Modern Orthodoxy

After the 2012 election, orthodoxy, actually the lack of orthodoxy, will prevent Democrats from either enacting or stopping Republicans from trying to repeal progressive legislation.

As the last two years have shown, who is president can have little effect on passage or repeal of laws (with the notable exception of presidential signing statements or executive orders that often circumvent the legislative process).

A successful legislative agenda is determined by a handful of elected officials, usually senators who can freeze government action through whim or conviction. While for centuries much of the world, civilized and not, went to war over real or imagined slights to kings, tribal chiefs or their emissaries, American democracy shielded us from these petty but mortal combustions. We are now engaged, however, in the political equivalent of a bloody battle for control of the state wherein one side gives no quarter and the other must fend off defections to a united front.

With the near total disappearance of a moderate wing of the Republican party, we have on one side of the battlefield an army of representatives rigid in their orthodoxy to an ideology demanding lower taxes, less government, fewer safety net provisions, and more freedom to act as one pleases unless those actions conflict with religious, mostly fundamentalist Christian, beliefs. In other words, no abortions, no same sex marriages, no gay rights, more Creationism classes.

Democrats, on the other hand, are splintered. Some resist abortion rights. Some favor gun rights. Some battle immigration reform. Some question universal health care. Unlike the GOP, Democratic leaders command little party discipline.

Which brings me back to my starting point. Republicans practice orthodox politics. You’re either a hard line conservative (becoming harder every day) or you’d better find a new line of work. They have shown a willingness to shut down the government, or at least limit its effectiveness by holding up key confirmations or stripping necessary funding from departments in disfavor. It takes just one senator, often done anonymously, to derail legislation or scuttle a presidential appointment.

And when legislation does get discussed in the Senate, it takes a super-majority of 60 to end debate, not a simple majority.

All this means that barring an unexpected Democratic tsunami victory in 2012, the Dems will be hard-pressed to advance their agenda in 2013 and beyond. Even when they had a super-majority in 2009-2010 the lack of orthodoxy revealed how disjointed Democrats are, how even one of their own could challenge party leadership and the president.

If Republicans gain control of the Senate, but not a super-majority, they won’t be as powerless because there always seem to be a few Democrats willing to cozy up to the GOP in the hope of notching a conservative record that could be defended back home come the next election.

Politics used to be known as the art of compromise. Now it is strict orthodoxy to dogma, no matter how damaging it might be to the welfare of the nation.