Kent Pitman

Kent Pitman
Location
New England, USA
Title
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Bio
I've been using the net in various roles—technical, social, and political—for the last 30 years. I'm disappointed that most forums don't pay for good writing and I'm ever in search of forums that do. (I've not seen any Tippem money, that's for sure.) And I worry some that our posting here for free could one day put paid writers in Closed Salon out of work. See my personal home page for more about me.

MY RECENT POSTS

JANUARY 19, 2010 10:46PM

Silver Linings in Massachusetts

Rate: 18 Flag

For Democrats there's a big storm ongoing in Massachusetts. But it has some silver linings.

Stop Fussing about The Filibuster

All too much attention has been paid to trying to get a veto-proof vote in the Senate. Fear of filibuster never used to stop Senators from conducting votes in the past. The Senate is designed, under ordinary circumstances, to require simple majority vote for most things. Yes, Republicans have lately been threatening the filibuster more often, but that doesn't mean they'll do it. They're just enjoying the fact that it makes the Democrats give up without trying. If their bluff were called and they really had to filibuster day after day as their only tool, rather than engaging debate, the citizenry would quickly tire of it.

So I'm with David Brin on this, when he says “Invite the filibuster”. With only 59 votes, the Democrats will have to just risk the filibuster or else they might as well all go home because they no longer pretend the magic number is even achievable against the Party of No, whose entire apparent strategy amounts to little more than blocking consensus.

Even if the Democrats do get filibustered, it will help them next election to be able to claim they voted in favor of things like Health Care and that the Republicans voted against. But if instead they never bring these things to vote, it will help them not at all to run on a platform of “Well, it wouldn't have worked so we didn't try.”

Wake-up Call

If the Democrat had won in Massachusetts, the Democratic party might have blown their planning for the next election, thinking there was no real threat. Voters might have stayed home thinking all was calm. Hopefully distress over what happened today will wake Democrats up to the need to organize better. Hopefully, too, disaffected Democrats who just want to throw away their vote on a protest will see how badly that can end up.

Howard Dean, speaking to Rachel Maddow tonight, said he thought the loss was no one's fault. In fact, I think Coakley ran a pretty ineffective campaign, and there's plenty of fault to deal with there in terms of just managing image and controlling message. But Dean is right that a lot of it is just the natural consequence of what Bush left us all with. To some degree it was inevitable that some people would still be experiencing pain, and would take it out on the party in power. Maybe not everyone, but perhaps a critical few percent.

It's almost like the game of eeny, meeny, miny, moe in which it matters whether the specific number of following words is odd or even. There's a pendulum swinging back and forth and it's not magic how the outcome is, it matters who's the odd person and who's the even one.

Boom. The economy crashes. Republicans are in disfavor. Enter Obama. He doesn't clean it all up. Democrats are in disfavor. Enter Scott Brown. He perhaps doesn't fix it either. Republicans now in less favor. How does this affect the 2010 election? Well, it may work out better for the Democrats than if no special election had happened, since it gives them a chance to rally. But then again, if they don't, the 2012 election will be hurt. So some of it relies on real politics, and some on casual chance and opportunity.

Bottom Line

For Democrats it was very important to win this. But now it's spilled milk, so it's time to move on. To quote Nietzsche, “What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.” Only I don't think he had it quite right. What he should have said is, “What doesn't kill you is an opportunity to become stronger, don't waste it.”


If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Thank you, Kent. The closing line about opportunity is perfect.
Thanks for visiting, Jimmy, and for the feedback about what caught your eye. I always like it when people do that.
Kent,

It seems nearly impossible to figure out what this election really means, if anything in terms of the national picture.

Regardless, I hope it does serve as a “wake-up call” pushing some change in the approach to issues by the representatives in congress. My own view is that nothing will change.

“Republicans have lately been threatening the filibuster more often, but that doesn't mean they'll do it. They're just enjoying the fact that it makes the Democrats give up without trying.”

I think you’re right in the above statement, but doesn’t it seem like the question that should be asked is, “Why do they give without trying?” Why do they?

