"Polarization" Watch: "Block And Blame"--CAF Highlights GOP Obstructionism

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 13:08

Maybe Congress should be investigating itself?  At the very least, Democrats should be doing some serious soul-searching and ask themselves if their confrontation-avoiding strategy--failing to force the GOP to filibuster--is really working for them, since the GOP strategy is not only working so well, it is redefining what "normal" is, and feeding a narrative in which Democrats shoulder all the blame for "not getting anything done," for being in "disarray," and just generally being wimps.

Which is why this all fits into the category of "Polarization Watch," which is sort of a theme for me just now.

One group that's not fooled is the Campaign for America's Future (CAF), which just issued a report "Block And Blame: The Conservative Strategy of Obstruction in the 110th Congress." that has the lowdown on all the above and more.

For example, the report also notes that, as a second line of obstruction, Bush has vetoed six bills and threatened 84 vetoes.  In contrast, while Republicans held the majority, Bush went longer without a veto than any President since Arthur Garfield.

Referring to the record-breaking cloture vote, the report notes:

The record vote came in a dispute over funding for military action Iraq. The $516 billion budget package for 2008 had already passed the House of Representatives, providing funding for nearly every federal agency. Conservative senators threatened to filibuster the entire package unless it added $20 billion in war funding to the House bill, and removed language intended to bring the troops home.

A review of the 110th Congress reveals that this performance was typical.

Here's a nifty little chart, putting their record in perspective:

In contrast, the current Democratic majority clearly was elected to change direction, and the GOP strategy is being used to block extremely popular legislation, the report notes: "Last week, the President vetoed a bill to expand health coverage for 10 million American children. The very next day, Senate Republicans filibustered an energy bill designed to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.3 It didn't matter that 235 representatives in the House of Representatives and 59 Senators supported the bill - very solid majorities in both houses. Nor did it matter that 64 percent of the American public support energy independence or that 75 percent of the people are willing 'to pay more for electricity if it were generated by renewable sources like solar or wind.'"

CAF's Eric Lotke, lead author of the report, calls the obstruction a "deliberate strategy." Republicans block legislation, then blame the Democrats for getting nothing done. "It's like mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn't delivered on time," Lotke said.

It also richly illustrates how Democrats' strategy of trying to "get along" and "not fight"--a strategy touted by presidential candidate Barack Obama, is inherently self-defeating in the context of Versailles: the more Democrats avoid fighting, the more they look like wimps, take the blame for getting nothing done, and legitimize the GOP's new standard that 60 votes are necessary to get anything done in the Senate.

Remember the GOP mantra of "up or down votes"?  Sure you do!  But the Versailles press?  Not so much.

They're simply regurgitating the current GOP talking points.  Oh, where are the talking points of yesteryear?  Flushed down the memory hole, I'm afraid. As the report notes:

Facts Unreported

Despite conservatives' openness about their obstructionist strategy, the mass media has remained largely silent. The extraordinary frequency of the conservatives' obstruction goes unreported, and headlines refer to 60 Senate votes as if it is necessary, not excessive.

In September, a front-page Washington Post story covering Senator Jim Webb's proposal to extend home leaves for U.S. troops was headlined, "Senate bill short of 60 votes needed."9 The article said that the proposal "failed on a 56 to 44 vote, with 60 votes needed for passage." However, only 51 votes are supposed to be needed to pass Senate legislation. The Webb proposal failed because of the Republican filibuster threat, a move that required 60 votes to override. With the Democrats unable to garner 60 votes in favor of the proposal, Republicans were once again successful in their obstruction.

Similarly, a November 2007 New York Times article discussing the failure of a Democrat-sponsored Iraq-spending bill blamed the bill's failure on the Democrats - not the obstructionist Republicans. The article reported that the bill "fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a Republican filibuster."10 In fact, the 60 votes were needed to overcome a filibuster, not prevent it. Again, the media failed to accurately portray the conservatives' bill-blocking tactics.

Instead of reporting on Republican obstruction, the press focuses on Democrats' failure to defeat the obstruction and Democratic disagreement over how to do this. "Democrats Blaming Each Other for Failures," ran the A1 headline in the Washington Post on December 13, 2007.11

Moreover, Republican talking points on the ineffectiveness of the Democratic congress appear throughout media coverage of congress.

• "Nothing has been accomplished all year," Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, stated in December 2007.12
  
• "We can't seem to get the kind of bipartisan agreement that allows the minority to have some say," argued Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.13
  
• "Congress is not getting its work done," President Bush recently declared, claiming that the Democratic-controlled Congress had "the worst record in 20 years."14

Only a quarter of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, lower ratings even than President Bush. Detailed surveys show the Republicans score fractionally lower than the Democrats but the big picture is one of frustration. The 2006 election was supposed to bring change, and the Democrats have failed to deliver it. However, congressional stasis cannot solely be attributed to Democrats. It is a deliberate Republican goal.

While the Democrats are the reality-based ones when it comes to policy, when it comes to politics 101, not so much.  It's hard to imagine how anyone this politically stupid can even get their shoes tied in the morning.  I don't even expect them to tie their shoes themselves.  But how do they call for help?  They don't even seem to realize they need it.

The short answer is to go back and look at my series, The Political Duality of Rep and Dem, which began here with a diary that contained this chart, explaining how cognitive development proceeds by turning what is subject/context at one stage into object/content at the next:

Kegan's Subject/Object Schema of Cognitive Development
Stage	We Are: Subject (structure of knowing)	We Have: Object (content of knowing)	Underlying Structure
1	Perceptions SOCIAL PERCEPTIONS Impulses	Movement Sensation
2	Concrete POINT OF VIEW Enduring Dispositions	Perceptions SOCIAL PERCEPTIONS Impulses
3 Traditionalism	Abstractions MUTUALITY/ INTERPERSONALISM Relationship Inner states	Concrete POINT OF VIEW Enduring Dispositions Needs, Peferences
4 Modernism	Abstract Systems INSTITUTION Relationship-Regulating Forms Self-authorship	Abstractions MUTUALITY/ INTERPERSONALISM Relationship Inner states Subjectivity Self-consciousness
5 Post- Modernism	Dialectical INTER- INSTITUTIONAL Self-transformation	Abstract Systems Ideology INSTITUTION Relationship-Regulating Forms Self-authorship Self-regulation Self-formation

Politically, Democrats do not act like Kegan's Level Four autonomous actors (as they normally do on policy matters), they behave like Level Three traditional actors, defined by the social system they are embedded in.  And that social system is Versailles--a social system that movement conservatives have deliberately shaped in their image.

Through a wide range of means--best understood in terms of Gramsci's concept of a war of cultural hegemony--or "culture war," for short--movement conservatives have refashioned the cultural norms of Versailles to favor them on virtually every front.  This is what Gramsci called the "war of position."  Once one has established such structural dominance, it is relatively easy to win specific battles, what Gramsci called the "war of movement."  And that is precisely what CAF's report is documenting.