McConnell Blocks Quick Vote on Stimulus Increase

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his food writing website Yonder and Home. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew's Heard Tell SubStack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

144 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    I suspect that the people of KY will be just fine with this, or will completely forget about in 6 years, or Mitch just isn’t planning on running for another term and doesn’t care.Report

    • North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      The intended audience aren’t the people of Kentucky- they’ve already made the determination that Cocaine Mitch will be a Senator- it’s the people of Georgia who will determine if Mitch will be Majority leader or not.Report

      • Doctor Jay in reply to North says:

        I agree that that’s the likely motivation. I don’t see how to connect the dots, though. Voters in GA don’t like bigger stimulus checks? I thought both the R senators endorsed them?Report

        • North in reply to Doctor Jay says:

          Well it’s an unholy mess. Trump has called for larger checks. The Dems promptly pledged support to the idea and passed a bill to make it a reality. The GOP is opposed of course, republicans only willingly hand out government largess to businesses and plutocrats. McConnell is a wily old bugger, the Senate has a million rules to allow him to muddle, delay, stymie and befuddle the issue and, of course, the voters on the right don’t want to agree with Democrats on anything.

          And Trump doesn’t actually care if what he called for gets enacted- he just wants to be on the record in favor of larger checks. He’s not going to directly excoriate the GOP for not playing along.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Doctor Jay says:

          Start by remembering the Trump isn’t connecting dots – he’s causing chaos while garnering hits and likes and screen time. Which is what he cares about most.

          Second, he wants to punish McConnell and other Republicans for openly calling Biden President Elect – thus dashing Trump’s hopes of a Senate run coup on 6 January. In his world they are disloyal to him, and so he’s going to punish them.

          Third, a LOT of Trump supporters have said they won’t vote in the runoff because the Presidential election is stolen so by running this gambit, Trump is squaring off against McConnell with his influence over those voters.

          So again, its not about voters or economic stimulus. Its about intra-party GOP power fights. Make Sense now?Report

  2. InMD says:

    Ah America, where the only way to get aid to the people is to take an ax to the free exchange of ideas online.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to InMD says:

      The expanded unemployment was renewed again. People who are unemployed get plenty of aid. Most people still have their jobs. As Larry Summers—who knows a thing or two about economics—points out in the video below, there’s no real need for general stimulus. Sending out another $1400 to 90% of the population, the vast majority of whom are still employed, is just fiscally irresponsible pandering, not “getting aid to the people.”Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        Forgot the video. And daaaamn, the commenters on the video are ignorant and entitled, even by YouTube standards:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yt53u4s7y8Report

      • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        Heh if you don’t understand how ridiculous what you just said is there’s no hope for you.Report

        • Brandon Berg in reply to InMD says:

          When I read about quantum mechanics, I think it sounds ridiculous. But I strongly suspect that if I put in the effort to study and understand it, I’d have a different opinion, so I don’t go around telling people who actually know what they’re talking about that they’re being ridiculous.

          Just something to think about.Report

          • InMD in reply to Brandon Berg says:

            And what is it I should be studying? The books that say deficit exploding tax cuts are perfectly sound economics and a great way to run the country but a few extra bucks for service sector workers and renters during a pandemic pave the road to hell? Please.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

              We’re not actually giving anyone anything.

              We are pro-actively cutting their future taxes, and as everyone knows, these sorts of things pay for themselves.

              As has been scientifically proven, recipients of tax cuts buy things like yachts and thereby create jobs.

              So really, this $2,000 bill is really just helping job creators lift the economy.Report

            • KenB in reply to InMD says:

              Is your argument that since Republican politicians are greedy hypocrites, there’s no reason for us to try to analyze the details of this specific bill and decide whether it’s a good idea or not on balance?Report

              • InMD in reply to KenB says:

                My argument is that the priority needs to be making sure regular people make it to the other side of this winter. Under the circumstances a little overkill (if it even is) is better than too little.

                If someone wants to make an argument that I’m looking at this wrong that’s fine. But some moral hazard ‘where does it end’ BS from the likes of Larry Summers? Come on.Report

              • KenB in reply to InMD says:

                Well, I don’t care about Larry Summers but here’s my argument: the majority of the country is no worse off financially than before the pandemic — if the concern is to help those who were hit by it, then we should be targeting that population (e.g. with expanded UI benefits etc.). Giving money to people who already have money is “stimulus” and not “aid” — but why would we want to stimulate the economy at the same time that we’re trying to put a substantial part of it on ice for a few months? The stimulus money will end up largely going to businesses that are still open and not drastically affected by the pandemic, e.g. because they’re largely or wholly online.

                I don’t claim to be an expert by any means, but it seems like the discussion is happening at such an absurdly high level that bad decisions are being made.Report

              • InMD in reply to KenB says:

                My problem with this argument is that it assumes a deal that is not on the table. The UI system (or really 55 systems) is byzantine, inefficient, and is itself not great at distinguishing between those who do and do not need it. We should 100% make a better one.

                However because that is not happening any time soon we need to use the tools we have. So what if the cost of getting lifesavers to the people on the edge in a pandemic is throwing some extra slack to middle class households who don’t really need it? That’s an easy call.

