[PThomas]

You guys want to know what's really driving voter anger?

It's their belief that we're not acting like a democracy anymore, a sense that our democracy has been hijacked.  This applies to both the right and to the left.

By definition, people who vote care about democracy - or else they wouldn't.

They subscribe to the principle that we own this country and our politicians work for us, not the other way around.

They believe that the people we send to Washington are supposed to believe in democracy, too.

So they get pissed when there's one party in charge of everything with fillibuster-proof majorities that can just run roughshod over the minority.  They get pissed when trillion dollar tax bills get put together behind closed doors, without minority input. 

And like I said, this cuts both ways.  It's the same whether it's the right or the left.  And the reason they get pissed is that this is not democracy; it's totalitarianism.

So people react.  And if the Republicans ever get the executive branch, 60 in the Senate and the House and start closing doors on Democrats, they'll react again.  Why?  Because it restores democracy.

Shiv - you make some pretty smart post sometimes, but really, totalitarianism???  come on, be reasonable

[Craig Sweet]

Handing out free money? Shivas...nice try!  

The Obama tax cuts came in the form of payroll tax reductions... it directly related to working people.  The real redistribution of wealth has been in the higher tax brackets. The wealthiest people in this country did not see their incomes rise so significantly because they worked harder or were more productive....they took advantage of a more favorable tax situation.  

[PThomas]

I'm sticking with totalitarianism:

From Dictionary.com:  "absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution."  

From our resident economic expert, Craig:  "The real redistribution of wealth has been in the higher tax brackets. The wealthiest people in this country did not see their incomes rise so significantly because they worked harder or were more productive....they took advantage of a more favorable tax situation."

So in other words, in the world accoding to Craig, when a person keeps the money he has earned, it's wealth redistribution.    Pray tell, how exactly does that work?  How much cash do you have in your pocket right now?  Let's say it's $60, or $600 (the number doesn't matter).    

If you still have it in your pocket tonight, are you seriously taking the position that by hanging onto it you have "redistributed" it to yourself?    

LOL!  Please, Craig, enlighten us further ....  

just my 2 cents and I know i wont change your mind,  but i think when you use words like you really end rational discussion

[Craig Van Egmond]

Even Chris Matthews has figured out the whole tax cut thing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRmIZtpYFU

[PCCraig]

A free access board for the discussion of golf course architecture related matters. (note: non-architecture threads/posts are deleted).

At least the Merion threads are "related" to architecture.

[Tim Pitner]

So I stand by it.   

Then you're either ignorant or a fool.  Totalitarianism has a specific meaning in political science--Hitler, Stalin and Mao were totalitarians.  It has no application here and your use of the term is an insult to those who have faced totalitarian regimes. 

[Phil McDade]

It's perfectly rational and within the meaning of the word.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid were unchecked in any meaningful way.  They could craft and pass whatever they wanted without input from the minority party, sealing it all up all behind closed doors --  and did precisely that.  We don't like unchecked power like that in this country.
 

Well, maybe we don't, but I always view voters as rationale actors (speaking as one of the few people who posts here regularly who has actually asked people for their vote to be elected to something...). I'm assuming the people who put Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress wanted it that way.

Similarly, here in Wisconsin, the governorship -- after 8 years of being held by a Democrat -- has been passed on by the voters to a Republican, as have both houses of the Legislature after several years of Democratic control. I assume Wisconsin's voters wanted it that way. The GOP in Wisconsin will be "unchecked" in any meaningful way in deciding things far more important to me, in my daily life, than much of anything Congress and the president are likely to do in the next two years. I don't view that as totalitrarianism; I view it as voters, acting rationalely, expressing their preference for how they want to be governed. I'm assuming if they don't like, they'll vote differently in a few years.

[Michael Dugger]

Anyone notice how many decisions went 51% to 49%......52% - 48% et al.

Very few resounding victories.

We are a nation divided, as this thread clearly demonstrates.  There is no bi-partisanship, and I fear our inability to respect one another, inability to work together to discover truth and inability to work together to develop solutions is going to tear us apart in the coming decade.


   

[Tim Pitner]

So I stand by it.  

Then you're either ignorant or a fool.  Totalitarianism has a specific meaning in political science--Hitler, Stalin and Mao were totalitarians.  It has no application here and your use of the term is an insult to those who have faced totalitarian regimes.  

You mean "those who have faced totalitarian regimes, such as my wife?"

I don't care what limited meaning people impose on the word.  It is broader than your 3 examples.  Sorry.  That's the fact.

Of course, it's broader than my three examples--it includes regimes like Pol Pot's and North Korea's (again, for example).  It does not include Obama/Reid/Pelosi.  To even suggest so is ludicrous.

