That’s because the rule of law is dead, the White House Chief of Staff says the president has plenary authority, and thus, they don’t need congress anymore. Thus, the Supreme Wanker of the House closes it down, and shit’s basically over.
Even Russia and China still need some form of a functioning government to get things done. This is something else.
Even Russia and China still need some form of a functioning government
Are we really comparing United Russia to the Chinese Communist Party? There are quite a few stark differences. Their only real comparison is both being single-party majorities.
This is something else.
Sure. The Republican House doesn’t benefit from a progressive Dem in their chamber. When they’ve got a meager 2 vote margin for majority, it hurts them far more than it helps.
This is drastically different from China which has a eight different minor parties (including thirteen seats in the Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League) or Russia which has four minor parties in the State Duma, none of which have any hope of securing a governing majority even fully united. Seating an individual in this instance would have no material impact on the legislature’s majority.
The thing that lets these governments function is the single-party state of affairs. The Senate Democrats stalling a CR bill that lacks extensions for critical public health care and assorted social services wouldn’t be possible in Russia or China. In part, because they don’t have a Bicameral Legislature that governs by supermajority (perhaps a dumb idea to begin with?) And in part, because the Chief Executive isn’t directly at odds with the obstructive minority party.
If Xi’s CCP in the National People’s Congress only had 1489 deputies, rather than 2550, we could conceivably see them playing these procedural tricks to keep another seat from flipping.
I’d say a better comparison to the US would be Macron’s position in France, with three failed PM appointments obstructed by a minority coalition of rival parties.
If the Democrats need to wait for Republican consent before they can do anything, then democracy in the US is already done for.
If there’s genuinely no path to onboard a duly elected senator without going through the majority leader, there’s no point in ever swearing in a member of the opposition party again
If the Democrats need to wait for Republican consent before they can do anything, then democracy in the US is already done for.
That’s sort of the trick. Nationally, Dems can blame the LGBTQ caucus and those damned anti-genocide protesters for denying them a House majority and causing a Republican wave year. They can just throw up there hands and say “Nothing we can do! Vote harder next time.”
But statewide? Gavin Newsome’s Democrats have fully control of the state as do J.B. Pritsker’s. These are big blue cities with large Dem constituencies and progressive municipal governments. They have authority to act, retributively. They have their own state national guards, sheriffs offices, and police. They can lead an active resistance if they choose to do so.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear, but I’m specifically talking about onboarding an elected US senator.
Even ignoring the unique incompetence of the Democrats, a congressional system where a minority party can only onboard a newly elected congressperson on the timetable of the majority leader is deeply fucked, and ripe for abuse.
I don’t mean to discount anything you’ve said, but this is a very specific crack in our congressional system.
I’m specifically talking about onboarding an elected US senator
Well, Adelita Grijalva was elected to Arizona’s 7th district house seat.
Even ignoring the unique incompetence of the Democrats, a congressional system where a minority party can only onboard a newly elected congressperson on the timetable of the majority leader is deeply fucked, and ripe for abuse.
As far as I’m aware, they played a pedantic procedural game to drag her swearing in out until the end of the Congressional period.
And while I agree its ripe for abuse, that’s how Congress seems to like it. We’ve had a Strong Speaker system since at least Hastert and it’s made a lot of people very rich.
this is a very specific crack in our congressional system.
It’s a general flaw in governments operating with slim majorities. The reward in the system is to maintain that majority at all costs, because you’re powerless without it.
Ah, I was wrong about her being a senator; she’s a representative, but still at the congressional level, so the rest of my position stands.