                Now, to your past point, does 40 years of deficits don’t matter and voodoo economics followed by Larry’s buddies on Wall Street getting publicly financed bonuses inform that thinking? Probably. Nothing is without context, including this. So we get through the crisis and then have a much needed conversation about recalibration. I’m 100% open to that too, especially next time we magically find ourselves on the right side of the Laffer curve again.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to InMD says:

                Giving stimulus money to people who don’t need it is a bad idea. I’d much rather see a better-funded unemployment aid package. But if giving some money to people who don’t need it is the price we have to pay to get some help — if not enough — to the people who do need it, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to CJColucci says:

                As an interesting (at least to me) sidetrack on the UI stuff… Because the extended time benefit expired last Saturday, Colorado’s DOL had to remove it from their system. Because the software is an antique, the change to put it back in is such that the federal DOL must audit and approve it. Colorado DOL anticipates that they will have that by late January or early February. Benefits will be backdated, but a bunch of people won’t be getting any UI payment for four or five weeks.Report

              • KenB in reply to InMD says:

                The March “stimulus” bill boosted the Federal UI benefit by $600/week and extended the timeline by four months. Famously, some unemployed people ended up getting more money on unemployment than they were getting paid on the job. The bill that was just signed includes a $300 additional benefit and an additional extension.Report

              • North in reply to KenB says:

                I’m pretty sure the $300/week benefit is replacing the $600/week benefit. The extension, meanwhile, only makes sense since several sectors of the economy are going to remain effectively closed until the vaccine distribution starts hitting a critical mass sometime in 2nd quarter.Report

              • KenB in reply to North says:

                Yes, that’s what I meant but I see my wording was ambiguous. Anyway the main point was that both the March and December bill already contain extra UI support, so that can’t really be used as the justification for the broader payments.Report

              • North in reply to KenB says:

                Well sure, it’s raw populism, but in the big picture single time lump sum payments are pretty cheap. They don’t create new regular spending entitlements or obligations the way other programs do, nor do they require much expansion of the federal workforce to deliver. The portion that hits needy people is an unambiguous good and the portion that pads out the finances of the unneedy is just putting water back into the well that could be drawn back out again in the future.Report

              • InMD in reply to KenB says:

                Sure some unemployed people got more, others waited for weeks because state systems were overwhelmed and are poorly run in the best of times. Then there are of course people who aren’t eligible at all for reasons of varying merit. I don’t think the fact that we’ve neglected these systems in fat times is a convincing justification for being stingy in a crisis.Report

            • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD says:

              This is fun:
              http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

              TL;DR

              Tax cuts for the wealthy don’t drive growth and trickle down wealth as advertised. This isn’t to say that soaking the rich is a good thing, only that not taxing the rich fails to live u to the purported claims.Report

              • InMD in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                I’m not really a soak the rich guy either. Nevertheless I can’t help but notice the convenient timing with which these orthodoxies always seem to emerge.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD says:

                Important to note that it is a working paper, not a peer reviewed one. I expect it’ll get kicked around a lot.

                I’m not a soak the rich kinda guy either, mainly because redistributing that wealth through taxes and entitlements is horribly inefficient.

                But I’ve never really believed in the trickle down theory either, at least not as a major driver of economic growth/activity.Report

              • North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Yup, it’s not like supply side economics, as preached and practiced by the modern GOP has even a kernel of merit left in it. If it ever had merit (possibly back when Kennedy cut taxes or maybe but not likely during Regan) it hasn’t had merit at any point since.

                The GOP’s position against spending, in reality, is that it diverts resources away from cutting taxes or lavishing subsidies on plutocrats when Democrats are in control. When Republicans are in control, they allow that as small an amount as practical should be diverted to the masses for electoral reasons but beyond that their priority is shoveling as large, as permanent and as upwardly freighted cuts and subsidies to their wealthy paymasters as they can.

                It was pretty obvious by the end of Bush W.’s term but is blatantly, crystal clear after Trump- the only rational response to right wing cries about fiscal discipline or deficit concerns is derisive laughter.Report

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                And then people wonder what feeds that dirty, bad populism. Like… how is everyone supposed to react to such cynicism?Report

              • North in reply to InMD says:

                Yes, you’ve touched on it. The GOP’s voting masses don’t particularly support the GOP elites goal. If you gauze it up in layers of republitarian fluff about fiscal discipline they used to acquiesce unenthusiastically but the real bond between the GOP elite and their base was social conservatism and when the culture war turned into a culture route at the end of the aughts that bond began to decay and the GOP has depended more and more on enflaming the alleged villany of the Democrats, the make their own voters fear the left more than they despise the GOP elite.

                And into the gaping wound between the desires of the republitarian GOP leadership and the populist voting masses slithered Trump. Which is why I don’t expect a left-wing Trump to arise so readily from the left. The Democratic Party is hidebound, hoary, old and unlovable but their leadership cadres do not desire the explicit opposite of what their voters do. The latter don’t loathe the former like is routine on the right.Report

  3. Doctor Jay says:

    I think getting rid of section 230 would be a terrible, terrible idea. Although it would probably kill Facebook in its sleep, and I wouldn’t have too many regrets over that, but it would wreak havoc over all manner of websites.Report

  4. Marchmaine says:

    Whatever the Generation after Z is… they are going to look back on our failure to grapple with 230 as we look back on the Eisenhower Military Industrial Complex speech. It was all so obvious.Report

    • North in reply to Marchmaine says:

      I disagree. I think that the weaknesses and foibles of the internet will dissolve in cynicism as the generations age into them. Remember at the turn of the millennium when internet spammers and con artists were going to destroy everything? Spam filters got better and people stopped believing that something had merit just because it showed up in their inbox.

