Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: Why this political scientist thinks the Democrats have to fight dirty [View all]elleng
(130,758 posts)They sure as hell are.
*the Democratic Party must recognize that Republicans arent engaged in a policy fight; instead, theyre waging a procedural war.
What he means is that Republicans have spent the past two decades exploiting the vagueness of the Constitution to create structural advantages for their side passing discriminatory voter ID laws, using the census to gerrymander districts, blocking Democratic Supreme Court nominees, and so on. . .
People just dont seem to make the connection between policies and the party in power.
So, for example, the Democrats passed Obamacare and gave millions of people heath care, and yet tons of people who benefited from it have no idea what it is or how they benefited. And its like that with a lot of policies voters simply dont connect the dots, and so they reward or punish the wrong party.
I think the idea that were going to deliver these benefits to people and theyre going to be like, Thank you Jesus, thank you for everything that youve done, let me return you with a larger majority next time, is just nonsense. Its the wrong way to think about politics.
That doesnt mean we shouldnt do things for people, but weve got to be serious about how elections are won. And theyre not being won on the basis of policy proposals or policy wins. . .
The Constitution is a shockingly short document, and it turns out that its extremely vague on some key procedures that we rely on to help government function at a basic level. For the government to work, cooperation between parties is needed. But when that cooperation is withdrawn, it creates chaos.
Since the 90s, when Newt Gingrich took over Congress, weve seen a one-sided escalation in which Republicans exploit the vagueness or lack of clarity in the Constitution in order to press their advantage in a variety of arenas from voter ID laws to gerrymandering to behavioral norms in the Congress and Senate. . .
Sean Illing
What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland was one of the most egregious examples Ive ever seen.
David Faris
Right. They essentially stole a seat on the Supreme Court a swing seat, no less. But they correctly argued that they had no clear constitutional obligation to consider the presidents nominee for the seat. They didnt violate the Constitution. They violated the spirit of the Constitution. They violated the norms that have allowed these institutions to function normally for years and years.
This is the sort of maneuvering and procedural warfare Im talking about, and the Republicans have been escalating it for two decades. And theyve managed to entrench their power through these dubious procedures.
The result is that the structural environment is biased against Democrats and the Republicans have engineered it that way. . .
David Faris
I think they should grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. Both states have held referenda that endorsed statehood. We have millions of Americans right now who have no representation in Congress.
To me, its just unquestionably the right thing to do. We should grant people the representation they want and deserve, and it just happens that doing so would almost certainly send four more Democrats into the Senate, and probably an all-Democratic congressional delegation from Puerto Rico too.
Sean Illing
You also think the Democrats should kill the filibuster, right?
David Faris
Yeah, I think they should eliminate the filibuster in the first month of the next Democratic administration, if it even survives that long. I think its another anti-democratic procedure in the Senate. We already have a constitutional framework that is deliberately difficult to work around to get policy change, and then you add a supermajority requirement in one of the two national legislatures? Its just bananas. Theres no other country on the face of the earth that has a supermajority requirement to make routine legislation.
Sean Illing
You write, as well, that Democrats should start packing the courts with as many left-leaning judges as possible.
David Faris
The Constitution doesnt say how many Supreme Court justices we should have, and we have not always had nine. Up until the mid-19th century, it was routine for the number of justices to change based on the whims of Congress, so its not unprecedented.
The way I look at it, Democrats have won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. I went back and added up all the votes for the US Senate since 1992, and Democrats have won 30 million more votes over that time period. I think the American people have pretty clearly expressed their desire to have Democrats staff the federal judiciary, and yet, due to the Republicans procedural tactics, theyve not been able to do that.'>>>