Make a New Normal

Democracy Thrives on Immediacy

One of our oldest sayings is “time heals all wounds”. That regardless of what has happened, a scab will form eventually. Of course, we have misguided expectations. We hear the word heal and we assume all will go back to normal.

But there is no “normal”. There is progress and there is stasis, but no normal.

Hatfield & McCoy Dinner Feud
Hatfield & McCoy Dinner Feud (Photo credit: Old Shoe Woman)

One of the things that the Wisconsin Recall has highlighted is the buffer of time: how distance from actions gives the sheen of democracy: that the same ol’ song is being sung. With the passing of time, the battles between the Hatfields and McCoys look normal and routine. That it is business as usual. And the inept media is unable to see its place as anything other than supporter of that status quo.

What kicked off the recall effort was not a normal Republican doing Republicanny things in a normal way. He was a Republican who misrepresented his priorities in the election and in office, moved within his first week to rewrite a balanced budget for 2011 so that it would be out of balance and therefore grant him emergency authority. Within the first three months, he was stripping unions of their rights and thumbing his nose at his political opponents like a schoolyard bully. Any right-thinking person would recognize that this is anything but normal. But, the state’s recall law gave him a year before a recall could be called, which gave him an additional six months (so 1.5 years in total) to campaign for the new election and change the narrative. And by now, his transgressions have been scrubbed into that business as usual, partisan bickering that just goes on between the Hatfields and McCoys. Which plays to his advantage and makes his transgressions disappear.

Despite our preference for reasonableness and coming to fair conclusions, time doesn’t grant us this. Instead, it merely delays our more impulsive selves and allows a vacuum of confusion to mess up our living room. Lost in the recall talk was how Gov. Walker created the budget crisis, as he was able to establish the narrative over the last year and a half as an economic savior, averting disaster of his own making. What a  scoundrel hero!

If we set aside our feelings about recalls or partisanship for a moment and deal with a political structure that seems to reward tricksters and liars and gives them a cushion of four years to manufacture how we perceive them, we must recognize that time does not enhance democracy. Like police that must storm a company before it is able to shred its documents, democracy thrives on immediacy. It operates in the now. Our four-year terms challenge us to actually assess a politician’s tenure because they have had plenty of time to craft their own narrative. Democracy survives on honesty and dies behind curtains of lies and secluded alleyways in which average people are afraid to walk.

This week we watched a man, whose crime was swift, hide it in the fog of time. Eventually a wound like this one will scab over, but its bound to leave a scar. And in a few years, if we’re smart, we’ll look back at the scar and wonder what could have been, and what foolishness brought that wound in the first place. But if the media will have their say, and they already have, that reflection will be more foggy and we’ll forget all about the scar and treat it, instead, as if it has always been there; as if we were born with it. All reasonableness is lost and only misdirection remains.

What are your thoughts on immediacy and democracy?

[See also yesterday’s response: Ideologies Do Not Win]

13 responses

  1. Bill Harrison Avatar
    Bill Harrison

    Would that the same logic apply to the current national administration and it’s leader.

    1. Absolutely. Though most of the complaints of swift action on his part describe the first two years rather than two-three months. And the admin. worked on the Affordable Care Act for a year, and that was called too fast by many people that would become Walker supporters.

    2. And Hi Bill! Great to hear from you!

      1. Bill Harrison Avatar
        Bill Harrison

        Hey Drew . . . best to you, Rose and the kids. Your point about time is interesting. Back when time was taken to compromise artfully, the time was worth it, But today with such polarization I’m doubtful. My saddest example of the abuse possible when one party gains total control is that, with the economy in a tailspin, the national democrats chose to ignore it and go all in on ACA. Regardless of one’s view of the efficacy and/or constitutionality of ACA, that was a terrible oversight and misuse of power. Somehow we need to expect our politicians to do what’s needed and good for the economy and the people rather than playing power politics. I would submit that Walker diid what he said he’d do in the face of economic crisis . . . Obama and company spent most of the two years, when they were in total control, working on ideological issues and, at best, delaying economic recovery. The hard truth is that we’re broke and in debt to an extent that can’t be ignored . . . some contracts are going to need to be renegotiated / restrucured if we’re to get out of the ditch. The overall good can’t be made hostage to agreements that were made in very different times and circumstances. I remain completely disappointed that Obama completely ignored the serious work and recommendations of the Simpson – Bowles Commission that he appointed. It still represents the best chance we have to get things back on track.

        1. Do remember that one of the first things Pres. Obama did was to pass the Stimulus Bill. Between its being too small to do its intended job and the rosy projections given by his economic team (dominated by Bush and Clinton people), the Stimulus was only modestly effective, but nowhere near enough to offset the loss of state-level public sector jobs that dominated our job losses from 2009-11. He knew he’d get one crack at that apple and that the crack would not be enough. That was one of the main arguments he made in the way the ACA was written: that unlike the Massachusetts plan (which has been getting rave reviews lately), it was written to save money and create jobs. He intended the ACA as a minor stimulus.

          I, too, hate that he moved away from jobs so long and got embroiled in this. Of course, that was the political calculation, wasn’t it? He should have known that anything bearing the marks of a signature piece of legislation would get stymied in the Senate by the Minority Leader. He had said as much. I blame Sen. Reid for keeping the current filibuster rules so simple that Ben Nelson doesn’t actually have to literally stand up and block legislation while bloviating. There needs to be a political punishment for filibustering, and right now there isn’t. Pres. Obama made a calculation that smart people are tempted to make: he led with a negotiation position from which he could do little to compromise. I was taught that you can’t start from an extreme position, because that insults the other party and poisons the talks. But if you start from a more reasonable position, both parties are allowed to move to a compromise. Pres. Obama calculated that he could start from a moderate position, one that conservatives have argued for decades, and prove that he wasn’t trying for the liberal holy grail (single payer). Unfortunately, all parties treated this as a starting position and Pres. Obama couldn’t move very much to cut a deal. It also seemed to reward the GOP’s extreme position by showing that he would compromise to them without their need to reciprocate.

