Wisconsin governor goes bonkers

[Alstein]

So any time your side loses an election you should just refuse to govern at all and make sure nothing can pass the other side wants? Its wrong when the filibuster gets used that way at the federal level and its wrong when BS like this is pulled at a state level. The dems lost the state, for whatever reason the people of WI decided to put republicans in power. We were told all the time when Obama won in 08 and the dems had all of congress they had a mandate from the people to pass democratic ideas and plans and the republicans just needed to accept that, how is this any different other then just the parties being reversed?

That's what both sides are doing. What we're seeing in the US, as a general principle, is the failure of the two-party system in modern society.
Yeah, I hate the Tea Party with a passion myself, but I know enough of the far left equivalent would get me just as hopping mad, I don't want that either.

I mean, if this works in WI and the unionbusting fails, the lesson may be that if the left decides to play hardball enough, they can get the same results the right did. That's not going to be good in the long term. (though hardball is appropiate against people like Walker who won't compromise period if you have popular support)


It's going to get worse until Americans get so fed up that a 3rd party forms, or both parties simultaneously reject their radical wings, instead of just one or the others. (The Dems aren't radical right now, but I can see that easily happening in the near future)

[wahoo]

Part of the difference is that a lot of what they were trying to pass was the stuff they'd campaigned on -- it doesn't appear that Walker campaigned on crushing unions and selling off the state's infrastructure wholesale. If he had, it's not likely he'd have been elected, from the sound of it.

That's a bad precedent to set for both sides. For example, Obama wacked both Hillary and McCain on their health care plans and specifically ran attack ads against their plans. But he incorporated their plans into PPACA.

It says an extremely high and unrealistic bar to say that the only things politicians can do are things they spell out exactly in their campaign. Campaigns are more about general framework ideas. If someone voted for Walker b/c they thought he would be union friendly, they probably didn't follow him too closely.

In conclusion, the US has a lot of tough decisions coming up. And they need flexibility when elected on their general platform. After all, I doubt many Dems would have liked running on the "We're slashing Medicare below Medicaid rates" platform in 2008. But anyone who voted for the Dems had to know that health care was a central part of the platform even if the exact details were hazy.

[Anti-Bunny]

Speaking of Koch brothers...

[Black Isis]

I'd agree that it's an unrealistic expectation to assume elected officials are going to do only the stuff they campaign on, but on the other hand I don't think anyone really elects someone expecting they are going to shift half the state budget to building a giant death ray to blow up the moon or make some other fairly drastic change in policy without a) discussing the option in the campaign at all and b) debating the idea and being open to fair compromise. By all accounts Walker is being completely unwilling to negotiate at all on this issue, even to the point of not taking any phone calls from Democratic legislators, and he's trying to implement this policy less than two months after he came into office, which (I'm assuming) means he's wanted to do this for quite a while.

I am no fan of the filibuster or ducking quorum votes, but I'm even less of a fan of people who get elected by a fairly slim margin assuming that means they are entitled to push through fairly drastic policy changes without compromise or debate.

[Jason McCullough]

Wahoo, you're committing a rather extreme form of the both sides fallacy.

[Rightbug]

So any time your side loses an election you should just refuse to govern at all and make sure nothing can pass the other side wants? Its wrong when the filibuster gets used that way at the federal level and its wrong when BS like this is pulled at a state level.

There's something else going on here aside from pure obstructionism though. The Democrats know this is going to pass. The is nothing they can do to stop it. The point is not to block this from going through but to shine the light of public attention on this so that the folks voting for it can be held accountable next election cycle.

Had the Dems just rolled over and let this pass without a fight, no one would have any idea just how fucked up the whole situation is. That sort of shit happens all the time. Really messed up stuff passing under the radar.

[Alstein]

I do think a compromise can be forced, or Walker will fire those people, and then a real shitstorm starts- and his likely political suicide (if it hasn't happened already)

[BennyProfane]

So any time your side loses an election you should just refuse to govern at all and make sure nothing can pass the other side wants? Its wrong when the filibuster gets used that way at the federal level and its wrong when BS like this is pulled at a state level. The dems lost the state, for whatever reason the people of WI decided to put republicans in power. We were told all the time when Obama won in 08 and the dems had all of congress they had a mandate from the people to pass democratic ideas and plans and the republicans just needed to accept that, how is this any different other then just the parties being reversed?