      Internet mobs and twitter tantrums are only as potent as the companies, institutions and individuals allow them to be. If ignored they sputter out in a matter of weeks. I expect that, about as quickly as people stopped giving power to spam and scam, people and organizations will stop taking twitter mobs seriously.

      Information silos, that’s a different ball of wax that I’m not so sanguine about.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to North says:

        I disagree with your disagreement.

        Our social/interaction data is too important for twitter and facebook… it won’t end there. To be clear I’m not saying that 230 should be repealed simpliciter… but that we need to re-examine all the laws pertaining to platforms/publishers/privacy etc. A little like WW2, the internet has unleashed powers and interests that are much more potent than mere engineering advances.Report

        • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

          Right now the answer is trust busting and even that may be premature. There’s no vision yet for privacy. What’s going on in California is a perfect example. Neither the people nor the policy-makers have a clear goal.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Marchmaine says:

          No one is forcing anyone else to be on those platforms. If the powers that be disagree with their business practices, they’re free to take their hot takes elsewhere.Report

          • It’s more complicated than that. In the early days of telephony, people figured out what is generally called “the network effect.” That is, the value (and power) of a network increases exponentially with the number of people attached to it. It’s one of the few cases of a real first-mover advantage. Almost certainly one of the early firms will reach a critical mass and become dominant.

            The only successful cases of breaking the network effect advantage that I’m aware of required three things: near-permanent, mostly-anonymous network addresses; standardized formatting of content; and government mandated interconnection.Report

            • Slade the Leveller in reply to Michael Cain says:

              Remember MySpace? It was huge at one time.Report

              • Huge is a relative thing. MySpace peaked at around 100M users. Call it 5% of Facebook’s current user base, so there was still room for competitors.

                I never used it. What I have read suggests that they made a lot of mistakes, starting with a user interface that made Facebook — where beta testing means only roll the new version out to a third of the users — look very good. Also broke what I’ve started thinking of as the Amazon Rule: volume now, profits in ten years. MySpace sold out to someone who wanted profits right now, dammit much too early.Report

      • InMD in reply to North says:

        I see it as more of a race. Can we get where we shrug off these flare-ups before illiberal forces in our polity and the state get enough power to pass legislation? If yes then they’ll never get the support they need. If no then what we have now goes away and probably never comes back.Report

    • It wasn’t. The fundamental decisions were made 25 years ago, circa 1995. At that time, there was zero actual evidence that a company could make reasonable amounts of money selling basic data transport. People like me, who said that not only was it possible, but that it was critical to go in that direction, were a small and unpopular minority in the industry. By the time it became obvious, changing meant bankrupting the cable companies that provided >80% of the broadband access in the US. With a good chance of dragging down all of the major independent content providers with them (eg, ESPN).Report

  5. Jaybird says:

    Huh.

    I’m going to try to remember to keep my ears open for new bills saying that this particular section can be removed.Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    Interesting list of names:

    Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

      This reminds of when socialist Mitt Romney – and not the squishy Dems – was the first to publicly support cash payments back in March. Supposing there aren’t shenanigans in play here it once again shows that Dems are playing prevent defense because they’re consumed with a fear of losing* rather than a desire to win.

      * “They’ll blame us for the government shutdown!!”Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

      What’s surprising about it? Sanders is the only one who said no veto debate unless there’s a $2,000 direct payment vote. We all knew the (D) caucus was not going to let the veto of the Defense budget stand and that Sanders’ filibuster would be broken.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I look at it a bit differently. Trump handed Dems the perfect cudgel to beat McConnell about the head and shoulders with; Bernie picked up the cudgel to begin adminstering the beatings; then squishily wilt in the face of McConnell tying the $2000 to section 230 repeal. Trump looks good (he wants folks to have more cash), McConnell looks good (sorta – he’s tying the cash with a couple of Trump’s other priorities), and the Dems now look silly hammering on McConnell for obstructing a bill which they don’t support anyway.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

          “…then *Dems* squishily wilt…”Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

          Is there a scenario in which this results in a $2000 check being sent out?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            When you’re playing Bridge with a partner, sometimes you’re in a situation where, no matter what, you’re going to lose. Sometimes you’re in a situation where you’re heavily likely to win but you could lose if you play like an idiot.

            And, sometimes, it could go either way.

            The only thing that you can really guarantee happening, though, is losing deliberately.

            Maybe you can win, maybe you can’t. But if you go in trying to lose, you will pretty much always succeed against even a marginally skilled player.

            A very good way to lose quickly is to give up.

            Are there scenarios where a $2000 check gets sent out? Maybe. Maybe there are only a few.

            But none of them begin with not trying.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

              Name one of those scenarios.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Well, there’s this.

                It got called the “Bridge Hand of the Year” in 2011.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

                I don’t get it. The finesse is a 50% shot. A 2-1 break is a 78% shot, and then the hand makes easily on a cross-ruff. So, declarer will look really dumb if the finesse loses.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                I think it’s the combination of the bid, the play, and the playing the other guys.

