×
- The dust had barely settled in Massachusetts before the cowards of the U.S. Senate announced their legislative plan for 2010: do absolutely nothing. Evan Bayh is worried that the Democratic party has moved too far to the left. Jim Webb wants the health care debate to be suspended until Scott Brown can dictate its outcome. Russ Feingold just wants to start over. Claire McCaskill thinks the Democratic agenda is going "going too far, too fast." Ben Nelson is concerned that Washington has become dysfunctional because Democrats had 60 votes. And the ultimate statement of confidence from Senate Democrats: "It is mathematically impossible for Democrats to pass legislation on our own" followed by a plea for help from the GOP. What a sickening display of self-imposed helplessness.
- As discussed yesterday, David Brooks, when it's convenient for him, seems to believe "the people" carry a special wisdom that is naturally small-c conservative, standing in the way of "radical" change (like, say, preserving the private insurance market). This runs contrary to the actual constitutional design of our political institutions, which are not based on direct democracy, and puts the Senate in the role of tempering the fleeting passions of the masses. Daniel Larison understands that basing partisan politics on change for change's sake has to lead to governing paralysis, but then his thinking is more sophisticated than someone whose knowledge of Hobbes' Leviathan is limited to the cover art.
- I don't want to speculate about what congressional Democrats will do with health-care reform now that they've lost their Senate supermajority, and it isn't clear any sort of consensus has been reached other than to freak out and show voters that they can't govern the country. Obviously, breaking the bill into smaller pieces would be a disaster and the benefits of passing the Senate bill in the House easily outweigh the cost of doing absolutely nothing. Hopefully the sense of relief -- yes, relief -- an anonymous Senate staffer is seeing in his/her caucus isn't as prevalent in Nancy's house.
- Remainders: Joseph Lieberman's solemn assessments of the public mood suddenly seem less infuriating and more routine; Barney Frank is surprisingly passive about defending his party's top domestic legislative priority; sadly, the Republican strategy of invoking collective amnesia for partisan gain will probably be very effective; in the absence of hard evidence, even political science has to take a Socratic disposition towards understanding the motivations of the electorate; and New Yorker writers agree that Obama is too intellectual, not emotional enough.
--Mori Dinauer