The mistake you are making here is assuming that these representatives were elected to represent all of the people of the state. They were not: they (at least in every state I've ever lived in) are elected to represent particular districts, and presumably those districts are Democratic-leaning or they would never have been elected. They are, in fact, representing their constituents, at least a majority of them. Just because the state as a whole elected more Republicans, or a Republican Governor, is irrelevant to that.

[Brettmcd]

The mistake you are making here is assuming that these representatives were elected to represent all of the people of the state. They were not: they (at least in every state I've ever lived in) are elected to represent particular districts, and presumably those districts are Democratic-leaning or they would never have been elected. They are, in fact, representing their constituents, at least a majority of them. Just because the state as a whole elected more Republicans, or a Republican Governor, is irrelevant to that.

So just because the country elected a democratic president the republican party would be fully right and justified in blocking everything he did because they would be serving their republican constituents who elected them? That there is a democratic president would be irrelevant I guess.

[Ranulf]

That's what both sides are doing. What we're seeing in the US, as a general principle, is the failure of the two-party system in modern society.
Yeah, I hate the Tea Party with a passion myself, but I know enough of the far left equivalent would get me just as hopping mad, I don't want that either.

I mean, if this works in WI and the unionbusting fails, the lesson may be that if the left decides to play hardball enough, they can get the same results the right did. That's not going to be good in the long term. (though hardball is appropiate against people like Walker who won't compromise period if you have popular support)


It's going to get worse until Americans get so fed up that a 3rd party forms, or both parties simultaneously reject their radical wings, instead of just one or the others. (The Dems aren't radical right now, but I can see that easily happening in the near future)

The Dems aren't radical now? Meh, I guess it depends on your definitions. I've been called a radical for the past 2.5 years whenever I disagree with the Dem Congress/President. I'm a "teabagger", sexist, racist, redneck hick etc.. The calls for civility after Tucson were typical political smear language.

Some of that is just human nature but Democrat rhetoric has moved me more "right" than keeping me moderate-right/libertarian. I can agree with Dems on say, bad drug laws/war on drugs and police abuses running rampant (and I take flack from the idiot law n' order GOP types for that). Yet when I suggest that perhaps a good counter to those abuses is "an armed society is a polite society" aka full self-defense rights, I'm a redneck gun n' bible clinger and only the police/authorities should have guns. That one really bakes my noodle, cheap way to get high I guess but its really just a downer.

[Telefrog]

So just because the country elected a democratic president the republican party would be fully right and justified in blocking everything he did because they would be serving their republican constituents who elected them? That there is a democratic president would be irrelevant I guess.

Benny, you really left yourself open to that one.

[Mark "Matt Gallant" Threadsread]

It would be impressive except that it involves Republicans serving those that elected them. Too bad.

[BennyProfane]

So just because the country elected a democratic president the republican party would be fully right and justified in blocking everything he did because they would be serving their republican constituents who elected them? That there is a democratic president would be irrelevant I guess.

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what the Republicans did during Obama's first two years in office. Which infuriated Democrats. Now the Republicans are the ones infuriated. Sounds like que sera sera to me.

The only part that really irritates me is that the Republicans are much better at staying focused and uniting their disparate interests to stay in lockstep on issues. This time, small groups of Democrats are managing to do the same thing.

I'd also add that local politics are a very different animal than national politics, but that's an argument for a different thread. Let's not have it here.

[mrmolecule88]

I think the disconnect here is that both sides tend to assume a tacit agreement that the other side won't blatantly use their power to outlaw and destroy organizations typically associated with partisan causes.

I know, I know, ACORN, and all that other stuff, but this situation is vaguely analogous to outlawing the tea party or homeland militias. You can trump up some charges but we all know why you're doing it.

[Robert Sharp]

Wahoo, you're committing a rather extreme form of the both sides fallacy.

What is that? And how is he doing it?

Benny, if the state elected more Republicans than Democrats as their state representatives, then yes state decisions should lean Republican. That's how democracy works, right? The exceptions are in rights issues, where we need to avoid tyranny of the majority. But is this a rights issue as such? I don't think so. Is collective bargaining of public employees a right? That's really tricky. There may be issues where standing up to something totally unethical means that the minority party should do something drastic. I'm not convinced this is such an issue, however.

