How to Fix Congress

Congress is under the control of Republicans who are terribly afraid of primary challenges from right-wing nuts. So Congressional Republicans behave as if they are right-wing nuts themselves, even if they aren’t (some of them aren’t).

In a column devoted to reactions to President Obama’s recent economic speech, Alex Pareene responds to the idea that Obama needs “bold, new proposals” in order to get the Republicans to cooperate:

I dunno, the only bold new proposal I can think of that will meaningfully break down Republican resistance would be to massively expand the size of the House and institute nationwide nonpartisan redistricting, and somehow do this before the 2014 elections, and then get rid of the filibuster? That would be pretty bold.

The House doesn’t represent the will of the people, because small states are over-represented (some congressional districts are nearly twice as large as others) and recent gerrymandering results in more Republicans being elected than Democrats, even though Democrats get more votes. (This rightward tilt is made even stronger by the Republicans’ adherence to the so-called “Hastert Rule”: bills don’t get a vote unless they’re supported by a majority of Republicans, i.e. a majority of the majority).

The Senate, of course, was designed to give extra power to small states and the filibuster gives extra power to the minority. It’s a little-known fact that the original rules of both the House and Senate allowed debate to be ended by a majority vote. In 1806, however, Vice President Aaron Burr convinced senators that they didn’t need such a rule; the rule hadn’t been invoked recently so it was just cluttering up the rule book. That change created the possibility of a filibuster, the requirement that a super-majority be required to end debate. The first filibuster occurred 31 years later. Now ordinary business often requires the approval of 60 Senators. So much for majority rule.

Unfortunately, the likelihood that Mr. Parene’s “bold, new ideas” will soon be adopted is approximately zero. It’s true that the Senate might change its rules; that could happen now if some Democratic senators weren’t afraid of the consequences. But it’s highly unlikely that the House will be expanded (although someone is arguing for that to happen: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/). The most we can hope for is that Congressional districts will one day be drawn with little or no political influence — or that whoever carries out the next round of gerrymandering does a better job.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/25/post_pundits_obama_economy_speech_boring_not_grand_bargain_y_enough/

When the Nazis and Their Collaborators Ruled France

Vichysoisse is a thick soup made of leeks, onions, potatoes, cream and chicken stock, usually served cold. Whether it was invented in France or the United States is a matter of controversy among culinary historians. It is agreed, however, that the soup was named by a French chef who worked at the Ritz Carlton hotel in New York City, in honor of the spa town of Vichy.

Vichy is perhaps more famous as the capital of the French State (its actual name) during the German occupation in World War II. Vichy was chosen as the capital because it was relatively close to Paris, had lots of hotel rooms and also had a modern telephone exchange. Two weeks after surrendering to the Germans, the French parliament met in Vichy and voted to abolish the Third Republic. Marshall Philippe Pétain, the Lion of Verdun, was chosen to lead the new government.

I’ve never been interested in French history and know very little about the Third Republic or the Vichy government. (Although I remember that something called “Vichy water” was mentioned in Casablanca.) However, a recent article in the New York Review of Books by the historian Robert Paxton turned out to be quite interesting.

The article is called “Vichy Lives! — In a Way”. It’s a review of a book about the lasting effects of the Vichy period on modern France. The first especially interesting thing in the article was this description of the final years of the Third Republic, before the German invasion:

The late Third Republic had woefully neglected French infrastructure, along with a host of unresolved political, social, and economic problems. The contraction of the French economy in the 1930s is sometimes attributed to the Third Republic’s weak executive, deadlocked parliament, and ideological divisions. The essential reason … was the economic policy of deflationary budget-cutting with which French leaders confronted the Great Depression until 1936. Even then, when the Popular Front government of Léon Blum proposed to take a different economic tack, it was prevented by divisions within its tenuous majority from embarking seriously upon needed public expenditures. The final decade of the Third Republic was therefore a period of extensive disinvestment. 

Does that sound familiar? Change the dates and a few proper names and it’s a description of present-day America.

The other striking point Professor Paxton makes is that the Vichy government had some significant accomplishments, even though the leaders of the government were definitely right-wingers. For example, they began construction on the freeway that circles Paris, built a major bridge over the Seine, constructed a tide-operated power plant and started the Trans-Sahara railroad. They created a national police force, replaced France’s 90 departments with 17 regions and unified Paris’s mass transit system.