                There may have been other safer ways to do it but those would have assumed bidding more conservatively at the start.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

                When I was a kid in a small town long ago, my parents belonged to a monthly bridge club. When the club was meeting at our house, and someone got called to the phone to deal with babysitter/kid issues, I got roped in. Invariably to play the hand that had won the bid. I grew to suspect this was by design, for entertainment, since I despised bidding but was something of an idiot savant at playing. Don’t bother me about how we got to this hand and that dummy, just tell me “four spades” and let me go for it.

                Certainly since then I have been curious about “math smarts.” After two hours of social bridge, Dad could close his eyes and recite every bid and the entire play for every hand, and fuss about the stupid plays. I could play hands very well w/o the bidding. Calculus chased Dad out of engineering. I got degrees in math.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

                I’m from Michigan so I played Euchre as a kid, never bridge. A card game is a card game, though.

                “It’s like Spades without the automatic trump suit and with formalized Latinate smack talk prior to the hands instead of Anglo-Saxon variants during”.

                I can see why it took off in a world without sitcoms.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

                In Seymour, IA where all of my grandparents came from, there were a variety of “social” card games. The serious men-only game was cribbage. Grandpa Cain insisted I play cut throat when I was eight. Dad was Navy, so cribbage was a religion and I got no sympathy there. By the time I was ten I was sent across the street to “show the Dutchman how the game is played.” Note that the Dutchman was my Grandpa’s best friend.

                My grandfather’s direction of my relationship with the Dutchman’s family was an interesting progression. When I was ten, beat the Dutchman at cribbage. When I was twelve, go across the street and eat a couple thousand calories at dinner so the Dutchman’s wife could say, “Ach, it’s good to have someone in the house with a real appetite.” When I was fourteen, I wasn’t allowed anywhere close to the Dutchman’s house because of the gorgeous fourteen-year-old daughter.Report

          • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Not with Schumer and Pelosi as leaders.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

              Walk me through a scenario with any Democratic leader, which results in the checks being sent out.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                One where the Speaker isn’t the driving force behind means testing. One where the Speaker – and not a Republican – initially introduces direct cash payments.

                But look Chip, the Dems don’t want the $2000 cash payments or they’d stick with Bernie and block the defense bill. So Schumer is tap dancing to pin the politics on Mitch, hoping the public doesn’t notice, but just looks like a fool.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

                So they block the defense bill.
                Then what happens?Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                We are immediately annexed by the aliens from Independence Day.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, if the Dems had no desire to take this legislation to the wall to get it passed then why did they pass it out of the House. But if passing it out of the House was merely a political stunt to box McConnell and score political points the Democrats played it *very* badly. Not sure why you’re defending the Democrats for this fiasco.

                Add: On the Senate floor Schumer said that when people are evicted, can’t turn on lights or heat, can’t feed their families, he hopes they remember that McConnell is to blame. But if Schumer legitimately believed that potentially millions of people’s lives will be ruined by not passing the $2000 bill why wouldn’t he block the Defense bill?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

                So they block the defense bill.
                Then what happens?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                They debate giving The People $2000 and get some sweeet soundbites for the upcoming Georgia election.

                Hell, maybe they even wait until the 5th or something to cave.

                The important thing is that they make a token effort fighting for it before capitulating.

                Maybe they could talk about the people who could be helped by it and the people who wouldn’t be helped by it could donate it to people who would be helped by it. They could say something about us all being in this together and recognizing that a lot of people have not been able to work and this is something that we can do to help everybody.

                Before capitulating.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’d suggest that knowing that the Dems would never block the Defense bill is the point of McConnel’s maneuvers.

                I might redirect to ask (in a different fashion than Stillwater) why won’t the Dems block the defense bill?

                Your heart is where you treasure lies.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

                “We believe in nothing, Lebowski.”

                -Chuck SchumerReport

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Because the Democrats treasure a functioning government.

                We are in an asymmetric war, where the Republican voting base gains by destroying the ability of the government to function. Their strategy is Rule or Ruin.

                If the defense bill was blocked, the Democratic base would be furious, but the Republican base would be delighted.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It’s got the same cadence as George Turner.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                This is just strange to my ears:

                “If the defense bill was blocked, the Democratic base would be furious, but the Republican base would be delighted.”

                A few thoughts on how this seems so confusing (at least to me):

                1. This is what happens when ‘base’ no longer means base. It’s just weird to hear about the Democratic base demanding a big Defense Bill.
                2. Trump vetoed the bill… Trump owns the issue.
                3. Prioritizing overriding a Veto of a Defense Bill rather than the Bernie strategy of banging the drums for relief for the ‘Base’ begs the question of #1 above… who’s the Base?

                In the end, one can only conclude that the National Defense Act plus the existing Relief Act is what the Base wants… whomever that is.

                Claiming “good governance” continues to beg the question, for whom? Delaying the NDAA doesn’t put anything at risk:

                “Ultimately, the NDAA is a policy bill, not a funding bill,” said Harrison, who pointed out the actual funding for the Pentagon was included in the government spending bill the president recently signed. The NDAA sets the budget and policies for the Defense Department but does not appropriate funds.

                In short, “If the NDAA is delayed, it will not harm our national security in any irreparable way,” Harrison said.

                Honestly, I’m just surprised that the D’s rolled-over on this… they have a stick to beat Trump, McConnel and R’s with. I guess they just like the stick more than their ‘base’ – or so it seems.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

                It’s clear who the Base is, or at least who most of D leadership thinks it is. Larry Summers and people like him plus maybe the degraded corporate media types.

