"No Final Victories"

E.J. Dionne is a columnist I do not, shall we say, consider essential reading.  Today's column on tomorrow's election offers an opportunity for explaining why (to be clear, I don't believe he or anyone else I'm referring to in this post is an "idiot" - I just thought the picture was funny).

Dionne mostly relates a dinner conversation he had with a Democratic Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy, who relates how Democrats had thought that after the election of 2006, where they took control of Congress and 2008, where they captured the White House and got 60 votes in the Senate needed to prevent a fililbuster, they were some sort of "permanent majority" and that the Republicans would be in the wilderness for an extended period if not forever.

Such an attitude was on display at such entities as The New Republic:

What conservatives have yet to do is confront the large but inescapable truth that movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead.

The New York Times, no longer the "gray lady" or even, in fact, a shadow of its former self rejoiced after the 2008 election that conservatism was not only defeated, but even discredited.

I haven't been in Washington as long as Dionne, Sam Tenenhaus or the New York Times, but one thing I've learned is that there is no such thing as permanent victory in a democracy.  Republicans who spent and waged war more like progressive Democrats learned that.  Now Democrats are learning this all over again, as if losing control of Congress in 1994 wasn't enough.  Is 14 years really long enough time to forget what you've learned?

Apparently.

What Do You Call This Again?

The latest idea from Congressional Democrats is to make a one time payment to Social Security recipients.

Politically, this makes a lot of sense.  Seniors vote, and who wouldn't want a "bonus" these days?  Put your Republican opponent in the position of having to oppose it.

They're promising to push this once Congress returns after the election in a "lame duck session" (i.e. one that takes place between the election and the seating of new members and removal of old ones not re-elected).

The rationale is that Social Security recipients have not received an increase in their payments for cost of living this year. 

Why?

Because, according to the government statistics, the cost of living didn't actually rise.

Supporters argue that this is "stimulus" and that seniors are struggling, and have to deal with depleted savings. No word on why taking money from a working family of four and handing it to someone to augment their depleted savings will have an economically "stimulative" affect.



To recap: Democrats are offering seniors an additional payment that was not earned, to which they are not entitled under current law, and which has no policy rationale.

What would you call this?

The Inmates are Running the Asylum

The Washington Post's editorial page sounds a worried note after a conservative Republican lost his primary bid for not being quite conservative enough (i.e. he had voted for TARP and had co-sponsored a relatively moderate health care reform proposal with a Democrat) and a Democrat from West Virginia who had shown a willingness to compromise on greenhouse gas regulation lost as well.  In short, two fairly well respected Members who were willing to work with others on compromises lost to candidates who made it clear that compromise was not in their vocabulary:

For many party cleansers, working across party lines constitutes treason. We agree that elected officials ought to be guided by principles that they are willing to fight for. But we also see a difference between fidelity to principle and dogmatism. If Republicans cannot accept that Democrats may make some reasonable arguments, and vice versa, then nothing will get done

I normally don't blog on electoral politics, but this trend has obvious implications for governance if Members of Congress believe that the only way to keep their seats is to scream across the aisle rather than actually governing.  In future posts, I hope to look at what institutional reforms can be made to keep parties from becoming hostages to their most extreme elements.

Because, right now, the inmates are running the asylum in both parties.