It was before my time, but I remember learning about how Republicans and Democrats used to work together to solve the nation's problems. When they worked together, they did some great things: Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Endangerered Species Act, Clean Water Act and so on.
And then about 20 years ago, President Reagan worked with the mostly Democratic Congress to deal with Social Security.
What as nice was that both sides worked together. Republicans and Democrats didn't always agree, but they hammered out their differences and the result is some of the hallmark legislation, I've just talked about.
We don't live in those times now.
The Republicans have grown more and more deaf and think that they don't need to work with the Democrats. Witness, Speaker Dennis Hastert's charge that for any bill to come to a vote in the House it has to have a "majority of the majority." Who cares if any Democrats support it. Then there's Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's threat to use the "nuclear option" to ban the use of filerbusters when talking about judicial nominees. Congressional Republicans don't seem to "play well with others."
It looks like the Dems are starting to act the same way. Witness this rant from Josh Marshall concerning Social Security. Now I can understand the Dems'plight. Because of the GOP's actions, the Dems now have to basically operate like the opposition in parlimentary democracies. Two things about his comments bother me. First, Marshall and other liberal bloggers are spinning the belief that there really is no problem with Social Security. That's nonsense. You don't have to like what the Republicans are doing, but you simply have to do the math to figure out that something needs to be done to ensure that Social Security will be adequately funded in the future. Here's what the Minneapolis Star Tribune has to say about the problems Social Security will face:
"No one denies that Social Security faces sobering problems. When baby boomers begin to retire, around 2011, the number of working Americans supporting each retired American will dwindle quickly. Social Security's trust fund, which is growing now, will start shrinking in 2028 and run out of money in 2042. After that the system will rely solely on payroll taxes, which will cover only about 70 percent of promised benefits. This is known as a solvency gap."
Mind you, the Start Tribune is considered a liberal paper. So, for liberal bloggers to go around saying that there is no problem is false and I think a losing strategy, because people know better. They may not like the Bushies' proposal, but if the Dems start running around and saying there is no problem, you can guess which choice the people will choose.
What the Dems should be doing is coming up with some credible solutions to the issue that are better than the President's.
Then there is his strategy. Marshall believes the Dems should play hardball-with themselves. He believes in not allowing a single defection to the GOP and if there is, there shall be hell to pay:
"The question will be how to enforce discipline at the margins. And here Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook in 1994 (on health care) and 1998 (on impeachment).
I think Democrats should consider pulling together the major funders of the party, the official committees, the major organizations, basically the entire infrastructure of the Democratic party and making clear to individual members that if they sign on to the president's plan to phase out Social Security, those various institutions and individuals won't fund their campaigns. Not in 2006, not ever.
Similar committments can come from voters, activists and volunteers. And free rein to primary challengers. If a couple folks lose their seats because of underfunding or tough primaries, so be it.
It's that important. And there is an importance to unity on this issue that transcends the particular debate over Social Security. "
Maybe that makes sense to some, but it doesn't to me. Taking a page from the GOP notebook is a scary proposition indeed because it would effectively end independence among members as well as nix the chance for any compromise. The other thing is that if the Dems start using this kind of "blacklisting" on this issue, what's to keep them from doing it on other issues? You would end up with a party just as rigid on issues as the GOP. What good would that be?
I'm also surprised that Marshall never mentioned peeling off the "soft" Republicans who are just are nervous about the costs involved as Democrats and probably secretly don't want to end this program as we know it either.
I'm not sold on the who privatization scheme. But I also want both sides to solve the issue with Social Security without all the yelling.
Marshall's take on this issue is shows how the Dems are starting to take a dark turn down the same road the Republicans went down a few years ago: one where compromise is a dirty word, where those who disagree with you are not simply wrong but evil, and where party interests are confused with national interests.
Reading Marshall's post doesn't make me confident about the the state of American politics these days. I feel that as both sides bicker, the national interest is being ignored. Who is willing to work for the nation and not simply a political party or ideology?
Posted by Dennis at December 16, 2004 12:28 AM"Democratic party and making clear to individual members that if they sign on to the president's plan to phase out Social Security"
Is this what you see? I dont. I see a change to SS to become a portable retirement plan, which is how many people view it anyways. I see a chance to invest and MAYBE get some of the 600-700k out (without any interest) that I and my employers will contrbute in my lifetime.
I really dont see why it is OK to take my money and never pay back even close to the amount that was taken from me.
The president and congress have no plan to phase out SS. It would be political suicide to try. It is not their money - why would they do it?
Posted by: m ike at December 17, 2004 06:28 AMIt's often heard that "Politics has always been adversarial, it's naive to expect that to change."
Well, I appreciate Dennis pointing out that while it is true that there has always been bitterness and conflict in politics, the proud and productive moments of democracy are when both parties come together on common ground.
Keeping up the undercurrent of expectation that politicians rise to the occasion in that way every so often can only encourage it.
Posted by: Jeff at December 16, 2004 10:28 PMIt is simply amazing how the Democrats have not learned from recent history. Marshall forgot one page from the Republican playbook - the budget impasse that shut down the Federal Government in 1995-6. That really worked out for the Republicans!
There is a mentality that degrading the Government hurts Bush and not his opponents or the nation. For example, some liberal blogs are hoping for failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter how one feels about getting into these wars, we are there now and it's our duty to bring peace and stability to these nations. Failure in either nation will demean America, not Bush.
No matter how much Gingrinch pointed to Clinton's failure to sign the budget, the Republicans were blamed for the Federal Government's budget crisis and they lost House seats and the Presidential election in 1996.
If the Democrats continue to fiddle while Rome burns, they will bring about their own demise.
Posted by: EG at December 16, 2004 05:35 AM