                The thing that’s funny is I still mostly agree with North’s comment above, at least in the sense that the Democratic party isn’t in the kind of bewildered, at war with itself, state the GOP is in. I was actually impressed at how the House jumped on the gift Trump gave them. Talk about rapid correction.

                Maybe this is why all the big D talking points about taking back the Senate involve new states and constitutional reform and perpetually just around the corner demographic change. We should take those statements as what they really are: an admission that they don’t know how to win, even when up by a touchdown in the 4th. The best they can hope for is GOP penalties and errant field goal attempts.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

                My subversive thought for the day is that North (and Chip below) are echoing the ‘Base’ talk of Movement Conservatives in 2015.

                Bookmarking for the Non-Bernie person who steps up to the mic and says that the leadership is out of step with the Base, prioritizing their own Pelozian/Schumerian interests ahead of the interests of the Base… using Social Causes to their advantage without delivering anything of substance… selling out the Base to deliver goods to the elite establishment.

                “Remember when they prioritized overriding a Defense act and delivering a massive wealth transfer to corporations instead of fighting for funding to the Base in the midst of a Pandemic?” That’ll be the Trump moment of turning on the Establishment and realizing that the ‘Base’ that wasn’t at war wasn’t the base… and now is at war.

                And that’s ok… I’m all for it… I’m just giving you fair warning so when it happens and I’m doing my “I told you so dance” I can do so in good conscience.

                Or I’m wrong, and this is all about ‘good governance’ [snicker].Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                See, the problem with this theory of symmetry is that the parties aren’t symmetrical. The Democrats have actual policy goals, like healthcare or police reform or whatever.
                These are political things which can be negotiated, compromised and settled.

                Bernie and The Squad have different policy goals than Joe Manchin and Jon Tester; But the differences are amenable to negotiation.

                The Republicans have only cultural resentment. This can’t be negotiated, compromised, or settled.

                Madison Cawthorne doesn’t have policy differences with Ben Sasse; Their differences can’t be negotiated.

                So for Republicans, there is only victory or surrender.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’m not preaching symmetry… you’re the odd one who keeps thinking that since there are two parties there must be some symmetry.

                There’s no symmetry.

                The Democratic party is doing what the powers in the Democratic party want… are they playing their best hand? Or are they delivering exactly what they want to deliver.

                I can’t be more clear than what I’ve said… I think Pelosi and Schumer are *happy* with the NDAA and Relief Act. Period.

                You’re just selling to yourself the fact that Schumer and Pelosi are happy with it.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I think the average Democratic Party member, if they are even aware of what the NDAA is, feels pretty the same way that Pelosi and Schumer do.

                Not ideal, but the best outcome we could have gotten given that the Republicans control 2/3 of the government.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Half of that 2/3rds is also pushing for the $2000.

                And there were 41 Democratic votes to shut down debate. These 41 Democratic votes included the VP elect.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Hypothesis: Democratic party leadership is more committed to opposing the progressive left’s policies than opposing “republican” policies because the prog left (unlike Republicans) pose an actual threat to their hold on power. (Iron Law stuff.)Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                Makes sense to me.

                There’s also a great deal of money to be made (and power to be gathered) in prolonging the problem but always being THIS close to solving it.

                A fun example would be Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem.

                Politician can’t run on moving the embassy anymore. That applause line has been removed from every single speech for at least until the embassy gets moved back.

                (Do we know whether Biden will move the embassy back?)Report

              • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

                It all depends on who you mean by progressive left. On the one hand I think there is an incredible blindness and complacency about the growing appeal of economic populism. At the same time I think they perceive the very low electoral ceiling of Squad type social messaging but it’s trendy in an influential part of the coalition so they ignore it or play along in a very limited and superficial way.

                I would say leadership’s behavior is that of a group that doesn’t feel particularly threatened at all.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

                To me there are three distinctions that make the Democratic establishment less susceptible to the kind of hijacking Trump pulled off.

                1. No comparable unified alternative media force. It took decades of hacking away by talk radio and Fox News towards the outcome (it remains unclear to me whether it was truly a goal but it all advanced this end). Progressive media supports the D establishment and are willing to utterly embarrass themselves to keep doing it.

                2. Left wing identity politics are balkanized, not hegemonic. Witness cracks already appearing between the priorities of feminists, trans activists, and race-based activists. The interests diverge too much to prevent defection and the common enemy isn’t nearly as common as the critical theory profs pretend it is.

                3. The Democrats have well established urban core patronage systems. There is no other game in town and the local loyalty is legitimately paid for (poorly of course but still paid for) in jobs, influence, and investment. Nothing like that exists in Red ruralia or exurbia.

                Obviously nothing is permanent but those things allow the establishment to continue to stay in power by not losing. Plus now they get reinforced by RINOs, neocons, and assorted corporate and wall street scum. Now are they slowly rendering themselves totally ineffectual because of this? Quite possibly. But I don’t see anyone powerful enough to pull off the mutiny. Bernie came as close as may actually be possible. Realignment may actually work to keep the establishment in power.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

                Sure, those are all plausible reasons why things go along as they go. Until they don’t.

                I’ll admit that I’m perplexed by the unreconstructed 1970’s socialism that seems to dominate a lot of the Left ‘radicals’ … but that’s part of my point too. Once they ditch the 1970’s (and Bernie) a whole lot of options and vectors open up. The things you mention as cracks that aren’t exploitable are exactly the cracks that one would exploit…

                I guess from my outsider’s perspective it looks like the 90’s holding off the 70’s which was very successful in the 90’s and 00’s. But at some point it looks like the 80’s holding off the 60’s realizing it ain’t the 80’s any more and the 60’s aren’t coming back.

