People aren't seeing change

[Pangloss]

My opinion: People want change, and they're not seeing it. They wanted it in 2008 and they are still going to want it in 2010.

 

While the 2010 midterms are still 14 months away, pollsters seem to agree that it's not a question of if things will be bad for the Democrats but how bad things will be for the Democrats. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com recently suggested a 20- to 50-seat loss in the House. Republican pollsters have tried to tamp down excitement but are still predicting a loss of about 26 seats for the Democrats. A new poll from the Pew Research Center shows just how unpopular Congress has become. In the poll, 37 percent of Americans expressed a favorable view of the legislative branch, one of the lowest approval ratings given to Congress in two decades[/b'].

 

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/washington-whispers/2009/09/02/poll-lowest-congressional-approval-in-two-decades.html

 

Of course the news is no better for Republicans (and arguably even worse), but it's not as if people suddenly decided that they loved Democrats in 2008 -- they voted Republicans out, they didn't vote Democrats in. This poll shows that that sentiment continues.

 

What do you think?

[Sisyphus]

I think that the ones who most wanted change are perceiving much less of it than they would like. However, there seem to be lots of people who think Obama is a communist terrorist lover, and their outrage seems to stem from a perception of far too much change. That certainly seems to be the stance among any conservative with an actual audience these days. What the two groups have in common is frustration, so I'd say you're right about that much.

[insane_alien]

its hard to implement change when your $11trillion in debt and there is a global recession on.

[bascule]

What do you think?

 

I think the big tent is too inclusive. Democrats represent too many discontiguous viewpoints to get anything done. Obama is trying to provide a singular vision, but unlike Bush and the Republicans he can't get the rest of the party to fall in line. Democrats can't be on message the way Republicans could because there is no message.

 

True democracy in action, I guess. It's a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off. [insert obligatory South Park reference here]

 

I don't know the answer either. Overall I guess I like the way the Democrats operate better than the Republicans, but it makes them less effectual at getting legislation passed. Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather they pass a healthcare bill after a long and healthy debate.

[A Tripolation]

Obama is trying to provide a singular vision, but unlike Bush and the Republicans he can't get the rest of the party to fall in line.

 

Bascule, do you really want people voting a certain way just because a major player in their party says so? Nobosy should be "falling in line". With that way lies a radical government, which is bad. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words.

 

And as for the OP, to me, Obama promised wayyy too much change than he was capable of providing. Right now, even with all his charismatic influence, he can't get a health care bill passed even with a majority in Congress...kinda says something about his future endeavors.

[Pangloss]

I'd rather they pass a healthcare bill after a long and healthy debate.

 

Hear, hear. And an interesting post.

 

Being a long-view kind of guy, I find myself often more interested in the process and the thoughtfulness of an event than the actual outcome. I think it's by doing and observing the outcome that we learn, and every time we get angry at one another and war DOESN'T break out, democracy is working, at least to SOME degree.

 

It may simply be that democracy is always going to be a two-steps-forward-one-step-back deal, with the occasional second or third step back just to keep us motivated.

 

 

I think the big tent is too inclusive. Democrats represent too many discontiguous viewpoints to get anything done. Obama is trying to provide a singular vision, but unlike Bush and the Republicans he can't get the rest of the party to fall in line. Democrats can't be on message the way Republicans could because there is no message.

 

True democracy in action, I guess. It's a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off. [insert obligatory South Park reference here]

 

It's a good point, and there's no doubt that the big tent is one of the great political challenges. However, one might look at FDR, who arguably faced an even greater set of challenges, and somehow managed to bring widely disparate political forces together by focusing them on a common goal (in fact not once but twice). One could argue that the outcome was better because of the acknowledgement, and even leveraging, of the big tent.

 

But it is hard to argue that the challenges facing the US in that era were broader in scope than the ones we face today. For example, I don't think they were dealing with as many social issues as we are today (they existed, e.g. racism, but weren't really being addressed).

[bascule]

Bascule, do you really want people voting a certain way just because a major player in their party says so? Nobosy should be "falling in line". With that way lies a radical government, which is bad. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words.

 

I was merely stating the reality of the situation.

 

The overall sentiment of my post was that the debate that comes about from not just having members of Congress fall in line is worthwhile.

[padren]

Bascule, do you really want people voting a certain way just because a major player in their party says so? Nobosy should be "falling in line". With that way lies a radical government, which is bad. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words.

 

I just have to get in and say something about this: I suspect it's really not as extreme it is often portrayed. You don't have [democrat faction name here] being asked to completely sell out their ideals for The Majority in lock step, where the 'people with funny hair' coalition are being asked to sign off on forced sterilization of people with funny hair simply because the majority of Democrats are in favor of it.

It at least appears to me, that the argument is some say we need to go "a foot forward, and an inch to the left" and others say "a foot forward, and an inch to the right" and suddenly everyone sits on their butts and refuses to budge because their special reason for wanting the "inch to one side" isn't being coddled by the majority.

It's like trying to organize a straight-8 pool tournament fundraiser for a charity and finally getting everyone to show up, but then everyone thinks they need to sit out 'on moral grounds' because everyone has their own stupid idea of the 'right way to rack' the balls and what types of cues should be eligible.

 

It's not about moral integrity - it's about making mountains out of the smallest differences that only matter to the egotistical arrogant SOB that is willing to derail the whole train that is heading in the very direction he wants to go, because he thinks he has the right special idea of how the little details should be done. When your majority only exists as a result of a lot of people exactly like that but all with different 'special ideas' you get this sort of failure to legislate.

 

 

In retrospect:

The complete implosion of the Republican party has probably been the best thing the Republicans could have done. By becoming so inconsequential they removed any 'common adversary' rallying point and made the democrats feel like there is nothing in the world that could threaten their power, so they can be as lazy and petty as they like. It could be more effective at undoing them than any strong well organized Republican party ever could.

Edited September 3, 2009 by padren

[A Tripolation]

Excellent point, Padren. Might I just add that sometimes the smallest details turn out to be one of the most influential?

And since we all agree that a long debate is required for a satisfactory health bill...I can't argue with anyone

[iNow]

I was just reminded of this song:

 

 

lZ_XwLSN45I

 

Come gather round people wherever you roam

And admit that the waters around you have grown

And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone

If your time to you is worth saving

Then you'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone

For the times, they are a changing

 

Come writers and critics who prophesize with your pens

And keep your eyes open, the chance won't come again

And don't speak too soon, the wheel's still in spin

And there's no telling who that it's naming

Oh the loser will be later to win

For the times, they are a changing

 

Come senators, congressmen, please head the call

Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt will be her that has stalled

The battle outside ragging will soon shake your windows

And rattle your hall

For the times, they are a changing

 

Come mothers and fathers all over this land

And don't criticize what you can't understand

Your sons and your daughter are beyond your command

Your old role is rapidly aging

Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand

For the times they are a changing

 

The line, it is drawn, the curse, it is cast

The slow one will later be fast

And the present now will soon be the past

The order is rapidly fading

The first one now will later be last

For the times, they are a changing