[Alstein]

Some of that is just human nature but Democrat rhetoric has moved me more "right" than keeping me moderate-right/libertarian. I can agree with Dems on say, bad drug laws/war on drugs and police abuses running rampant (and I take flack from the idiot law n' order GOP types for that). Yet when I suggest that perhaps a good counter to those abuses is "an armed society is a polite society" aka full self-defense rights, I'm a redneck gun n' bible clinger and only the police/authorities should have guns. That one really bakes my noodle, cheap way to get high I guess but its really just a downer.

I can see your point, because the Tea Party rhetoric and Iraq (when I was serving) moved me more "left" then keeping me center-left. I actually first voted for Bob Dole for president, and I think today Dole would be forced to run as a Democrat. I do agree with you on gun rights (and I take flack for that). I'm willing to support military interventionism when appropriate still as well.

Gotta remember this board does skew pretty far left (in my opinion).

[Strollen]

There's something else going on here aside from pure obstructionism though. The Democrats know this is going to pass. The is nothing they can do to stop it. The point is not to block this from going through but to shine the light of public attention on this so that the folks voting for it can be held accountable next election cycle.

Had the Dems just rolled over and let this pass without a fight, no one would have any idea just how fucked up the whole situation is. That sort of shit happens all the time. Really messed up stuff passing under the radar.

A fair point. However, at this time it is clear that Dems have made their point and got lots of attention and it is time to get back to work. Now if the WI state senate had the filibuster like the US senate has, I can certainly see how this would a worthy bill to filibuster.

[Houngan]

I can see your point, because the Tea Party rhetoric and Iraq (when I was serving) moved me more "left" then keeping me center-left. I actually first voted for Bob Dole for president, and I think today Dole would be forced to run as a Democrat. I do agree with you on gun rights (and I take flack for that). I'm willing to support military interventionism when appropriate still as well.

Gotta remember this board does skew pretty far left (in my opinion).

Well, we have to remember that in this day and age civilians with guns are no guarantee against tyranny because armies are too powerful. Instead you need civilians WITHOUT guns. Like in Libya where they defeated the military and police, then took their guns, and are now marching on the despotic capital. I'm sure that once they start shooting at the military they'll be overwhelmed, though, since they can't possibly beat . . . whatever.

[Robert Sharp]

What are you talking about Houngan? Is this a strange reference to people who suggest that we couldn't take out the U.S. government because their weapons are too powerful? If so, are you really comparing the Libyan army to the U.S. army?

[BennyProfane]

What is that? And how is he doing it?

Benny, if the state elected more Republicans than Democrats as their state representatives, then yes state decisions should lean Republican. That's how democracy works, right? The exceptions are in rights issues, where we need to avoid tyranny of the majority. But is this a rights issue as such? I don't think so. Is collective bargaining of public employees a right? That's really tricky. There may be issues where standing up to something totally unethical means that the minority party should do something drastic. I'm not convinced this is such an issue, however.

I would argue that is it, in fact, a rights issue--freedom of assembly, to be precise. Which doesn't mean others have to LISTEN to what your group has to say, but it certainly affords you the right to assemble, and say what you want as that group.

[Robert Sharp]

Well, if you think it is a rights issue, then it would make sense for you to agree with what the Democrats are doing here. I still don't think the point about representing their personal constituents works. But if they think it is a general right people should have, whether they are in or out of public service, it would at least make more sense to do something this drastic.

I do not think it is a rights issue, at least of a sort that justifies this. Almost anything can be a political right of some sort, but I'm not sure this counts as a natural right, or a right important enough to justify what the Democrats are doing.

Oh, and I don't think a union is freedom of assembly at all. No one is stopping them from assembling. They can meet wherever they wish. The question is whether they can collectively bargain in certain ways. No one is stopping them from meeting and saying things. They are removing the recognition of the group as a bargaining tool.

[Damien Falgoust]

So just because the country elected a democratic president the republican party would be fully right and justified in blocking everything he did because they would be serving their republican constituents who elected them? That there is a democratic president would be irrelevant I guess.

If the Republicans in Congress used the filibuster once in a great while to block something that they really, really opposed, I don't think nearly as many people would bitch about it (there'd be some, sure, but a little bitching is going to happen on just about anything).

