I suppose that was a decent headline, because without having to write anything else, I've effectively conveyed the crux of my thoughts. However, by way of embellishment let us consider the following facts:
As of the time of this publication, 01/28/2010, the Democrats control the House and the Senate, (we'll exclude the Executive branch from this topic) and they control these bodies by historical margins. The Senate (58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and two Independents), The House of Representatives (256 Democrats, 178 Republicans and one vacancy) [1]. Of course, knowledge of this historic majority is currently well-known and not necessarily news-worthy at the moment.
What I would like to suggest is that, as citizens concerned with the forward progress of our nation, we should concern ourselves not merely with the apparent ineptitude of the majority party, but also with the causes of that ineptitude. Thus far, the bulk of national media discussion seems to have focused on the symptoms of this country's political illness (which one might describe as "partisan extremism" or "Extremely selfish partisan-itis") at the exclusion of the cause of the illness.
To transition analogies from the medical field to operations management, Toyota company, highly regarded for its strict adherence to quality and efficiency in its manufacturing process (not-withstanding the current recall), abides by a methodology in which if there is a quality issue, the question "Why" is asked repeatedly (sometimes up to 5 or more times [2]) until the fundamental, indivisible root cause of the quality issue is discovered. On most issues regarding ..well, practically anything, the media, and Americans in general, it seems, rarely ask "Why" even 1 time. There's no point in getting mad at the employee who didn't show up for work if the shift manager entered the wrong date into the schedule. And there's no point in getting mad at the shift manager if he entered the wrong date because a computer system malfunction reset the scheduling computer's internal clock. And so on...
By analogy, should progressives be angry at apparently ineffectual Democrats in Congress if the reason fo their ineffectiveness is a group-think-mentality Republican minority which is abusing the one legislative power it does have: the filibuster?
Let me repeat and simplify that: The Republicans are abusing their minority power by means of the filibuster. That should be the headline in the papers or blogs, because that story is nearer to the truth of the operational disfunctionality of the Legislative branch of government. But of course, citizens and the media should ask "Why" at least 4 more times before we can be confident that the root cause of our country's ungovernability is uncovered. Let's try it here out of empirical curiosity.
Problem: The Democratic majority of historic proportions is unable to move ostensibly progressive legislation forward.
1) Why can't Democrats get anything done? : A group-think-sheep-mentality Conservative opposition is threatening to filibuster every piece of legislation.
2) Why are the conservatives threatening to filibuster everything? : Because Republicans know Democrats won't call their bluff and actually MAKE them filibuster everything. (another answer might be "because appearing to oppose everything the other party does looks good for short term political expediency)
3) Going with the first answer: Why won't the democrats call the Republican bluff and MAKE them filibuster everything? : Because Democrats think voting on something they know will fail will make them look weak in the eyes of the voters (I assume that legislation can continuously be brought to a vote by party leaders).
4) Why are Democrats afraid of looking weak if their bill is voted down by a childishly recalcitrant and extremist Republican party which is weaker than it's ever been in recent memory? : Because Democratic leaders don't understand that failing to stand up to extremism is weakness.
5) Why do Democratic leaders in Congress not understand that failure to stand up to extremism is weakness? : because ... because ... perhaps they fail to see that the Republicans ARE extremists in Congress.
So, there you have it. The most effective headline the media could convey to the public is "Democratic Leadership fails to see that the Republicans ARE extremists in Congress."
Therefore, the most effective change of perspective Congressional Democrats could enact is to ACT under the assumption that Republicans in Congress are extremists and implacable foes disinterested in compromise and focused solely on short term political gain in order to satisfy a twisted often hypocritical moral view, an over-riding lust for power manifest through abuse of power whenever possible, and a desire to see their political foes crushed, subservient, and all-together dissolved so that the country could return to a mythical all-white, monolithic, male dominated, Christian fundamentalist empire, which it never was [breath]. (now, of course, not all Republicans think like this, but the voice of the party seems to).
That's the sad truth that the Democratic leadership refuses to acknowledge because like an entity which is pure good, they can not conceive of an entity intentionally committing acts of evil. but I should divulge myself of unsupported, qualitative moralisms, no matter how near the truth they may strike.
I leave this article with two thoughts of paramount importance:
1) The Democrats must learn or rediscover the basic rules of negotiation. Most Negotiation text books describe five primary negotiating styles: Accommodating, Avoiding, Collaborating, Competing, and Compromising. To maximize one's gain in a negotiation, one must match one's style with that of their counterpart (not necessarily opponent).
Mr. Obama's style is clearly Compromise. (this is great if both parties are of equal strength and influence ... which given the ratios in Congress they are not! The Democrats have so far been Accommodating to Republicans, they have attempted to Collaborate and they have Compromised (most notably on Health Reform). Now, all of these styles have merits and an appropriate time and place for usage, but not when the other side is ONLY COMPETING. I'm bolding and capping everything because, well, emphasis is quite appropriate at this point. Perhaps the most striking lesson I learned in my brief negotiations class was: "if the other side is competing, you must also compete, or you will always lose the negotiation." You can't compromise with someone if their actual intention is to maximize their gain and your loss. The Republicans are competing in lock-step and unison. If the Democrats don't use only the tactic of competition, then their agenda will always lose and they'll have no idea why.
2) The democrats must make the case that the true story is Republican obstructionism, not Democratic impotence. And then they must back that up, by putting every legislation up for a vote, thereby changing the the story in the media from "Democrats need One More Vote" to "Republicans Filibuster Again and Block Progress".
Sources:
1: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/elections/tp/2010_congressional_election.htm
2: http://www.shmula.com/382/ask-why-five-times-about-every-matter
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
