Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Reading all the pieces about how the Democrats failed and what they should have done, and what strikes me is that for two decades since Gingrich became the Speaker and found new ways to hit below the belt, the Democrats have failed to make the Republicans pay a price for their obstructionism. The impeachment of Bill Clinton, governments shutdowns, abuse of the filibuster, refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote -- Democrats have failed to find a strategy to counter, instead usually trying to take what's left on the table. I blame Obama for this as much as anyone. Republicans have decided to keep government from working when a Democrat is in the White House, and voters do not hold it against them. With a Republican back in the White House, their commitment to deficit reduction and opposition to Keynesian stimulus are about to be forgotten, in favor of tax cuts and spending (infrastructure, the military) that will blow holes in the budget. Whatever else the Democrats do, they have to find a strategy to counter this.
|
What price can the GOP be made to pay? If people involved in the highest branches of govt decide to obstruct, how does one penalize them other than by getting voters to vote them out (which hasn't worked too well for Democrats lately)? I agree with your assessment of the necessary counter to obstructionism, but don't see the device by which it can be done.
The Democrats could now become obstructionists themselves.
But putting that aside, one issue you raise here underscores why the Democrats lost this time around. I think we all agree that some form of stimulus is a good idea. And I agree that the GOP is now embracing that policy which they previously rejected when it was raised by a Democratic President. And yes -- that is loathsome.
But... The fact that nearly everyone is in agreement on stimulus tells us the economy is not great. Not by a long shot. Technically, yes, using silly measures like GDP, which has been revised so as to make it a useless measure, or unemployment, another useless measure, the economy is okay. But to 70-80% of society, it is very much not okay. It is delivering for asset holders, for capitalists, while savaging workers. (Fuck off in advance on your response, Adder.) Rather than bullshitting the 70-80% of Americans who do not see a robust economy with the "America is Already Great!" response to Trump, wouldn't the better reply have been, "We Have a Better Plan to Make America Great Again"? I think Hillary's biggest mistake may have been trying to get Obama's third term. She'd have done better arguing "the last time we had a bad recession, in 1992, a Clinton came into office and we enjoyed the biggest economic expansion in the last 50 years. I can do that again." That would have attracted a lot of middle and lower class voters who held their noses and voted for Trump.
Telling people everything was great was bad strategy. That kind of naked bullshit regarding the core issue of interest to voters insults their intelligence. The better message would have been, "Obama did a lot to save us, and we should be thankful for his cool hand at the wheel in a time of turmoil. But he could only get us so far, because of GOP obstructionism. I'm the candidate who'll take us from stability to serious growth."
Instead, Trump's going to be the architect of a miniature New New Deal. Holy shit, is that ever twisted.