RATED
I'm still unsure of the consequences of a filibuster. Why not let the Republicans have at it and then frame the issue as the obstructionist "them" versus the constructionist "us"?
Love the positive (spin, not spin) here, Kent. So many of us are really down and this post helped with that. I also love your last line. I saw Howard Dean tonight and I still wish he were the President, but that .is .another. story. Thanks!
Rick, I honestly think they're not very thoughtful and/or the leaders are not really leading. I think a bold leader can take a lost cause and turn it to victory. Whatever people think of his agenda now, Obama did that with the election—he showed that if he wants to, he can lead people. One reason I voted for him, in fact, even when his specific record was short on details, was that I knew that we'd go through some hard times, and he was just the sort of eloquent speaker who could help us survive the unsurvivable. I just wish he'd also use those skills for some more mundane uses of the bully pulpit. His problem isn't failed message, it's his sense of focus. In fairness, he has a lot on his plate. But I think even if he doesn't do it full-time, a few targeted public statements could matter a lot. But the specific decisions to cater to Lieberman and Snow were just stupid blunders, and they should learn from that, too.

Abrawang, that's Brin's point. I think he's right. Incidentally, I would also be happy if the filibuster went away.
wendy, I'm with you on that. Dean/Gore in 2012 would not trouble me at all.

Bonnie, certainly there are wounds that are debilitating, but I don't think the optimism is misplaced. And it's funny coming from Nietzsche, who I don't think of as the poster child for optimism. Glad you're on board with the other parts, though.
Kent: This is a very smart and welcome tonic. Part of what I've been dreading about a Coakley loss wasn't the magic # 60 but the endless second-guessing, the dire predictions and I-told-you-sos from pundits who began telling us so 48 hours ago. I can only hope your analysis -- prescription, actually -- is read, understood and acted upon by as many people as possible. Democrats need to wise up, quit bickering and pass the health care bill asap, and you tell us why and how. Thanks.
Okay, Kent. I'll take your word for it, but I'm still bumbed out. Thanks for the tenuous optimism.
Jeremiah, thanks. Frankly, I've been thinking this for days but didn't want to say anything so I wasn't accused of having given up without a fight... But really the campaign by Coakley was run poorly and it's no wonder she lost.

Steve, look at it this way—the Democrats have been not doing that well up to now. A “restoration of the status quo” wouldn't have been much to look forward to.
Kent, I can't see how the filibuster would go away anytime soon. But I'm still not clear on Senate procedure. Brin describes a filibuster where Senators have to ceaselessly talk. Wikipedia's article says:

"Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until either cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate."

Nonetheless, what to the Dems have to lose? They could probably get rid of those craven compromises and take their chances on some decent legislation.
Kent,

You write, “I honestly think they're not very thoughtful and/or the leaders are not really leading.”

“Thoughtful” --- what occurs to me as I read that is maybe it just depends on how you define that. Thoughtful about what, or in what direction, towards what goal?

Am I just more cynical than you, or does that seem like a valid question?
Rick, I mean to say they aren't doing what they should be doing. I tend to think they're smart enough to do better and it's not occurring to them to try. I think they're unaware of how bad what they're doing looks, they're not exploring all the options, they're not planning for obvious responses, a general dirth of thought. I guess I was employing understatement when I said "not very thoughtful".

Abrawang, my understanding had been that they still had to talk endlessly but I could be wrong. Maybe someone else reading along knows? Or maybe Wikipedia sources the info and you could follow the lead. (It's late and I'm tired or I might try...)
The problem with this silver lining is that the Massachusetts race has shown there is little upside for Dems in going to war for things like healthcare reform. It's very easy for them to conclude that results don't matter, and that your best chance for reelection is to stay out of the news and keep those lobbyists happy.
Norwonk, I don't see how anyone can be expected to be called a leader if they're worried about the next election. By definition, that's an exercise in following. Leading means being prepared not to be re-elected and focusing on fulfilling your campaign promises. If people did that, they'd probably be re-elected anyway.
I agree that had Coakley won the Dems would have been lulled to sleep. I also agree to bring on the filibuster... but actually make them stand there and read the phone book. Rated.
It's sad that in the time when we thought we had come so far, we find out that we really have come so little. Even in the most liberal state in the union, racism runs through the veins of the vast majority of all white people. How else could a victory by a Republican no less be explained? After all, this was Ted Kennedy's seat!! This was not just a senatorial seat of the U.S. government, but Ted Kennedy's seat and only someone Ted Kennedy or anyone who's death he may have directly or indirectly caused should have any say in who gets it. A porn star who pays taxes gets it??? What??? No, clearly we need a senator who makes sure to keep his vast sum of wealth in off-shore accounts free from taxation so he is free to proclaim how the wealthy skim by and he is a man of the people who is here to make sure they properly pay...well just so long as he doesn't have to do any "paying" himself. A man who many claim did nothing but fight for the rights of the less privileged, yet never is there even one record of such a thing happening that didn't also have the string attached of getting credit for it in the overall effort of securing your vote and his own personal agenda. Yes, I'm here working in this soup kitchen, oh by the way, remember to vote for me...yes, true devotion, through and through!!

