It was worth it
Nancy Pelosi put out a statement during the night saying that the House of Representatives under her leadership “took courageous action” to save the country from economic catastrophe. I take it to mean she believes it was worth it to support President Obama on the stimulus bill and President Bush on the TARP bailout bill even though it cost her and the Democrats control of the House.
Significantly, she didn’t mention health care legislation, but I would include that as well: Passing it was worth losing the election.
Why?
Setting aside any nobler motive, it was worth taking the the risk of losing the election because the election was going to be lost anyway. In reporting a pre-mortem for National Catholic Reporter last month, I looked into the work academics had done to build forecasting models for the House race. Some 47 Democrats represented districts that had been won by the Republican presidential candidates in both 2004 and 2008, while only six House Republicans were in a comparable position. Add to that a stagnant economy, and the Democratic loss of the House was inevitable, any number of political scientists would say.
I haven’t had the chance to see if voting against the health care bill saved any Democrats – it didn’t in the case of one Congressman whose district is close by for me – Michael McMahon of Staten Island, New York. And I doubt that inaction in the face of the crumbling economy would have been a good strategy for House Democrats. The stimulus did in fact create or retain many jobs. As Ezra Klein wrote for The Washington Post, the House Democrats failed as politicians, but succeeded as legislators.
So, to answer a question Ross Douthat posed on The Times Web site: Yes, it was worth it.
One of the thing I’ve noticed is that the GOP has been running for this election the last two years. This means, they have been working hard to make sure the nation did not get into better shape. They played politics over the needs of the American people. They wanted Obama “not to be successful.”
Of course, anyone who has half a brain knows it takes more than two years to fix the problems we currently have, even in the best of political environments. But when the GOP was running on the “let’s do nothing to fix anything” policies, obstructing anything which could make things better — yes, they can use the “things are not better” card this time.
It is going to haunt them in two years.
What is funny is to hear Rush trying to prepare for that already. He has said it will take a decade to fix what Obama has done. A decade. So don’t expect quick results.
So why did he say Obama should have fixed everything in two years? Oh, he knew Obama couldn’t. Anyone knows that.
But two years from now, the fickle nation will, I think, see through the GOP. Two years from now, when the GOP promises have been shown to do nothing… the big election will be the DNC’s to lose.
The Republican House may well be less able to get things done than the Democrats under Pelosi. Politico has a sobering assessment of John Boehner’s chances:
“But Boehner may have significant trouble making sure that his caucus is willing to work with him. There’s a large cast of characters who could make Speaker Boehner’s job miserable: House freshmen who consider themselves new revolutionaries; committee chairmen with big egos and grand ideas; angry liberals in a new Democratic minority; and President Barack Obama, with whom Boehner faces the challenge of establishing a relationship that has barely existed.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44597.html#ixzz14DWTfP9y
That is nothing to rejoice in given the state of the economy and the country.
Except for extending the Bush tax cuts and holding investigations, I doubt the republicans will offer any credible policy ideas. Mitch McConnell has said that making Obama a one term president is at the top of his agenda, which means, it would seem, like another two years of political posturing and obstruction. As for the tea party freshmen, they won’t cause Boehner any grief. Rand Paul came to heel pretty quickly when he realized that he would need the full backing of the party to win the election. The new folks will get comfy in their capitol hill office and with all the perks that come with the job – staff, media attention, and perhaps a job for the spouse.
“Politico has a sobering assessment of John Boehner’s chances”
The Tea Party members newly elected on the Republican line will pose a challenge for Boehner’s political skills, but I suspect his real problem will be that the regular Republicans in the House will want to keep their local Tea Party members from turning against them (and picketing their events, assailing them on the Internet, running against them in primaries, etc.). That would make any kind of compromise difficult, especially on such matters as taxes, immigration and climate change. The Tea Party members deserve credit for paying attention; they’ll know if any of the people they supported cast a vote they disapprove of, and they’re not known for their patience.
The party in power almost always loses the midterm elections. The Tea Party used the usual discontent to make a name for themselves. Same results new name. With that said it is healthy to send a message to incumbents. Keeps them on their toes.
Best non-concession concession speeches:
Carl Paladino and his bat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/carl-paladino-bat-new-york_n_778070.html
Christine O’Donnell and her lecture to her victorious opponent: “We have won!”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/christine-odonnell-in-concession-speech-we-have-won-video.php
Both candidates actually lost big. Perhaps that liberated them to express themselves. Not that they had problems with that before.
Most graceless and petty victory speech
Barney Frank
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkRr0PM3CEQ
Bitter and petty concession speech nominee – Alan Grayson – no video on-line yet
Several matters here:
The Country, especially the heartland, has spoken for a move to the right.
The movement was essentially driven by the economy and big money attack ads that succeeded.
I think the issue that will grip leadership now wil be the economy.
IMO the rump congress will kick the can down to the newly elected on extension of budget and Bush tax cuts.
