I don't understand the repetition and focus on the fact that Republicans are a minority. It doesn't matter if you see the 2012 election as a "referendum" on Obamacare, it doesn't matter if Republicans don't have a popular mandate to obstruct Obamacare, because that's not how our government works. It doesn't matter that Obamacare is "teh lawwww", because our bicameral legislature is the law, too. The truth is, they have enough control to force the Democrats to deal with them. This is the only thing that matters in practical terms. They are effectively an equal partner in a coalition government, to make a European analogy. If the Democrats were serious about fixing this problem they would quit whining and start talking about structural and electoral reforms. And shut up about ideology, Democrats are ideological too or they would be willing to compromise.
The issue isn't really that they oppose Obamacare, its that repealing Obamacare has been repeatedly voted on since the Supreme Court ruling and has been voted down every single time. I understand a rational debate, but shutting down the government after you have repeatedly been voted against is not a solid political strategy.
I mean, they wouldn't shutdown the gov if they thought it was going to have a negative effect. Point is, they've tried and failed to get what they want enough times before that their opinion is in the minority, or at least can be politically overruled in most circumstances. They may have enough power to be an annoyance but if they had enough power to make a change they would have already. Thats the problem, not that the Republicans are within their rights, but that they don't have enough political power to make the Democrats negotiate. Why should the Democrats sit down and negotiate if they don't have to?
Thats the problem, not that the Republicans are within their rights, but that they don't have enough political power to make the Democrats negotiate. Why should the Democrats sit down and negotiate if they don't have to? Except they do have the political power, clearly they do, because they are able to shut down the government and perhaps force a default if they don't get what they want. It doesn't matter that they don't have the political power to push through their own legislation, because neither do the Democrats. Technically we could say the same things about the Dems: Why do they want to dictate legislation when they don't even control both houses of the legislature?Point is, they've tried and failed to get what they want enough times before that their opinion is in the minority, or at least can be politically overruled in most circumstances. They may have enough power to be an annoyance but if they had enough power to make a change they would have already.
Its not a question of IF they have political power, its a question of if they have ENOUGH political power to bring about negotiation. The reason I posted the article is because even on first day of the shutdown, the Republicans already have dissent from within the party (the moderate portion of the party). A problem with inter-party dissent does not speak well to the ability of the party as a whole to stand firm on this issue. Do you think they have enough power to get what they want? I don't see the Democrats caving easily, and from what I can tell most people are blaming the Republicans for the shutdown (which doesn't help there negotiating position).
Unfortunately, structural and electoral reforms can only be gained through a Constitutional amendment, and considering that requires 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures (by the most typical route anyway; I fear that a Constitutional convention would lead to riots), any ideas about reform will be DOA.
I agree. I don't think that reforms would help the status quo (I suppose that has to be true by definition, or else they aren't reforms at all). And while Democrats might find the current crop of teabaggers annoying and antidemocratic, they are also mainly interested in maintaining a static system. Currently, our system is designed to do one fundamental thing: protect incumbents. Every law that is passed that has anything whatever to do with regulating elections typically just serves to entrench candidates that are already in office. It seems to be the one thing that everyone can agree upon.