The people of Massachusetts quite frankly must hate black people and more specifically President Obama. After all, if this race had been held in Texas, would we not be talking about how race was a factor? Mississippi, racists! Any state south of the Mason-Dixon line would clearly have a result tainted by racism. People there couldn't possibly but upset with someone on an issue related basis alone. There is a difference between being a party of No, and being a party of "No to that!" Voting against the healthcare bill isn't saying I don't want healthcare; it's saying that particular bill is bad. We keep hearing about how both sides basically agree about so much that can be improved, but do the Democrats go and work with the Republicans to get that portion passed? No, they don't, but yet they want to call them the party of No. When it seems they want to be the party of it has to be my way or nothing else, and I'll just say you are no to everything if you don't vote for my way. Name one concession made in healthcare to the Republicans...just one. I mean the bill is 2000 pages long, there has to be one provision where the Democrats came to Republicans and said, were the leaders and let's actually lead and get this done in the right way. Nope...doesn't exist. Instead they feel that leading means shoving your proposal through the process because we won and elections matter, remember. The people wanted this. Yes, we said we'd be transparent, and we aren't but the people don't really want that. Yes, we said we'd go after the cadillac plans, but we didn't mean the ones held by other Democrats, the people don't want that. Yes, we said we didn't want a mandate, but the people don't want that either. We are passing the exact legislation that the people voted for in 2008, in the same way; you can't speak badly against us. Clearly only the ones who do hate President Obama because they are racists!
My heartfelt thanks to you for squeezing this lemonade! I especially appreciate your take on the eeny/meanie even/odd dynamic. It does explain a bit of this.

Also - I love your revision of the Nietzsche - thanks for that one, Obi Wan!
Making the Repubs filibuster is a great idea. Bring Washington to a halt. Nothing would do more to cement the Republican image as the party of "no" than day after day of 24-hr news showing them reading the phone book. Eventually the public outcry would bring it to an end.
Citizen Justice can someone just once not pull bullshit race card. Get you head out of your ass
Thank you, Kent. Although Brown personally makes me gag, Martha Coakley really lost this one for herself. She pissed away her lead and turned the voters off.

I want to know A; WHY did we not use a reconciliation vote to pass a better health care bill? and B. WHY was a filibuster to be so feared and avoided at all costs? Let the Republicans explain at length why they're blocking everything American needs to accomplish for reasons OTHER than "We just want to screw Obama because he's not white and Republiccan." We should not only invite the filibuster, we should call their bluff and MAKE them do it.

And why haven't they done it? While they're in ideological right wing lock step, the Republicans would have a hard time coming up with logical reasons for their opposition that would hold water rather than just screaming "SOCIALISM! NAZISIM! FEAR, FIRE FOES AWAKE!" They don't want to have to come out with that town hall bullying stuff on the floor of the Senate.

I think though that the Democrats need to be bolder and lean further left, and the Republicans need to get their heads out of their behinds, and BOTH parties need to reinvent themselves.
" I think they're unaware of how bad what they're doing looks ..."

Do they care?
Kent, time to wake up.

Look it's not Bush's fault that she lost. She lost because the people of MA realize that the health care bill is nothing but bribes and back room deals. BTW, how many closed door, no Republicans allowed, meetings did they have to get this done? How many polls are available that say the people want this 2000 page POS bill? Not polls that say the people want some sort of health care reform, but this bill.

