>I guess the moral is, the nutsos alone aren’t the threat. They didn’t arise from the ether as fully-formed crackpots ready to ruin some bright January day in our dear nation. They’re here because the system is breaking. Just because there’s a plausible future where we can all look back in hindsight and say, “Yeah, that wasn’t so big of a deal after all!”, doesn’t mean that there’s no threat. Just because the powder keg hasn’t exploded after 100 years, and maybe won’t explode for another 100 after that, doesn’t mean it can’t ignite in Year 201.
The problem with changing the system is that a lot of politicians like being able to hide behind the filibuster so they can continue to make deals with corporate lobbyists. They like the system as it is. And they don't want to switch to a talking filibuster or one that requires the minority to find 40 votes to sustain it, because they don't want to have to spend a whole lot of time on the floor. They'd rather spend it fundraising and making backroom deals.
Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are just the tip of the iceberg in that regard. They take the heat so other Democrats don't have to. Sure, this is probably Manchin's last term and Sinema may end up being the bad guy in this whole debate, but the thing is, they've got cushy jobs on K Street waiting for them on the other side of any election loss. And once they're gone, more such politicians will undoubtedly emerge.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the personal motivations. I think that at the end of the day, while they matter a little bit, it's only JUST that little bit.
I think most politicians, especially Senators, think they're doing noble things. They think, "If I take this cushy job after I'm turned out of office, well, I worked pretty damn hard to get here, and it'll be OK as long as I still do what I believe in".
I think that it's usually just not as simple as quid-pro-quo. The simplest we can maybe boil it down is "conflict of interest leads to self-justification to make suboptimal decisions seem optimal". It's not that we're constantly being "sold out", it's that the leaders look at tough situations, and try to figure out what's the most progress they can get while pleasing their donors.
Of course, none of that is nearly as ideal as just having a healthy multiparty system.
>I guess the moral is, the nutsos alone aren’t the threat. They didn’t arise from the ether as fully-formed crackpots ready to ruin some bright January day in our dear nation. They’re here because the system is breaking. Just because there’s a plausible future where we can all look back in hindsight and say, “Yeah, that wasn’t so big of a deal after all!”, doesn’t mean that there’s no threat. Just because the powder keg hasn’t exploded after 100 years, and maybe won’t explode for another 100 after that, doesn’t mean it can’t ignite in Year 201.
The problem with changing the system is that a lot of politicians like being able to hide behind the filibuster so they can continue to make deals with corporate lobbyists. They like the system as it is. And they don't want to switch to a talking filibuster or one that requires the minority to find 40 votes to sustain it, because they don't want to have to spend a whole lot of time on the floor. They'd rather spend it fundraising and making backroom deals.
Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are just the tip of the iceberg in that regard. They take the heat so other Democrats don't have to. Sure, this is probably Manchin's last term and Sinema may end up being the bad guy in this whole debate, but the thing is, they've got cushy jobs on K Street waiting for them on the other side of any election loss. And once they're gone, more such politicians will undoubtedly emerge.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the personal motivations. I think that at the end of the day, while they matter a little bit, it's only JUST that little bit.
I think most politicians, especially Senators, think they're doing noble things. They think, "If I take this cushy job after I'm turned out of office, well, I worked pretty damn hard to get here, and it'll be OK as long as I still do what I believe in".
I think that it's usually just not as simple as quid-pro-quo. The simplest we can maybe boil it down is "conflict of interest leads to self-justification to make suboptimal decisions seem optimal". It's not that we're constantly being "sold out", it's that the leaders look at tough situations, and try to figure out what's the most progress they can get while pleasing their donors.
Of course, none of that is nearly as ideal as just having a healthy multiparty system.