It's the repeated and sustained use of the filibuster that's so damned poisonous. When its use is rare and as a last resort, it's a decent check on the majority running roughshod over the minority. When it is used to kill everything, it becomes an affront to the general rule that the majority gets their way in a democracy.

That's why I really wanted filibuster reform: if you're in the minority but you really want to kill something, you should have to work for it -- Mr. Smith style. At least the Dems in Wisconsin are having to do more than sit on their asses after declaring a filibuster.

[BennyProfane]

Well, if you think it is a rights issue, then it would make sense for you to agree with what the Democrats are doing here. I still don't think the point about representing their personal constituents works. But if they think it is a general right people should have, whether they are in or out of public service, it would at least make more sense to do something this drastic.

I do not think it is a rights issue, at least of a sort that justifies this. Almost anything can be a political right of some sort, but I'm not sure this counts as a natural right, or a right important enough to justify what the Democrats are doing.

Oh, and I don't think a union is freedom of assembly at all. No one is stopping them from assembling. They can meet wherever they wish. The question is whether they can collectively bargain in certain ways. No one is stopping them from meeting and saying things. They are removing the recognition of the group as a bargaining tool.

It is certainly fine to disagree, but I would like to note that Freedom of Assembly has little to do with actually meeting, in any physical sense. It is about association, about commonality of purpose, and of action. At least in my reading of it.

[Telefrog]

That's why I really wanted filibuster reform: if you're in the minority but you really want to kill something, you should have to work for it -- Mr. Smith style. At least the Dems in Wisconsin are having to do more than sit on their asses after declaring a filibuster.

I absolutely agree. The most important qualification for a member of congress should be their stamina. They could just do away with primaries and go straight to the marathon to determine the party candidate.

[Damien Falgoust]

I absolutely agree. The most important qualification for a member of congress should be their stamina. They could just do away with primaries and go straight to the marathon to determine the party candidate.

Upending the will of the majority ought to entail some kind of effort. The minority thwarting the majority should be the exception, not the rule. If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.

If a then-55 year old Strom Thurmond can piss in a jar while holding up civil rights legislation for over 24 hours, so can John Fucking Boenher.

[Telefrog]

Upending the will of the majority ought to entail some kind of effort. The minority thwarting the majority should be the exception, not the rule. If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.

So a single person's physical effort should be the way to get a proposal blocked? Why not have a feat of strength? Eating contest? Maybe have the person hold a lawbook for an hour in an outstretched hand?

Look, I agree that current fillibuster rules are too loose and ripe for abuse, but boiling it down to a test of one guy's stamina seems to be the wrong solution.

[Rasputin]

Yeah, this is one awesome debate going on right here.

[Damien Falgoust]

So a single person's physical effort should be the way to get a proposal blocked? Why not have a feat of strength? Eating contest? Maybe have the person hold a lawbook for an hour in an outstretched hand?

Look, I agree that current fillibuster rules are too loose and ripe for abuse, but boiling it down to a test of one guy's stamina seems to be the wrong solution.

Again: got a better idea?

[Alstein]

What are you talking about Houngan? Is this a strange reference to people who suggest that we couldn't take out the U.S. government because their weapons are too powerful? If so, are you really comparing the Libyan army to the U.S. army?

High tech armies have difficulty dealing with insurrections, especially if they're not willing to slaughter whole populations. Look at Afghan/Iraq. You aren't going to beat the US army in the open field with a well-armed populace. What do you is reduce their willingness to fight via guerilla warfare.

As for filibusters- they do have a cost, if the public doesn't support you, then you'll suffer politically for it. I do think filibusters should require the filibusterers to stay in session constantly- including eating/sleeping on the floor.

Also, without unions as a legal method of representation, when things get bad enough, workers will go to illegal methods, like they did in the 1890s.
The real reason we got progressive reforms in this country was not because of generousity, but because the upper classes feared if they didn't give the workers something, we'd go communist (and we might have in the early 1900s)

[Hawkeye Fierce]

There's also the objection that requiring senators to actually speak on the floor is basically just giving them free airtime for their views. That's not necessarily going to be looked at as a negative by some. I don't really want the GOP senators turning CSPAN into talk radio.