I'm a free market guy, but your hyperbole reflects an attitude that I find offensive--this notion that we (or at least a certain percentage of us) are being persecuted by too high tax rates and excessive regulation.  Please, you can argue whether a certain tax rate or level of regulation is or is not optimal, but to compare that to real persecution by totalitarian and other repressive regimes is egocentric, self-pitying and offensive.  The fact that you can do this while your wife apparently has known real repression only shows how deluded you are. 

[Jeff Goldman]

boy, this is a mistake, but

Shiv,

So the Repubs had totalitarian control during the early Bush years when they used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts, (and, we might add, intentionally sunset them)?  Were they more totalitarian then the Dems because the dems for the most part refused to use reconciliationn, which gave the repubs an absolute veto over almost any legislation (including bills that they actually proposed, but, when agreed to by the Obamas, changed their minds on)?

Actually, it is all this emotionalism that makes good policy basically impossible.  What would happen if we balance the federal budget now?  I guess we would party like its 1873.

[Phil McDade]

I'd urge folks not to get in a big lather over our good friend Shivas; I expect him to be working hard on behalf of President Obama's re-election in two years. After all -- given the margins the GOP racked up yesterday in Congress -- to do otherwise would risk embracing the very thing which he so vigorously opposes. Those opposed to totalitarianism must, by definition, favor divided government, and right now on the federal level it looks like Obama is the only chance for that.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim, you can call it whatever adjectives you want, but the fact remains that when a single person or a small group has absolute control over what does and does not become law and overtly shuts out any and all debate, choosing to work behind closed doors, that's not democratic.  That's the textbook definition of totalitarian.  

No, actually it's not. 

This is much closer to a textbook definition:  "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the control of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.  Totalitarianism is generally characterized by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have less significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct most if not all aspects of public and private life).  Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain political power through an all-encompassing propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of state terrorism."

You should read more and talk/type less. 

[Dan King]

Jeff Goldman writes:
I guess we would party like its 1873.

No mistake Jeff. I love "Let's party like its 1873." This should be the GOP slogan. The golden age of the Grand Old Party. U.S. Grant in the White House. Good old James G. "Slippery Jim" Blaine leading the house. They'll have to update their fears from "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" to something like "Muslims, Gays and Wacky Weed." There was even a Sarah Palin-type character in Roscoe Conklin.

Politicians rarely know anything about history so they probably won't realize Slippery Jim was responsible for one of the GOP's least favored amendments, the 14th.

Cheers,
Dan King

We are born in a Pullman house. We are fed from a Pullman shop, taught in a Pullman school, catechized in the Pullman church and when we die we shall be buried in a Pullman cemetery and go to a Pullman hell.
— Pullman employee on life in Pullman town, 1883

[Jeff Goldman]

Dan,

Good call, though I was actually alluding to the panic of 1873, and financial meltdown not that dissimilar from what happened a few years ago.  I guess one difference is that we have tools and (some people have) the knowledge of now to fix it, but unfortunately not the judgment.

Jeff

[Bill_McBride]

boy, this is a mistake, but

Shiv,

So the Repubs had totalitarian control during the early Bush years when they used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts, (and, we might add, intentionally sunset them)?  Were they more totalitarian then the Dems because the dems for the most part refused to use reconciliationn, which gave the repubs an absolute veto over almost any legislation (including bills that they actually proposed, but, when agreed to by the Obamas, changed their minds on)?

Actually, it is all this emotionalism that makes good policy basically impossible.  What would happen if we balance the federal budget now?  I guess we would party like its 1873.

Ummm, Jeff, prior to Obama's, when did the Rebublicans have a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate?  It was in the 70's, Jeff.  It wasn't during the early Bush years.   Please know the facts first...  it ain't totalitarianism (no matter what the definition) if the other side can prevent law.  And the last time that happened WASN'T in the early Bush years.   

Shivas, when did you start talking like Matt Ward, Shivas?   

[George Pazin]

I guess one difference is that we have tools and (some people have) the knowledge of now to fix it, but unfortunately not the judgment.

Jeff

Just wondering why you feel this way...

[Carl Nichols]

[edited -- thought twice about getting involved in this]

[Tim Pitner]

Shivas,

If you really believe that the Obama administration "recognizes no limits to [the state's] authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible," then you've lost touch with reality.  As an aside, the Bush administration, with its theory of the unitary executive and its position that the U.S. could indefinitely detain "enemy combatants," including U.S. citizens, without trial, was much more authoritarian than Obama's.  But even that doesn't rise to the level of totalitarianism, which is a distinction you apparently cannot grasp.  BTW, because the control sought by a totalitarian regime is comprehensive, its coercive methods are not incidental or "non-definitional"--they are part and parcel of the political system.  