The Republicans didn't obstruct anything in this bill. They couldn't stop anything. The only reason they have pissed off a year is because they won't stop fighting with each other or looking for their bribes to go and vote on something. At no point did they ever need the first Republican to do anything. They could have done this in just a few weeks, but no, they have to get their bribe.

You complain about how the Republicans are the party of no. How is it that if both sides vote along party lines it's the Republican's who are not being bipartisan? Why can't the Dems vote with the Republicans? At some points I thought Snow did vote with you.

So go ahead and push how the Republicans obstructed this and they are the party of no. Then watch as the Republicans push back with how the Dems wanted to push down everybody's throat something they don't want at any cost. Watch as you are branded as the party of "smoky back room deals", and the party of special deals and vote buying and selling. Watch as you are branded as the party that won't keep their promises on what they will do. You don't need anything to get C-SPAN film something.

So Kent, you and your friends just keep on going down the road you're on. In 2010 when you are taken to the wood shed you can blame that on Bush too.
I agree. I think that democrats have no choice but to make some lemonade here. And, I have been thinking about Dean lately, wondering at what point he might throw his hat into the ring again?
Roger, thanks for the thoughts and support.

CJ, the truth is that this was just a badly run campaign. And in spite of Jane Smithie's comments (below yours), the problem is that one cannot afford to not organize. Scott Brown's campaign was slick (even if arguably misleading) and criticisms he made went unanswered at critical times. I could write more about this some other time, but this is not a victory for The Republican Way or a change in thought, this is a loss due to failing to tend to things that matter and that were easily tendable if the candidate had done it better.
Hi, Travellini—thanks for stopping by the lemonade concession.

IW, yes, I'd love to see YouTube go to town on that one. It would be like Bush after 9/11 ... Michael Moore could make a movie.

Doug, I wouldn't have said it that way but I agree the race card is out of place here. I tried to just look past it in my reply.

Shiral, what sinks the Dems is they don't use the power available to them in an environment where the the Republicans would. They didn't do reconciliation because they felt it wasn't intended for that, I think. They moralized. The Republicans would have just said "we can and we will." That's a fundamental philosophical divide. As for the question of why they do the tallying up of the filibuster, I think the behavior was evolved during a time when filibusters were used for serious reasons and when people cared about time use.

I recall something in Sun Tzu's The Art of War about how one should never fight a war they knew they were going to lose. But this referred to real wars with real carnage; I think the economic calculation of Congressional wars and the cost of fighting vs. not fighting is complicated, and it even has to take into account the fact that the decision to go to the floor or not with something is part of the war, it's not an avoidance of war. All of the actions and inactions are scrutinized now in ways they never previously were, and the tactics of how to deal with that tend to lag the technology, making a lot of the warfare on the matter get handled as issues of surprise tactics, new ways to use information, rather than as issues of routine. And even there, the Republicans are better adaptive tacticians than the Democrats; I think the Democrats have too much heart sometimes to do that.

The Democrats don't want to sink to the Republicans level, and that's the sad thing about Obama. He offered hope, another way, and yet the essence of that hope tends to be to offer compromise to people who don't want compromise. He should instead be just having the courage of what he said his convictions were and pushing through with grace for what he promised.