                I think the failed realignment of Trump may keep the establishment in power… whether we get an actual realignment, I’m not sure… I think the conditions are ripe for one… but the institutional impediments are very large.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I’ll admit that I’m perplexed by the unreconstructed 1970’s socialism that seems to dominate a lot of the Left ‘radicals’ … but that’s part of my point too.

                The ones in the 1970’s read theory.

                The current batch learned about it elsewhere and see arguments about theory as an anti-neurodiverse power play.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well what do you expect of a bunch of people with master’s degrees? I mean MASTER’S degrees! Their brains are hopelessly colonized.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                Yeah, I’m familiar with Karl Marx!

                Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                Data driven Hegelianism.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Well, to your point I think they’re stuck in the 70s because so are the people creating the intellectual underpinnings. But I also wonder if they aren’t somewhat self-marginalizing and kind of a 5th column too unimportant to realign.

                Like if the Right wins realignment I think it will be because they find a way to create a detente with pro-choice, pro-contraception professional women and/or peel off a critical number of working class of all races and small-business owning minorities. To do that the GOP will have to have some legitimately different people running it. Neither religious conservatives nor people who have been… we’ll say overly agnostic about racial resentment (the real kind, not the undergrad kind) in parts of the right-wing ecosystem can be at the helm.

                Conversely if the Left wins realignment I think it looks more like what happened with Labour in the UK in the 90s with Blair and if they’re lucky can happen again with Starmer. It will be junior parts of the establishment learning the right lessons (and to be clear they must be the right lessons) and ‘making the journey’ to take power.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

                I mostly agree with your notion of a right-side realignment.

                I quibble with the contraception part, which is already universal; and I suppose “Safe, Legal, and Rare” where Rare is a real part of the triad would be how I would see such a ‘compromise’ falling out.

                But if that isn’t too much of a quibble, I think the rest is on the mark.

                I think I have a bigger quibble, very nearly a quobble with the Left realignment… to me Blairism *is* the current Left alignment and it will likely grow as long as there’s no actual realignment.

                Left led realignment would look similar to a right-led one, but with a different inflection plus a detente on Racism which moves away from CRT and back to MLK paths… plus abandoning the 70’s Managerial Socialism and moving towards a Stakeholder-Capitalism model.

                So… unhappiness on all fronts. 🙂Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine says:

                Nah we’re on the same page with the Left, what I meant was the path of how they get to realignment. Democrat leadership is definitely still living in the 90s and getting over that is their biggest obstacle.

                What I would not expect is some out of left field media personality or dark horse to come out of nowhere and cause a watershed. If it happens it will be some accepted member of the D club who gets it and successfully makes the case for a pivot away from Clintonism/Blairism but dodges the identitarian excesses. That’s different from the Right where the realignment is being driven by people who were never welcome at the GOP country club and were not a part of the late 20th century conservative movement.Report

              • InMD in reply to InMD says:

                *Reading again ‘path’ should probably be ‘people’ or ‘personalities.’ For the Dems that’s still probably a governor of a purple state or something like that. It is definitely not the host of a tv show or person inspired by political media to take on the elites.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                If it happens it will be some accepted member of the D club who gets it and successfully makes the case for a pivot away from Clintonism/Blairism but dodges the identitarian excesses.

                Someone from a purple state, who has the audacity of hope, who inspires change.
                Maybe someone who moves as easily with radical black activists as white centrists.
                Someone who could lead to real tangible change in the lives of everyday Americans.

                I hope the Democrats could find someone like that.Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Hey I voted for Obama. But it ain’t 2008. And it won’t ever be again.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD says:

                Obama was a Blairite par excellence.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

                What’s weird is that Libertarianism as a intellectual force was doing pretty good from, oh, the passage of PATRIOT to pretty much Trump.

                And then… poof. It evaporated.

                Like it only made sense in a very specific context.

                I imagine that some of the arguments for libertarianism (and limited government in general) will come back in some weird places… police reform, and the missteps taken by the FDA in the face of a pandemic are the first to comes to mind… but libertarianism strikes me as a spent force.

                Like arguing over the missile gap.

                So many people don’t have the cultural vocabulary to understand why that was something worth arguing about.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                It wasn’t weird at all in hindsight. Libertarianism was just a hat. The Republican version of Libertarianism is well financed by the right-wing plutocratic set and its purpose is to cut taxes at all costs and pursue other libertarian agendas so long as they enable, give cover for or in no way obstruct their core mission of cutting taxes. That gives it a really strong presence in online communities and commentary (places where money or passion can really strengthen your voice) but even the bastardized Republitarianism remains a fringe movement in terms of actual masses of voters actually believing in and voting for it while true Libertarianism is even more marginal. I mean how did Jorgensen do this go round?

                There was a confluence of events around ’08 wherein Bush W. made Conservative a four-letter word and great masses of voters and politicians needed a label to use to oppose Obama that wasn’t Conservative and so they just used the Libertarian one. Everyone fell for it- from Obama with the huge bargains he offered to balance the budget to us commenters here at OT earnestly arguing with our beloved libertarian peers (we were all so innocent). Trump demonstrated, definitively, that libertarianism, and even Republitarianism, carries no significant voting weight. Trump fishing won the whole ball of wax in ’16 by demonstrating that he wasn’t in any way libertarian and then the GOP demonstrated over the course of his administration that libertarianism was never actually a priority for them except for maybe in areas where it can be used to trigger liberals.

