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
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.
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.
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.
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.