Bah. Here come the pundits, right on schedule. Matt Yglesias:
Starting Wednesday I think we can expect a boom market for op-eds and television commentary darkly warning that if Democrats take advantage of winning the election to implement the agenda they outlined during the campaign, they’ll be punished, punished, punished at the polls. And not just from Republicans, but from loathesome [sic] creatures like Bob Kerrey and now Doug Schoen:If the Democrats govern as if there is no Republican Party, they are likely headed to the kind of reaction that Bill Clinton faced when he made the same misjudgment after the 1992 election victory, following a meeting in Little Rock, Ark., with then Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and House Speaker Tom Foley.This is a pretty odd view of what Clinton did in 1993-94 (NAFTA, anyone?) but that aside, I just think it’s pretty blinkered to act as if the electorate has a deep commitment (or lack of commitment) to bipartisanship or some finely nuanced conception of moderation. Rather, voters tend to re-elect incumbents when things seem to be working out okay whereas they tend to punish incumbents — and those closely associated with incumbents — when things seem to be going poorly. What Democrats need to do if they want to prosper in 2010 and 2012 is deliver the goods. In other words, return the economy to prosperity, avoid terrible foreign affairs calamities, etc.
Yes, I know that should be "its," not "it's." Sloppy typing, and you can't modify your questions once saved.
Posted by: Linkmeister at November 3, 2008 08:39 AMOnly if it produces results.
My message to Republicans is move forward or get out of the way!
Posted by: Solonor at November 3, 2008 08:46 AMFuck, there ought to be some way of reassessing this nation's need for punditry and devoting the resources instead to something useful, like gossip columns or infomercials.
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/
I looked at the poll and didn't like the way any of the alternatives was phrased, so I didn't vote. Here's my take on bipartisanship:
We need it so both sides - all sides - will feel they have a stake in the outcome. A decision that one side adores and the other side loathes is a bad decision, that will make the losing side resentful and bitter. (Maybe they'll even cling to guns and religion.) A better decision is where everybody gives something up, and everybody gets something they want, but nobody gets everything.
Some of the odd things in the U.S. political system - the unusual weight to small states in the Senate, the electoral college - were put there to keep the smaller states from feeling that the larger states were walking all over them. We have majority rule, but we also have some care for the interests of the minority, and that's why we're still rolling along. If we lose that, we become just another banana republic.
The Democrats, on coming into power, did some ramming through; that was a fault in them, and they better ease off if they want to stay in power. Otherwise in 2 years we'll have a Republican Congress again.
Posted by: hedera at November 4, 2008 09:22 AM