There was a good analysis on NPR with Tom Ashbrook today. I don't know who said it. They said that Obama is a consensus builder by nature and a populist only by last resort. He had populism behind him getting elected but as soon as he was comfortable he settled back into consensus building. (The quote was slightly different but that was the essence of it.)
Rick, I think they care about winning. I don't really know how to answer the question about caring how it looks. But they should care.
It simply is NOT possible that the public is against the health proposal as it is written now, nor could they be against backdoor deals to secure votes for it, nor could they be against the lack of open C-SPAN coverage, nor could it be that they do want just a DIFFERENT KIND (as opposed to no) of healthcare reform than what is being offered, nor could it be that they are against special preferences given to exclude the taxes on premium plans from only individuals that happen to mostly support the Democratic party (this is for what's best for THE PEOPLE remember), nor could they be against pushing this down the people's collective throat on Christmas Eve (there is something so magical about the birth of Christ being tied to mandatory enrollment); this is clearly the result of one thing only...RACISM. Yet again, white people hate Pres. Obama because he is 1/2 white. Furthermore, not enough black people showed up at the polls to also exhibit enough reverse racism to give a Democratic victory because they hate women. When can this country finally get more mature and stop being so racist???
Jane, as noted already in my reply to CJ above, the problem is that it's a kind of arms race, and once the Republicans are making their tactic be organizing, if you fail to organize they will simply outnumber you at the ballot box. The issue is that when the whole population doesn't show up, an underlying assumption of the election is that people will show up in numbers proportional to the overall issue, not numbers proportional to only one side. Consider that if only 10% of people support something but all of them end up at the ballot box in an election that gets 15% turnout, the party that got the 10% turnout will be seen to have a 2:1 majority. If the 90% majority is not organized, especially in an off-year, the fact that it's overwhelmingly one way will not even show up. And if they can turn the momentum of such an off-year thing into news about how the mood is swinging against the Dems, the Republicans will be in the catbird seat. They are masters of asymmetric warfare and the Democrats had better take notice or be trounced.
Catnlion, the Democrats spent lots of time catering to the issues of Republicans and making all kinds of concessions to the point that the population is angry that they made too many concesssions, not too few. You can spin it otherwise, but that won't make it true. Further, Republicans discussed openly the strategies of both obstructionism and trying to make sure Obama fails. The Democrats made no such attempt at blatant obstructionism nor have they ever, to my knowledge, been on a mission to make a President fail. So there is just not symmetry here. I thank you for your contribution to the conversation, but I just don't buy what you're selling.

Akopsa, I like Dean and think he would do well with this issue, but one issue that worries me was raised indirectly on NPR today. It may be that the problem was doing health care first, instead of the economy. This puts the Democrats on the defensive about the economy. If that causes Obama to be in disfavor, then correcting it by someone associated with health care as your primary candidate may be trouble (even if Dean actually is competent at other things—it could be a perception thing). So Dean might not be timed well in 2012. But we'll see how people are feeling about health care then, too. The silver lining again if electing Brown sinks the health care bill is that the Republicans will have to answer for that having been the thing to do.

Banana, thanks for visiting. Nice to see new faces in the crowd.

CJ, there might have been some of that—in a big population it is nearly impossible to say there is none of any particular point of view—but I can't buy that it's the whole of the problem nor perhaps even the majority part. I suggest you write a blog on this topic since responding to it in detail is something I don't have room for here and since I'm sure people would be happy to debate you on it.
You think it's "some" of that??? That's why liberals don't get it. It's so much more than just "some" of that. Although you could always fall back to the position that it is racism that was the true cause of the turnout. Maybe now both sides will realize that the people are not saying "No" to healthcare, but instead just not that!
CJ, with respect, the election in Massachusetts was not even about race. It's ridiculous to think that one white person was elected over another entirely because somewhere someone harbors race resentment for some third person, even if it's the President. It might have played a part in the mind of some people that connect that up, but a lot of Massachusetts voters, including some who voted for Brown I'm quite sure, were not doing it to send a racial hategram to Obama. But either way, you've made your point and I don't think it needs to be belabored.
Congrats! Now if we can continue to apply this same reasoning whenever a democrat or the president's policies get voted against in southern states! That was my who point! It's completely stupid that racism is the cause for being against the president as the democrats have cried far too many times (all while happily accepting reverse racism votes from black people (no wait, on the ISSUES ALONE, I'm sure there's a 93% support rate). Yet had this latest contest not been in MA, but TX, TN, MS, etc. racism would be getting screamed from the rooftops.
CJ, I don't know. Perhaps. But MA is not those states. We elected a black governor, for example. If it was all about racism here, it would have been easy for the allegedly racist population to show their feelings directly and they didn't. Hence I feel confident in saying it's more complex than you make it. I'm not discounting that there can be some effect of racism anywhere. I'm just saying I don't think that's the entire thing. And personally I don't think it's the dominant thing though that's harder to show..