The new divided congress will not listen to the commission report on how to reduce spending 9too many hard choices) and on fashioning a budget that really works.
(Too many hard choices).
The shdow oligarchs, headed by Koch brothers and Bob Kerry, abtted by think tanks like American Enterprise will roll out ideology at the expense of the middle class.
So, I think a grim two years ahead.
A second and eqaully important aspect is that value issues will become even less important.
Please note how many pro-life Dems (attacked by the crazies in the right to life movement) went down.
And I’m sure our Episcopla leadership wil have pale impact in promoting the values we say we hold.
If the American electorate was reflecting the Republican campaign rhetoric, then they acted like the fifteen year old comic strip character Zits. Zits wants to do and get what he wants immediately, with little attention to the consequences. The comic strip is often hilarious. In its real life counterpart, it’s ludicrous.
Michael Walzer once noted that liberal democracy has what he calls strong dissociative tendencies, i.e., strong insensitive individualistic tendencies. I see this in both parties. I have no prescriptions.
Worth it ? Sure… Palin will defeat every weak Repub. male in the 2012 primaries and lose 40-60 in the general election.
Why did Pelosi do healthcare? Because she and her ilk are rabid raving (hopefully soon to be pouting) socialists; ideologues of the first order – that’s why.
I read some speculation that, rather than sink back into her old chair as one of many, Ms. Pelosi the proud will probably retire. Yes Nancy, it is time to park the plane. Don’t worry about cleaning out the galley; naturally someone else will clean up for you.
Now that the old Boomer has done her job for the socialist cause, it is time for her to retire and “spend time with her family”.
Yeah, in addition to abortion, Pelosi is all about family values – Ha, ha!
Ken, you certainly like to (simplistically) label people.
Bob – It seems you do too.
;-)
It is obvious we all label each other; we use certain “labels” to describe one another. In our language, labels are one way we express/clarify our thoughts and/or feelings.
As long as the label is not offinsive or profane, no problem.
Ken, there is a problem if your label is inaccurate. From the way you keep using it, I have to assume you don’t know what “socialist” means. You can call Nancy Pelosi all the names you want, but do it somewhere else, please.
Could some one please explain why a health care bill that looks in many ways like a new bonanza for the private insurance companies is “socialistic”?
I believe that Americans are tired of the same old, same old…Obama won the election in 2008 on the promise of change, making government transparent and not doing the Washington routine as in the past. Instead we have gotten the same old routine where the lobbyists trumped The People. As far as Healthcare went…it didn’t go far enough as far as the Progressives were concerned and went too far as the Conservatives were concerned. This deadlock of ideas have caused the government to come to a standstill. With the Republicans taking over the House I am afraid the deadlock will continue with the added push by the Republicans to want “revenge” over their shellacking in 2006 and 2008. I expect members of the Republican Party to try to do what they did to President Clinton, which will further cause more entrenchment among the American People liberal vs. conservative.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/the-new-kids-in-town/?hp
Eugene McCarraher will surely sneeze at this as two sides of the same coin. But I like this morning-after exchange between Brooks and Collins, esp. on Pelosi and healthcare.
Professor Clifford asks “Could some one please explain why a health care bill that looks in many ways like a new bonanza for the private insurance companies is ‘socialistic’?”
The net effect of the health care legislation appears to be that health insurance will cost more for people who already have it and become available to people who presently do not.
People expect the first (more expensive for those who have it) to happen because it is obvious that the cost of health care for the newly insured has to come form somewhere. The second (available to those who don’t have it) is built into the legislation in the form of subsidies and also in the requirement that insurance companies sell even to people who are already sick. Many people who are not presently insured will simply pay the penalty for not having insurance, then buy it when they become sick.
(I do not personally find this unacceptable. I’m not much impressed by people who shout that “health care is a right” without paying any attention to the fact that it’s also a very expensive commodity. But I do think poor people should have health care, of course.)
I would say it is “redistributionist” but not “socialist,” because it does not really involve government ownership of the health care industry. But I don’t think the word “socialist” is completely inappropriate. The health insurance industry is not being nationalized, but it is being turned into a public utility, like electricity.
Quibbling about terminology is not likely to prove helpful. The ineluctable fact is that most people who have health insurance don’t want to help pay for health insurance for people who don’t have it. No doubt, they ought to want to; but they don’t. And in a democracy, they can prevent it from happening if they show up to vote and the other people don’t.
Was it worth it to whom? And with whose crystal ball will we determine the answer to that question at this date? And with whose rear view mirror two years from now?
Maybe the infusion of GOP in the House will force compromise and dialog to more done than in recent years. Maybe the infusion of GOP into the House will tie every issue up in a hopeless, vengenful deadlock.
Stay tuned. (Or—as many are doing—tune out).
““But Boehner may have significant trouble making sure that his caucus is willing to work with him. ”
Indeed, and I’m going to relish every minute of it. Karma is karma. (hee hee)
Mollie – What in the world is wrong with the term “socialist”?