          All of that is the same reason he didn’t support Simpson-Bowles as he should have; the political well was poisoned to compromise. If he had said he was for it, half of Congress would have said they were against it. My understanding is that I don’t care who starts the fight, it is up to both parties to end it. But as long as Republicans benefit from fighting, I don’t see how it can end.

    3. Tom Downs Avatar
      Tom Downs

      Certainly. However, in that case we don’t find such heavy-handed uses of power to effect changes that seem so out of line with expectations. There is something I don’t understand about this. When I break a contract there are legal consequences. Why aren’t there legal consequences when the government of Wisconsin breaks a contract? The impression I’m left with is that the full faith and credit of that government is worthless.

      1. But that is part of the plan. It is why Former Pres. Bush appointed John Bolton to the U.N.: because you need someone who hates the institution to “reform” it. or so the argument goes. What happened was that he “surprise!” intensified the disdain the rest of the world felt toward the U.S., which was part of the goal. So part of the plan is to prove how bad government is by being bad at government. This is mixed with a cocktail of authoritarianism (as we’ve talked about before) which is where the Rick Snyder connection makes sense. They circumvent the democratic process to produce unparalleled power in the state house. This has been embedded in the ideology for generations.

  2. You have been guzzling the liberal Kool aid completely unfiltered with facts and logic. Obama rammed through the act in violation of his promise to televise the negotiations on C Span. He forced Congress to sign the bill without anyone reading it. It is grounds for immediate disbarrment for any lawyer to have a client sign a document that they have not read completely and understood thoroughly. It is anything but affordable. College students have had their health care insurance premiums double this year thanks to this heinous act. He has given out over 3,000 exemptions to this thing that was supposed to be for all. He has added 30 milllion to the patient rolls without any increase in medical schools or medical school grads which is a disaster in the making. He has decreased payments to docs with Medicare and Medicaid patients forcing many docs to drop these patients or refuse to take more. He completely cut the repubs out of the decision making process and violated the Sunshine Act and met in total secrecy and vomited out this monstrosity that will be declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Makes me really question your intelligence

    1. Hi John,
      I was speaking to the swiftness of the action, rather than the details that went into the action. And, as we saw how drawn out the conversation was in the process of writing, debating, rewriting, debating some more, and then passing changed the conversation about the ACA from its proposal to its passage and in 2014 when it is all adopted. This protracted process kept it in the public consciousness for the last 3 years. On the other hand, the process of giving himself emergency powers (which happened here in Michigan too, with Gov. Snyder) and forcing changes quickly and immediately and with procedures that eliminate debate had the effect of putting law in place and then moving on, which most people did. This means that we don’t remember what happened because it is in the past, as opposed to the Pres. and the ACA which has never been put in the past. My original point was about what time does to the democratic process, and the ACA is a different sort of example about how time has changed its understanding relative to democracy.

  3. Well by that standard the narcissist in chief is guilty as hell. He has bypassed Congress numerous times and attempted to officiate by exective fiat. He totally violated the bankruptcy laws and bypassed the shareholders in favor of the unions for one little example in the bailout of GM and Chrysler

    1. I know where you are coming from. I don’t think any of us should be comfortable with that amount of centralized power. It is certainly frightening. I do think there is a good case for extenuating circumstances. Not in general, but in cases in which important things need to happen and can’t. The basic problem at the federal level is that the Constitution’s limitations have been extended by the Supreme Court to create a relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches that, when following the letter of the law (as interpreted by the SC), make a totally unworkable relationship. Up until now, we have relied on the the Prez. and Congress to push and pull and eventually compromise. But the House has decided (for the first time since the mid 19th Century) to virtually never compromise. I totally get that: it is what I begged the House to do in 2006. However this has meant judges aren’t getting approved and messing up the court system, government agencies are understaffed and making cutbacks to service, not because they are out of money, but because political appointees aren’t getting through. The very standards of our country rely on some interaction–hence my argument about paying more attention to the fighting about who started it rather than what we can do about it. If the GOP were really interested in compromise, they would extend an olive branch, as the Prez. has from time to time.

      Of course, the auto bailouts were a drop in the bucket compared to the bank bailouts: and those bailouts came out to be essentially loans, while the banks walked away with free cash, which they (unsurprisingly) wasted and still passed the burden to the taxpayers and customers.

  4. What olive branch did the prez offer the repubs? He completely shut them down and rejected everyone of their compromise offers and said it is my way or no way. He did not bother to check with the docs about the health care reform. It was all about the insurance companies and the liberal agenda and it is a monstrosity.

    1. Hi John,
      I’m sorry, but I have to totally disagree. The ACA was written with conservatives, physicians, healthcare professionals, and the insurance lobby. It was heavily based on existing legislation supported by all of these groups, and it is a mischaracterization to say that members of the GOP weren’t involved (but a popular refrain by those that weren’t invited, which I totally get). The entire ACA is a conservative’s dream–literally, its basis was dreamed up by conservatives–and does the very thing the GOP wanted in the first place: to preserve the insurance companies and their ability to make big profits on the backs of everyone. As I responded to Bill, the President has made attempts to reach across the aisle, as have the leaders in Congress. I will grant that Pres. Obama doesn’t come across as the best negotiator, but from what we can see, the GOP has rejected things in which they win 5-to-1 on the deal. The GOP proposals have tended to represent either an extreme position or contain a poison pill that don’t represent true compromise. And all of this from behind the curtain of “we have a different view about the role of government”, which has gone uncontested by the media.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.