tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post4787468351876971294..comments2023-12-22T14:04:55.065-05:00Comments on Ehlers on Everything: The Great Conciliator: Howard Baker 1925 - 2014Mark J. Ehlershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06410705618925284448noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-71581149837159310602014-07-06T10:07:07.052-04:002014-07-06T10:07:07.052-04:00Rich,
I do not disagree with your historical poin...Rich,<br /><br />I do not disagree with your historical point, which is that a lack of civility has at times infected our political discourse since the days of America’s founding. The primary difference nowadays, of course, is that everything gets so magnified by a media that sees politics more as entertainment than news.<br /><br />Nevertheless, my disagreement has to do with the level of obstructionism that exists in today’s political divide – particularly since Obama became President, although it dates back to when Republicans became a minority in the Senate, which is when the filibuster became their favorite weapon. <br /><br />Compare Baker’s actions and statements to what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in 2010: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” And there are many more examples of this, but as Baker, Dole, Daschle, and Mitchell, among others have clearly discerned, there is a distinct lack of cooperation and comity between the parties these days that is not good for the country.<br /><br />McConnell has presided over a record-setting use of the filibuster to block legislation, judicial nominees, other federal appointments (including Ambassadorships), and the Republicans have developed a strategy of opposing all efforts to raise the U.S. debt ceiling (even though President Reagan asked for this, and got it, 17 times during his two terms), all in an unsuccessful attempt to see that Obama would be a one-term president. The House Republicans have voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 50 times, which has been a little over-the-top. And the same Republicans who demanded an "up or down vote" for President Bush's selections to the federal bench have blocked Obama's choices at a record rate. <br /><br />Non-cooperation in American politics has been trending upward. Threatened or actual filibusters in the 1960’s affected only 8% of major legislation. That rose to 27% in the 1980s and, after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it rose to 70%. Both sides have some legitimate complaints and the process has always been hard fought – that is the way politics is and, I suspect, always will be. But there does appear to be fewer friends between Democrats and Republicans than when people like Baker were in the Senate. And the Republicans, more than the Democrats, in my opinion, has been the more obstructionist party, particularly during Obama’s presidency. I give them credit, though, for their political strategy has largely succeeded in preventing Obama and the Democrats from achieving their legislative agenda during the past 3-4 years. So, I tip my hat. But I still think it is bad for the country.<br />Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4114849513980773570.post-79484440699670384262014-07-05T20:20:49.593-04:002014-07-05T20:20:49.593-04:00Mark,
A good essay marred with your misrepresenta...Mark,<br /><br />A good essay marred with your misrepresentation, again, of the history of political discourse in this country, and your insistence, again, that less information is better than more. I addressed the latter in your essay, “A Reflection on Our Times,” and even though I countered the former with an hilarious history lesson in your “American Demagogues and the Decline of Civility” post, I will nevertheless try again. You might recall that my first example was set in 1802 and contained the brutally funny putdown of John Adams as a,“hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Now we move to 1835 and what Congressman Waddy Thompson, Jr. said about abolitionists: “Who is it in the North that we are to conciliate? The fanatics? Fanatics, did I say, sir? Never before was so vile a band dignified with that name. They are murderers, foul murderers, accessories before the fact, and they know it, of murder, robbery, rape, infanticide.” Another congressman, James Henry Hammond, upped the rhetoric: “And I warn the abolitionists, ignorant, infatuated, barbarians as they are, that if chance shall throw any of them into our hands he may expect a felon’s death.” (“Arguing About Slavery,” by William Lee Miller)<br /><br />Now I wouldn’t even know where to begin to refute the idea that political discourse was more civil between 1950 and 1990 than it is today. I could write ten thousand words in a few hours just cataloging the liberal abuse heaped upon poor Ronnie Reagan. But I will settle for an answer to a question: Where is the Democratic Party’s version of Howard Baker today asking, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?”?<br /><br />Rich R.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com