"Biden and the Democrats seem to repeat calls for popular policies that they have not been able to deliver for 30 years."
In the last 23 years at least, Democrats have only held a filibuster-proof trifecta for 72 days, and that was with some very conservative Democrats in the Senate supermajority. Obama used that time to pass the ACA. How can Democrats have done more, when Republicans refuse to compromise?
I'm definitely in favor of a political realignment; I'd love to see new parties. But I also think Democrats deserve more credit.
For purposes of getting the point across, explanations about "why" tend to overemphasize single factors. I argue that a close look at the reality of campaign finance as a tool of abuse would reveal its weak spot. Nevertheless, my essay (and internal thinking) must plead guilty. That is why pushbacks like your remark are so helpful.
The point of the line was to point to the reality of disappointment by much of what used to be the Democrat's base. Good intentions are a prerequisite to progress, but a history of failure puts up barriers that must be broken. Given Biden's long presence in that history, I see too little in their public face that suggests the current administration is preparing to acknowledge the past, ask forgiveness and break those barriers. My essay pleads for what I see as a viable way out of this thicket. But would it be believable without acknowledging the past?
Re: overemphasis on single factors: I am struggling to incorporate the 2011 essay by American Prospect's HAROLD MEYERSON "Did the Founding Farmers Screw Up?" (https://prospect.org/power/founding-fathers-screw-up/) He points to the bias built into the Constitution against the country being able to function. The huge emphasis on "checks" at the cost of "balance" and responsiveness to popular will (that the rich and aristocratic "founders" deeply distrusted). A recent Great Courses course on the development of the Constitution makes many of the same points.
If the fundamental structure of our government only gives momentary windows to govern, we need to change that structure. Maybe near universal revulsion at the current state (or some other miracle) will open a window to constitutional change. Meanwhile, I push for a small, inexpensive step ("vouchers") as perhaps keeping us going a bit longer.
Oh, also! If the Democrats keep the Senate, they could keep the bit of wisdom found in the filibuster but change it so every senator had a vote weighted by the number of house districts of that state. Weaken the lock of the small-population states that so twisted the Constitution. And, so armed, bring back the filibuster for judges. Another tiny step.
"Biden and the Democrats seem to repeat calls for popular policies that they have not been able to deliver for 30 years."
In the last 23 years at least, Democrats have only held a filibuster-proof trifecta for 72 days, and that was with some very conservative Democrats in the Senate supermajority. Obama used that time to pass the ACA. How can Democrats have done more, when Republicans refuse to compromise?
I'm definitely in favor of a political realignment; I'd love to see new parties. But I also think Democrats deserve more credit.
For purposes of getting the point across, explanations about "why" tend to overemphasize single factors. I argue that a close look at the reality of campaign finance as a tool of abuse would reveal its weak spot. Nevertheless, my essay (and internal thinking) must plead guilty. That is why pushbacks like your remark are so helpful.
The point of the line was to point to the reality of disappointment by much of what used to be the Democrat's base. Good intentions are a prerequisite to progress, but a history of failure puts up barriers that must be broken. Given Biden's long presence in that history, I see too little in their public face that suggests the current administration is preparing to acknowledge the past, ask forgiveness and break those barriers. My essay pleads for what I see as a viable way out of this thicket. But would it be believable without acknowledging the past?
Re: overemphasis on single factors: I am struggling to incorporate the 2011 essay by American Prospect's HAROLD MEYERSON "Did the Founding Farmers Screw Up?" (https://prospect.org/power/founding-fathers-screw-up/) He points to the bias built into the Constitution against the country being able to function. The huge emphasis on "checks" at the cost of "balance" and responsiveness to popular will (that the rich and aristocratic "founders" deeply distrusted). A recent Great Courses course on the development of the Constitution makes many of the same points.
If the fundamental structure of our government only gives momentary windows to govern, we need to change that structure. Maybe near universal revulsion at the current state (or some other miracle) will open a window to constitutional change. Meanwhile, I push for a small, inexpensive step ("vouchers") as perhaps keeping us going a bit longer.
Oh, also! If the Democrats keep the Senate, they could keep the bit of wisdom found in the filibuster but change it so every senator had a vote weighted by the number of house districts of that state. Weaken the lock of the small-population states that so twisted the Constitution. And, so armed, bring back the filibuster for judges. Another tiny step.