John Hayward:
How bad are things looking for Democrats in the midterm elections? So bad that the New York Times ran an op-ed from a Duke professor musing that we should stop having midterm elections, because democracy is, like, totally outdated and stuff:
By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.
There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.
Odds that the New York Times would run this drivel if Democrats were poised to clean up in the midterms, hold the Senate, and retake the House: zero point zero percent.
There is a certain consistency between the “ditch the midterms” argument and the Left’s general souring on the notion of representative government. The model they prefer is benevolent despotism, with a voting “safety valve” that legitimizes everything the benevolent despot does, by holding out the possibility that if the public strongly disagrees with his agenda or disapproves of his performance, they can vote him out of office. This threadbare understanding of small-r republican ideals boils down to the childlike belief that people cannot be oppressed as long as they still have the ability to vote against their oppressors. This is one of the most dangerously foolish beliefs of the modern era.
The new understanding of non-republican “democracy” is a form of structured mob rule, in which the public elects a President and rubber-stamp legislature every four years. The public chooses between two far-reaching agendas, under which the total State will manage every aspect of their lives, and they’re supposed to choose one Party agenda over the other. In practice, this works out to rallying against the agenda the public dislikes more, and submitting to the one that passes. It’s inefficient to have elected representatives from the opposition party slamming the brakes on the winning Party’s agenda – that’s just partisan “gridlock,” and everybody hates gridlock, right? They all want Washington to Get Things Done. The winner of the big election becomes the unopposed incarnation of the popular will. If he or she proves to be a less than satisfactory incarnation, well, there’ll be another election in four years to appoint a different national super-leader.
This is all part of the argument advanced in the Times op-ed to abolish the midterm elections. Elections compromise power, and present a significant inconvenience to the ambitious Ruling Class. That was a desirable feature of the Constitution to its authors, but a fatal crash bug to the modern liberal with big ideas for using Big Government to reshape society:
Whenever there is a sense they would lose, or lost, an election, the liberals claim our electoral system is “broken and outdated”. That’s why they’re working hard to sideline the Electoral College through a “national compact”. That’s why they have so little regard for our founding documents and the Constitution.
This dovetails nicely with one Dem’s latest pronouncements:
“[L]ook, we’re — we’re ready to compromise,” Biden said.
He also said the White House is prepared to give ….. a little.
Funny how that works.
More proof that what the left seeks is total domination of anyone opposed to their self righteous Marxist/socialist ideals. Eventually co-existence with them will no longer be possible and it may be necessary to part ways.
I guess the most mysterious thing to me is, why does the National Press back the liberals? What is in it for the liberals to continue to coverup the corruption in government? Why does the “press” want the people to be dependent on government handouts? Why are they not for ‘open’ government?
@Nanny: What… you mean he has admitted the left has NOT been willing to compromise up till now? Oh, Genius Joe, you are one in a million.
The House has passed bills. 300+ that Harry Reid refused to let leave his desk for discussion or even consideration of compromise. That makes Harry Reid the Senate’s one man obstructionist.
USA Today’s Susan Page: Obama administration most ‘dangerous’ to media in history
Following what the Administration has done to Risen, I imagine that was rather chilling to Baker, that a meeting occurred about him.
The interesting question isn’t whether republicans will win back a controlling majority of Congress. It’s what they’ll do if they manage it.
@Ditto, #6:
No, it doesn’t.
The fact of the matter is that +300 bills expiring in the Senate without a vote being taken isn’t at all unusual. It’s the normal situation.
Yes, the Senate is ignoring hundreds of bills passed by the GOP House. But it’s always that way.
@Greg: Good. So we have a usual balance of power and ideology. I was born in 1977, and if you include 1976 to 2016, you have equal parts Rep/Dem presidency. Not sure about the Senate/Congress, but I’m pretty sure the whole “blame Congress for being the check and balance against one ideology destroying our Constitutional Republic and making us non-democratic” has been used by every admin, regardless of party. It’s just been more of true mind-wrecking propaganda piece for the left.
A malicious ideology grew back during the Bush days that made a minority of Americans believe they’re way must be the way, and it’s just not so.
Checks and balances. Reps will probably win both Congress and Senate, but if they don’t, they will eventually.
I believe in the power of our collective people to decide the common good, not a set of political elites accusing their opponents of doing things they themselves do every day.
Obama furthered the Bush myth by becoming an actual “Bush”: secretive, power-hungry rich man with questionable morals and questionable loyalties.
The libs will give up, eventually, because even they know their movement got derailed somewhere and has metastasized into something very primitive, and very non-democratic.
Censorship of the media. Use of the government to impose ideology, compromised voting systems.
All made true by Obama and his Admin.
@Greg:
That is indeed the critical question. I hope they apply some needed patches to Obamacare, for the time being, and get on with business… because they are not going to be veto-proof and rescinding it would be pointless.
Just like when the Democrats had full control, the task for the Republicans, from an ongoing maintenance of power standpoint, is simple; enact some legislation that improves the economy. Enact tax reform. Perhaps there is enough momentum for immigration reform which secures the border and does not include amnesty. However, economic relief is essential.
Had the Democrats moved to improve the economy and the suffering of the unemployed, we would not be having this conversation. So, it is imperative that the Republicans do not duplicate that arrogant mistake and provide economic relief and hope. 2016 would be a cake walk.
@Greg: #13 When Obama wanted his second “stimulus”, his “pass it now” jobs bill, Reid shelved it because there was not enough Democrats supporting it; better to do nothing than have to explain why the Democrats did not support Obama’s economic brilliance. Besides, he could always blame the Republicans, which he did and which the corrupt media abetted. Budges and spending, cuts and projects sit on Reid’s desk. Reid knows he can stop them all and let the media blame the Republicans for nothing happening.
And that is what has happened. There is no motivation for Reid to allow the Republicans of the House to present anything that will help the public; he wins either way.
Maybe. Maybe not. However, it has never been that while one party blocks all the legislation from being debated and enacted, that same party gets to blame the other for nothing happening. THAT is different, THAT is wrong, THAT is harmful and THAT is what Reid, Obama and the Democrats have been doing since 2011.
@Greg: Keep the Obama menace contained until 2016, as they’ve managed to do since 2010.
It’s a diverse nation. The dems don’t get to remake it in their image. This is a democratic republic bound by a constitution, not a totalitarian communistic state.
IF elections were held EVERY year they could be called ”mid-term.”
But, for the House these are NOT ”mid-term” elections.
These are their regularly scheduled elections.
Would the NYTimes like presidents to only serve in 2 year increments, so that they wouldn’t have to deal with ”mid-term” elections?
I bet not.
Then it would be electioneering all the time instead of most of the time.
Look at Obama.
He loves mid-term elections.
He loves campaigning.
And…..
He actually ordered medical insurers to disobey the law that REQUIRES them to inform insured people 60 days before their policies might be terminated! (Jan 1st, 2015)
He did it JUST to prevent voters from learning the bad news about medical coverage rate hikes before this election.
@Greg:
You can’t have it both ways in the rhetorical war of words Greg. If House Republican refusal to vote on the the Senate’s “Gang of 8” amnesty bill is obstructionism creating a “do nothing Congress” , than so is Harry Reid’s refusal to refuse to allow 300 bills passed by the House. Or are you admitting that Democrats are equally as obstructionist as Republicans?
Worry not Greg, very soon Republicans will be in control of both houses of Congress and Congress will only have to deal with an obstructionist President.
Personally, I think that the less Congress does, the better it is for Americans whom are too often the targets and victims of acts of Congressional (and Presidential) elitism.