People should be able to contribute as much as they want but I am not sure about corporations.
I guess this is just the checks and balance system at work. Who knows the answer to all those questions you pose? Time will tell.
Two quick responses:
I blame the democrats and am no longer giving any money to them (although we only gave paltry amounts). I still consider myself a Dem but a very disgruntled one.
When I made my last comment about our de facto two party system, I was wondering if a more parliamentary form of government might not be better: it allows for more direct confrontation of the prime minister and it allows for governments to fail mid-term and call for new elections. If forces more and better consensus work. The advantage of two party system is speed of change. Less dallying than in a parliamentary system, but with such partisanship as we see in Washington (and in many states), and with parties unable to effect important change anyway, I am beginning to wonder.
I hadn't thought about a parliamentarian form of government, but I think the chance of such a system here is zero. It would entail rewriting parts of the constitution, and the political wrangling to achieve that would be considerable, if not impossible.
Post a Comment