More surprisingly, as a very conservative regime, Vichy instituted old-age pensions, a minimum wage, obligatory doctor visits for students, labor inspectors in factories, universal vaccinations and a program to reduce alcohol consumption. Vichy’s social welfare activities were actually consistent with the actions of other right-wing governments in Europe. It was Otto von Bismarck of Germany who created the first social welfare state, which was emulated by the Austrian Empire. As Paxton explains:

All the modern twentieth-century European dictatorships of the right, both fascist and authoritarian, were welfare states. The current American conservative agenda of a weak state associated with laissez-faire economic and social arrangements would have been anathema to them, as an extreme perversion of a despised individualistic liberalism (in that term’s original sense). They all provided medical care, pensions, affordable housing, and mass transport as a matter of course, in order to maintain productivity, national unity, and social peace.

Of course, these authoritarian right-wing governments, especially the fascists and the Vichy government, combined their positive accomplishments with terrible misdeeds. They also used some of their reforms to exert more control over their citizens.

Still, the contrast between these European politicians and our own bizarre Republican Party is remarkable. It’s possible that no other nation in world history has ever been at the mercy of a gang of radical politicians who want a government that does as little as possible, aside from extending its military and surveillance powers, supporting a conservative religious agenda and insuring rising incomes for the wealthy, while ignoring the needs of the majority.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/25/vichy-lives-in-a-way/

Something About Politics That Can’t Be Said Too Often

The Guardian is a British newspaper, so I’m not sure if columnist Michael Cohen is an American (not that it matters). American or not, he makes a point that more columnists and commentators should be making about the state of our nation:

What is the single most consequential political development of the past five years?… It is the rapid descent of the Republican party into madness.

Never before in American history have we seen a political party so completely dominated and controlled by its extremist wing; and never before have we seen a political party that brings together the attributes of nihilism, heartlessness, radicalism and naked partisanship quite like the modern GOP. In a two-party system like America’s, the result is unprecedented dysfunction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/03/republican-party-demise-continues

The rest of the column is a recitation of recent Republican misdeeds. It’s Mr. Cohen’s calling a spade a spade that is refreshing and deserves repeating.

(Note:  According to Wikipedia, the expression “calling a spade a spade” was introduced into English in 1542 and refers to a small shovel: “the Macedonians wer feloes of no fyne witte, they whiche had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name then a spade”.)

Squeaky Right-Wing Wheels and the Noise They Make

Jon Stewart and his writers do a very good job making fun of right-wing fools and knaves. Stephen Colbert and his writers do an even better job. You’d think that if the people they make fun of ever saw themselves being made fun of, they’d mend their ways. But that doesn’t happen.

There is a popular left-wing website called Daily Kos that features an almost continuous stream of news and commentary, much of which calls attention to the ridiculous behavior of right-wing fools and knaves. There are many positive stories, but I often end up reading the negative ones. So I get to learn a lot about Fox News and Mitch McConnell.

The problem is that I’d rather know a lot less about Fox News, Mitch McConnell and their ilk. They are a blight on our nation. So I’ve stopped watching Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and I’m trying to stop looking at Daily Kos

You could argue that it’s my responsibility as an American citizen to stay informed about current events, so it would be better to pay attention to what the right-wing knaves and fools are saying. But what these people and organizations do is mainly generate noise, which distracts us from more important things.

For example, it’s more important to know that the incredibly wealthy Koch Brothers want to buy the Los Angeles Times and turn it into a right-wing propaganda machine than it is to hear the latest stupid remark from Michele Bachmann, sponsor of the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. 

A few days ago, New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote about Rep. Bachmann’s decision not to run for re-election next year:

In honor of her departure, Michele-watchers around the country rolled out their favorite Bachmann quotes. Mine was her contention that the theory of evolution was disputed by “hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes.”

We may not see her like again. Or, if one shows up, we may decide not to pay attention.

Collins often writes entertaining but depressing columns about the latest Republican offense against justice or rationality. But wouldn’t it be better if she and we paid less attention (not no attention, but less attention) to what right-wing fools and knaves have to say?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/opinion/collins-michele-heres-the-bell.html

What We’re Up Against, Part 2

It’s good to be skeptical about the results of public opinion polls, especially if it’s only a single poll reporting a result.

On the other hand, if this is true, it explains a lot. Personally, I can’t believe that 18% of Democrats believe this. Maybe they’re worried about the Tea Party taking over?

From a Fairleigh Dickinson University Public Mind poll released today:

“Supporters and opponents of gun control have very different fundamental beliefs about the role of guns in American society. Overall, the poll finds that 29 percent of Americans think that an armed revolution in order to protect liberties might be necessary in the next few years, with another five percent unsure. However, these beliefs are conditional on party. Just 18 percent of Democrats think an armed revolution may be necessary, as opposed to 44 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of independents.”

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/