[congress today] mann and ornstein - summarized comments
Continued… Ornstein: Part of the response to Foley was undoubtedly human nature -- lawmakers wanting to take Foley at his word that he wouldn't write any more improper e-mails. But it is hard to look at the responses without putting them into a context that makes it more damning.
Ornstein: [With] the small majorities the Republicans have had in both houses; it is hard to command perfect party unity in both houses for any length of time. United government in an age of fierce partisanship and sharp ideological polarization between the parties does not work very well for very long. ...
Mann: It is striking, the extent to which the Republican majority in Congress deferred to the president in the face of one of the most aggressive and ambitious assertions of executive authority in American history [and] it has meant flawed planning, poor implementation and no midcourse corrections...
Mann: The last five congressional elections have produced fewer incumbent defeats and seats changing party hands than any comparable period in American history. Congressional districts have become safer for one party. ... Those recruited, elected and re-elected from such districts tend to reflect the ideological pole of their party rather than the center of public opinion.
Incumbency adds a layer of advantage on top of this party dominance. But rather than foster an environment in which members of Congress feel free to buck popular sentiment and wrestle seriously with the problems confronting the country, it reinforces the ideological divide between the parties. Incumbents are safe, but party majorities are not. This fosters symbolic votes, message politics and little serious legislating in Congress.
Ornstein: Voters -- and even more, nonvoters -- deserve some of the blame. The low turnout we get exaggerates the power of the ideological activists who do turn out, skewing the system away from the middle. But voters do not create the system that shapes the districts into noncompetitive ones, nor do they play a meaningful role in recruiting the candidates we get ... And we cannot expect voters to pay close attention to the ins and outs of the legislative process, until some crisis demands it.
It is the voters' surrogates, including the press, who have to alert them when something is seriously wrong. But ultimately, only a credible threat that the public is prepared to throw the rascals out will change the ways in which politicians in Washington operate.
Charles Babington, Washington Post
Ornstein: [With] the small majorities the Republicans have had in both houses; it is hard to command perfect party unity in both houses for any length of time. United government in an age of fierce partisanship and sharp ideological polarization between the parties does not work very well for very long. ...
Mann: It is striking, the extent to which the Republican majority in Congress deferred to the president in the face of one of the most aggressive and ambitious assertions of executive authority in American history [and] it has meant flawed planning, poor implementation and no midcourse corrections...
Mann: The last five congressional elections have produced fewer incumbent defeats and seats changing party hands than any comparable period in American history. Congressional districts have become safer for one party. ... Those recruited, elected and re-elected from such districts tend to reflect the ideological pole of their party rather than the center of public opinion.
Incumbency adds a layer of advantage on top of this party dominance. But rather than foster an environment in which members of Congress feel free to buck popular sentiment and wrestle seriously with the problems confronting the country, it reinforces the ideological divide between the parties. Incumbents are safe, but party majorities are not. This fosters symbolic votes, message politics and little serious legislating in Congress.
Ornstein: Voters -- and even more, nonvoters -- deserve some of the blame. The low turnout we get exaggerates the power of the ideological activists who do turn out, skewing the system away from the middle. But voters do not create the system that shapes the districts into noncompetitive ones, nor do they play a meaningful role in recruiting the candidates we get ... And we cannot expect voters to pay close attention to the ins and outs of the legislative process, until some crisis demands it.
It is the voters' surrogates, including the press, who have to alert them when something is seriously wrong. But ultimately, only a credible threat that the public is prepared to throw the rascals out will change the ways in which politicians in Washington operate.
Charles Babington, Washington Post
posted by James Higham @ 16:10
<< Home