                I mean libertarianism will always be with us. It’s the null hypothesis to every government action and it’s genuinely valuable in that roll. You can’t kill it, you shouldn’t want to kill it and it’s probably more correct than wrong a significant portion of the time. Also, the wealthy will always want a way to dress up publicly saying “cut our taxes” in pretty frilly language and it’s hard to beat libertarianism for that purpose so libertarian thinkers and writers will always have some well financed institutions to advocate for them.

                I just shake my head at how seriously a political movement/force we all thought libertarianism was. In hindsight it seems so fishing obvious. Like the hulking dude at the gym wearing the huge sweatpants. He’s imposing as hell from the waist up but under those sweats he’s got the legs of a teenage anorexic.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                She got 1.2%! That’s not *THAT* bad. All things considered.

                The “cut our taxes” thing, much like the laffer curve, has a peak somewhere. I can’t imagine that there’s much of a good foothold for arguing for even more cuts.

                At this point, I’d expect that the low hanging fruit would be in the whole Waste/Fraud/Abuse parts of government with a sprinkling of rent-seeking regulation and there is no shortage of egregious examples there.

                But Fusionism? Dead. Dead. Dead.Report

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

                The line McConnell gave on the $2k was ‘this is a proposal to use the government to subsidize rich people.’ His ability to say something like that with a straight face is a testament to his success as a politician. And I mean that in the worst way possible. But I have to think that there isn’t much credulity for that out there anymore even among rank and file conservatives. Even they know he’s there to push through judges and obstruct the libs at all costs, not advance a wider agenda.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                Oh sure, I mean if they could get the taxes on the wealthy down to zero then the plutocrats would shift to their libertarian posture to defense mode and focus on going after spending (because eventually someone’s gonna come after our money pile) but I don’t see that ever happening. There’s only so much you can bamboozle even right wing voters.

                The problem with going after waste/fraud/abuse/rent seeking in a libertarian fashion is at that point you start goring the oxen that the wealthy are making money off of. They ain’t gonna enjoy that. So the emphasis will always be on the one thing they can agree on- taxes need to be lower on the rich.

                Agreed, fusionism isn’t just pining for the fjords- it’s dead. I would, however, argue that it’s the socialcons who defected and killed it- not the libertarians.Report

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                I was not at the League/OT then but it’s really interesting to me that it caught on. My early exposure to libertarianism was via Radley Balko’s old blog. It seemed clear to me from the beginning that most of these people were just embarrassed Republicans.Report

              • North in reply to InMD says:

                Well heck, even in the aughts conservativisms decay was beginning to badly impede conservatives ability to debate outside of their home turf. Libertarians have no significant support in the electorate but their ideology is really intellectually tight and they are badass debaters. Even back then right vs left arguments often ended up being left vs libertarian arguments while the right wingers snuck out the fire exit.

                And, again, looking back it seems so fishing obvious.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

                but racism tho

                I used to think the most important Slate Star Codex post was “Radicalizing The Romanceless” but I’m starting to think maybe “The Godlessness That Failed” is even more important.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Yeah, the fact that racism, defined on the fly, is so terribly anti-fashionable is likely going to help the Democrats apply Flex Seal to a handful of leaks.

                But part of the problem of the definitions changing so quickly is that not everybody can get told about it in a timely manner and the less privileged are among those who are the last to hear about the newly obsolete definitions that they’re still trying to get used to from the previous change.

                I think that terms like “BIPOC” are part of attempts to wrangle the definitions back away from the ones most advantageous to white suburbanites.

                But we’ll see what the next four years are like.

                I’m expecting a “very slowly then all at once” kinda situation.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

                What would be some of the substantive policy differences between the Obama-type Democrat and a Biden/Harris/Buttigieg/Warren/Krysten Sinema/ Gavin Newsome type Democrat?

                I don’t really see much daylight between them.

                And for that matter, despite all the media attention, the differences between The Squad/ Bernie and the Pelosi/ Schumer wing seem relatively minor.

                For example, I would say that about 75% of whatever OAC would want to see in a Green New Deal would be acceptable to Pelosi, with the remaining 25% being negotiable by both sides.

                The differences seem mostly to be matters of aesthetics and marketing, and the willingness to be combative instead of collegial.

                As evidence, I point to how easily the various factions were able to fall into alignment when faced with an election; Like the Warren and Bernie fans didn’t sit home, and the Squad isn’t agitating to drive out Pelosi. Her main threat is from fellow centrists, not the leftists.Report

              • North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It’s hard to say since you’re talking about a new kind of Democrat who isn’t currently moving and shaking in the left wing circles. This hypothetical candidate probably would differ widely from the Obama/Clinton Democrat on the importance of deficits and they’d probably have either not sent the Title IX Dear Collegue letter or would have stomped on it hard when the universities responded with “Ok all of our accused are rapists, let God sort em out”. But that’s all I can think of off the top of my head.Report

              • InMD in reply to North says:

                Less war. Less coziness with Wall Street. Some creativity about the future of capitalism. Hopefully a better feel for where the median American sits.