[A.G._Crockett]

I hate to get all accurate and factual, Shivas, but the Democrats have only had 59 votes in the Senate since Ted Kennedy died in August 2009.  They not only haven't had a super majority since then, but the Republicans have used the filibuster around 80% of the time, while the historical rate is around 15% by the minority party.  In other words, the U.S. Senate has become a 60 vote chamber to pass anything, whereas the U.S. Constitution calls for a simple majority.  That's why so much legislation has had to be done by reconciliation.

As to the totalitarian silliness, you might want to remember that the Democrats didn't elect themselves, as yesterday proved.  Totalitarian regimes are not chosen and they don't just walk away and wait for the next election.  But, of course, you know that.

[Jud_T]

I guess he recognizes the limits to his authority now.

[Craig Sweet]

Shivas is totally delusional.  Obama welded his 60 vote majority like a sledge hammer...that's why we have the best single payer health care plan in the world...that is why we have Employee Free Choice...that is why we have raving left wing commies on the Supreme Court...yep...he was a regular totalitarian sledge hammer of a man..that John Henry...I mean Obama!

[RJ_Daley]

AG:  justify all you want.  They had it.  60 votes.  For the first time since the late 70s.  And it was wielded like a sledgehammer.

  had they weilded it like a sledgehammer, and had such party totalitarian unity, we would have single payer or medicare for all healthcare, and more draconian reforms on Wall St.  The only sledgehammer being weilded is the rhetorical one of sharp elbows and not even able to celebrate a victory by Shivas, who can't leave his idealogue rt wing ddiatribe rest for a second

You're right:  Obama was elected...on the lie that he'd bring people together.

   funny, I thought he was elected because he represented a desire to depart from Bush era tactics, work towards comprehensive health reform, end the wars on a rational timeline, and repair the shatttered economy we faced after that black Sept '08.  His mistake was thinking he could bring rabid obstructionists to work together for the good of the country.  It was not a lie that he'd work to bring people together, just a naive dream  that he should wake up from given the V laps and crowing the folks that just won are doing now.

Then he slammed the door in their face.

   yes, that was a door he slammed in their face when holding telvised meetings with GOP to ask them to contribute something besides phony indignation.  The party of no seems the more likely door slammer to me.

So people reacted.  And they reacted big.  And that's accurate and factual.   Want something more accurate and factual?  The standard in the Senate used to be 67%.  It went DOWN to 60%.  Who brought it down?  The Democrats.  In the 70s.  Look it up.  Get your facts straight.  

  and don't forget to look up the sterling examples of the use of the cloture and filubuster and other Senate rules;  Some of our finest American moments.  I'm sure Shivas won't mind now if the Dems react "big" use those rules a little more aggressively now, maybe stimulate people to act big again in 2012 going the other way....

Dave T.:  I stand by every word.   That stuff at the end of your "definition" was not a definition at all.  They were examples.  You're still confusing definitions of things with examples of things?  C'mon man....

   Yes, com'mon man, you know Shivas will never give an inch to common understanding when a good sophist opportunity to debate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is before us like torturing the def of totalitarianism.  It is what he says it is, that is all...in total!

[Bob Harris]

Shivas is totally delusional.  Obama welded his 60 vote majority like a sledge hammer...that's why we have the best single payer health care plan in the world...that is why we have Employee Free Choice...that is why we have raving left wing commies on the Supreme Court...yep...he was a regular totalitarian sledge hammer of a man..that John Henry...I mean Obama!

There was a 60 vote majority for less than 4 months, April 29, 2009 through August 25, 2009.

[Craig Sweet]

Bob...theres something like 45 bills that were passed out of the House sitting in the Senate waiting for a vote. The Republicans are filibustering them...so much for the 60 vote sledgehammer!

[Sean_A]

AG:  justify all you want.  They had it.  60 votes.  For the first time since the late 70s.  And it was wielded like a sledgehammer.

You're right:  Obama was elected...on the lie that he'd bring people together. 

Then he slammed the door in their face.

So people reacted.  And they reacted big.  And that's accurate and factual.   Want something more accurate and factual?  The standard in the Senate used to be 67%.  It went DOWN to 60%.  Who brought it down?  The Democrats.  In the 70s.  Look it up.  Get your facts straight.   

Dave T.:  I stand by every word.   That stuff at the end of your "definition" was not a definition at all.  They were examples.  You're still confusing definitions of things with examples of things?  C'mon man....

Shivas

Out of curiosity, which laws passed during the 4 month period of Dems having a super majority in the Senate that may have been stopped by filibustering do you consider to be totalitarian in nature? 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()