There's a lot of griping about on democracy being insufficient, unable to do real things. This is a long long long article about sick contortions we currently have to make to cater to one man to get anything at all. I feel like a lot of folks are itching to cancel democracy, but imo, I'd much rather we just try to unjam things up more. We should make it easier for government to experiment & try things. For future governments to unwind/redo & iterate. Doing any kind of a job feels impossible with the legalistic adversarialism & unwavering post-Hastert Rule divide. Democracy has gotten jammed up & this whole article feels less a testament to hard work & long negotiations: it's a testamemt to how a party with overwhelming popular support needed any kind of a chance to actually try & do anything at all, & how overly checked & imbalanced that has become.
I have a hard time scoping how big these demands really are, but insisting we drill more oil is a particularly vulgar Manchin demand, one that deliberately pissess on the graves of our planet's climate,
> The law includes requirements — some created by Manchin himself — that would further oil and gas development on federal lands and waters. New renewable power projects on federal lands are contingent on oil and gas leasing over the next decade, and there are mandates to sell drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska's Cook Inlet.
I also just feel like the timing of 18 months of this congress being absolutely useless, then finally right before election season at the 23rd hour finally doing something is, shall we say conspicuous. This all feels a bit staged. Not that I have a hard time believing one WV senator would have been so instransigent & unbenevolent.
Unfortunately, I don't believe it can be fixed at the legislative level. It is horrific that the checks-and-balances are so deeply in conflict with a thumb on the scale in favor of the status quo, but any tweak you do ends up as either "tyranny of the majority" or "tyranny of the minority".
The issue, I believe, is that Manchin was engaging in legitimate disagreement. I don't particularly like it, but it's the kind of thing envisioned by democracy. The problem is that he was pulling out his legitimate disagreement in a context where absolute 100% consensus was required, because 50% of the Senators disagreed without even any attempt at legitimacy. Not a single one would even discuss common ground.
They wouldn't do that because they were told not to, by their constituents. That was the platform they ran on, and their voters approve.
Democracy has gotten jammed up, because lots of people want it to be jammed up. They didn't send a directive of "here are the things we care about and here are the things we are willing to negotiate about". They said "Do not negotiate about anything." At this moment, one of the few even willing to suggest negotiating stands a very good chance of losing her party's nomination.
I don't have a hard time believing one Senator is so intransigent. I have a hard time believing that such a huge fraction of the country is so intransigent that all of the focus comes down to that one man. But it is very clearly the case.
3 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 19.6 ms ] threadI have a hard time scoping how big these demands really are, but insisting we drill more oil is a particularly vulgar Manchin demand, one that deliberately pissess on the graves of our planet's climate,
> The law includes requirements — some created by Manchin himself — that would further oil and gas development on federal lands and waters. New renewable power projects on federal lands are contingent on oil and gas leasing over the next decade, and there are mandates to sell drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska's Cook Inlet.
I also just feel like the timing of 18 months of this congress being absolutely useless, then finally right before election season at the 23rd hour finally doing something is, shall we say conspicuous. This all feels a bit staged. Not that I have a hard time believing one WV senator would have been so instransigent & unbenevolent.
The issue, I believe, is that Manchin was engaging in legitimate disagreement. I don't particularly like it, but it's the kind of thing envisioned by democracy. The problem is that he was pulling out his legitimate disagreement in a context where absolute 100% consensus was required, because 50% of the Senators disagreed without even any attempt at legitimacy. Not a single one would even discuss common ground.
They wouldn't do that because they were told not to, by their constituents. That was the platform they ran on, and their voters approve.
Democracy has gotten jammed up, because lots of people want it to be jammed up. They didn't send a directive of "here are the things we care about and here are the things we are willing to negotiate about". They said "Do not negotiate about anything." At this moment, one of the few even willing to suggest negotiating stands a very good chance of losing her party's nomination.
I don't have a hard time believing one Senator is so intransigent. I have a hard time believing that such a huge fraction of the country is so intransigent that all of the focus comes down to that one man. But it is very clearly the case.