                I feel like people hear ‘complete deconstruction and rebranding’ when all I’m talking about is some forward looking pivoting.Report

              • North in reply to InMD says:

                From your lips to God(ess?)’s ear. I’d like to think that one major benefit of the old generation shuffling out of leadership will be that this reflexive hawkishness to show that Democrats aren’t soft on national security will finally die die die!Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I don’t think there is much of a difference between them. But we’re talking about realignment and doing better than either party seems capable of now, albeit for different reasons.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine says:

                I’m bewildered by your confusion.

                Over the past 10 years, the Republicans have repeatedly used brinksmanship and hostage-taking as a strategy, and have shut down the government at least once that I remember. And in no case have their voters ever punished them for it, but instead, repeatedly rewarded them for making governance impossible.

                You guys keep saying that refusing to pass the NDAA is some big stick that would hurt McConnell.

                In what universe? McConnell openly sneered at giving out pandemic relief, and was enthusiastically returned to office his constituents.

                If the entire government shut down, what Republican voter, what swing voter, would switch their vote to the Democrats?

                Look again at the behavior of the Republicans. They have no political platform (literally!) and no political beliefs other than “Opposition to whatever liberals want, updated daily”.
                The very voters who have been driven into bankruptcy by Trump’s policies, voted to return him to office.

                They are entirely consumed with cultural resentment, and resentment can’t be negotiated. Worse, there is no strategy which can defeat resentment.

                Threaten them with financial ruin? They will gladly accept it!

                So where you guys get this idea that Democratic brinksmanship will be the magic Kryptonite to bring McConnell to his knees is bewildering to me.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “Look again at the behavior of the Republicans.”

                Nope… I have gazed fully and completely at them… don’t try to change the gaze.Report

              • The question in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I would like to remind you as a person on the edge of the left there’s a lot of Democrats and most of us out here who our entirely on board with cutting gutting eliminating the department of defense because we’re not really defending we’re just bombing everyone who looks at us sideways

                we don’t have to blindly just support the troops anymore I mean they’re large sections of the American public that are like why are we drone bombing six different countries why are we selling arms to the Saudis why are we policing so much of the worldReport

              • Jaybird in reply to The question says:

                We’re 10 minutes away from Democrats arguing for expanded police budgets to clean up street violence and get tough on crime.

                And wonder why you’re not on board.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to The question says:

                What I find amazing is how foreign policy has virtually ceased being a partisan issue.

                Again, this is because there is no “conservative” foreign policy any more, which is because there is no coherent set of policy preferences which can be called “conservatism” any more.

                There is the Democratic Party, the party of centrist policy, and the Republican Party, the party of ethnic and cultural resentment.

                For the moment, Obama/Biden/Clinton foreign policy is the only game in town.

                I’d like to say this can be made to change, but that is dependent upon the prospects of 2024 and whether the Republicans decide to apply Cleek’s Law to the Biden foreign policy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It is all “neoconservative” foreign policy now.

                Would you like to bomb Syria? You can!

                It’s covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force!

                Would you like to help Al Qaeda attack both ISIS and Bashar al-Assad? You can!

                It’s covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force!

                Would you prefer to have this justification given by someone from a purple state, who has the audacity of hope, who inspires change? Maybe someone who moves as easily with radical black activists as white centrists? Someone who could lead to real tangible change in the lives of everyday Americans?

                I’VE GOT SOME GOOD NEWSReport

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Your beef isn’t with me, but with the roughly 150 million other American citizens who are just fine with this state of affairs.

                Tell me what democracy looks like? This is what democracy looks like.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Eh, it’s also with the people who, when shown the system, argue against changing it.

                The ones who, when shown the system, explain why it’s good, actually.

                The ones who, when shown the system, point out that, sure, it deserves criticism, but don’t other things deserve criticism *MORE*? And isn’t it odd that you’re criticizing *THIS* instead of those things?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                That’s why I talk about culture so much.

                To me, there is a straight line connecting the militarized culture of a police force that instead of defending the citizens, subdue and forcing them to obey and a military that instead of defending the nation, subdues and forces other nations to obey.

                For about 90% of the Republicans party and about 30% of the Democratic party, this is a feature something to be celebrated.

                Militarism and belligerence and dominance is woven very deeply into our culture, so deeply that it becomes difficult even to formulate a language that can escape it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Funny, that’s why I talk about the Public Sector Unions that protect the bad actors from democratically elected politicians.

                For about 90% of the Republicans party and about 30% of the Democratic party, this is a feature something to be celebrated.

                If Blue cities have as bad (or worse) cop cultures than the Red ones, I submit: you shouldn’t be looking at celebration but at more subtle forms of approval.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Would a subtle form of approval be when protests against militarized policing are met with sneers and mockery?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Or when people arguing about changing the system get responses like “we need to change ourselves and how we think about things”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                You’re fishing for a disagreement where there isn’t one.

                Changing ourselves and our culture is both a precondition, and outcome of changing systems.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Okay. I’ve changed. I think about things differently now.

                Can we change the system yet? Or do we need to change the subject back to “us” again?Report

          • There are no scenarios under which an extra $1,400 goes out until Harris is VP and her replacement is sworn in. Until then, McConnell is the majority leader and has no interest in such a bill coming to the floor. He has already decided to take his chances in GA without the checks.

            Odds are long that the Senate adjourns the minute that they vote to override the Defense budget veto.Report