There is nothing offensive about either socialism or capitalism (socialist or capitalist, or trade unionist for that matter), or Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, left or right. Pro-lifer is a term I apply to myself, and “Pro-Choice” and abortionists also are not insulting words.
Why do you find these sorts of description or labels, so worrisome?
Jeez!
Ken: it’s wrong because it’s wrong. As in incorrect. It’s not something we need to have a philosophical discussion about.
Sigh.
It’s not as if no one tried to explain. In fact, tens of millions of people explained last night — and they were pretty clear in what they had to say.
If you cannot hear that, if you cannot understand after all that, there ain’t no one who can explain it to you.
“The shdow oligarchs, headed by Koch brothers and Bob Kerry, abtted by think tanks like American Enterprise will roll out ideology at the expense of the middle class.. ”
Bob N. –
It’s understandable that the shadow oligarchs (great phrase!) have bamboozled the uneducated/poor into tolerating unregulated capitalism. But when the educated/middle class gets bamboozled by the oligarchs I’m really mystified. How can so-called “educated” people continue to believe that the super-rich are our economic partners who share common interests with us? How can the middle class continue to believe that the financiers do not need stringent regulation?
The robber barons are not dead, but even the educated class continues to think the Great Depression killed them off. The shadow oligarchs/robber barons, being smart, have discovered the secrets of language manipulation (thanks to Democratic language guru Lakoff) plus how to organize grass-roots movements (also thanks, ironically, to a Democrat, Saul Alinsky). This allows them to determine election outcomes in their favor. (Like I said, they’re smart.)
Will we never face the truth? laissez-faire capitalism simply does not work for everyone, and we’ve got to stop hanging on to it like some precious family heirloom. It’s a curse, is what it is.
This, I suspect, is what happens when a society loses its sense of sin to the extent that it can’t even recognize monumental greed when it stares us the face.
“”As long as the label is not offinsive or profane, no problem.”
Ken –
Most labels are offensive — that’s why the snarkers use so many — their big aim it to express very negative feelings and evaluations. In practice they turn people off and make real discussion unlikely. In our culture snarkiness has become a way of life for some people. “Incivility” is what it used to be called, and it’s a very big problem.
Per Tom Melvin: “…This deadlock of ideas have caused the government to come to a standstill. With the Republicans taking over the House I am afraid the deadlock will continue …”
Per Ken: Yes – and thank goodness for that; hopefully you are correct. I want the government to be a standstill, to be so tied up with itself so that it does not bother the rest of us.
The federal government should tend nation-wide matters like; national highways, the military, national immunization efforts, national parks, and our diplomatic relations with other nations.
The federal government should Not insert itself into matters best left to the states e.g.; education, energy, or welfare, light bulbs, low-flow toilets, trans fats, and all the rest.
We are supposed to be a reasonable, commercial republic, not a utopia. The US is supposed to be a place where one can simply earn a living, tend to family, and get on with life without interference from big-sister government.
In short Tom – I and other conservatives tend to prefer a government hog-tied and gridlocked, one that cannot “move us forward”.
I thought the President sounded quite conciliatory in his press conference today (at least the portion I caught of it). It sounded a lot like the beginning of a tack to the center.
He named energy and education as two possible areas where he would be willing to work with Republicans.
I thought it was actually one of his best performances. It seems clear that he is growing into the job.
The fact is that without the federal government states would be more corrupt than they are. One does have to check the federal government and that is done with our checks and balances inasmuch as one can check human behavior. The people are unhappy. In no way does that mean they are happy with the Republicans. Just that they want a change. Sometimes the only way we can send a message is to throw the governing party out. The Tea Party will have its turn.
Ken –
I see that you seem to place words like “Democrat” and “Republican” in the same class as “hag”, as in “Nancy Pelosi the hag”. You need to learn the difference between words that describe objective facts and words that are loaded with negative associations be they feelings or evaluations. It’s the difference between what logicians and linguists and psychologists call the “cognitive” and “affective” uses of words and body language.
Check out the affective uses of language and you might discover that you’re an affective language junkie. For instance, you call Rep. Pelosi a “hag” (as opposed to calling her a “Democrat” or “socialist” or “big spender”). This faults only her looks, which are irrelevant, not her politicial principles and behavior. You need a good book on affective fallacies.
Ann, let’s us adults give Ken a “time out.” Ignore his tantrums and let’s see what would happen.
Jonathan Chait takes up Douthat’s question. I was glad to see him start by pointing out the problem with assuming not reforming health care would have been good for the Democrats.
If anyone watched the interview of Nancy Pelosi last night on ABC News, you would have seen a serious, concerned and even proud solon worthy of our continued support and attention. She said directly ‘its not about me, it’s about the vision.’ She revealed herself genuinely as an advocate for better government, better cooperation between the parties and in short, was a class act! Her leadership will be sorely missed.