In such days, once the amount of polarization, in Western politics,when is the next presidential election is pro bably, in its maximal, recent surveys suggest, approximately 35 percent of those respondents, are strong supporters of President Trump (as well as will, almost certainly, vote to get him at the upcoming election), and approximately 40 percent have signaled they will almost surely vote . This leaves, around 25 to 30 percent of their electorate, who’ll likely find, determine, who’s chosen, at 2020.
Read the full post
Can I please add, to my general disgust with Pelosi, it is her baby voice, as well as her inability to TALK..Just be articulate, be cutting, say things that resonate and matter,, and please not in a soft baby voice, Nancy. How did this woman ever rise to the top, I would really like to know...
2
@grace thosen
Wow.... I'm sad to read that's all you take away from her years of experirnce. The most powerful female legislator currently in office!!
1
The more I read stuff the like this, the more and more term limits on Congress seem a good idea. Limits how much you can put the needs of a small part of the population and their votes above the common good if you don't have to worry about trying to hold on forever.
2
Last I looked, the "Lost Art" of legislating also includes being able to realize that you don't come from a position of power. The democrats only hold the House and nothing else...something their base, their leadership and the republicans need to be reminded of. The democrats are not the majority as the media is trying to make out. The art also includes being able to negotiate when you are not in a position of power to get what you want and to compromise (a dirty word in DC) to get it. President Trump has invited her to the WH several times now and she declined to negotiate. So what this say s to me is that an establishment democrat is determined to kick the immigration can down the road as she has done for decades. It is time for immigration reform including pathways to citizenship but we have "leaders" like Pelosi that just won't address it even in a shutdown...this is definitely the leadership we need. /sarc off
2
I just remember when she said you have to pass in order to find out what's in it... Referring to AHCA. Hopefully she's more genuine in the future.
4
@Jeremy Schwartz
1 of her 1st attempts as leader is to get around the shutdown and kick the immigration reform can down the road again as she has done for decades. If there is a time for negotiation and compromise from both sides, this is it.
The media has tried to hold the democrats harmless in this shutdown when they are just as much a cause of it as president Trump is. Until we can get past the media not being at all objective and not reporting truthfully and objectively, the democrats will continue to take advantage of the propaganda being passed off as news today.
3
Someone who read this article might think that John Boehner, the Republican Speaker from 2011 to 2015, favored open process and only backed off "after his caucus rebelled".
I was alive and paying attention between 2011 and 2015. I can assure you that - as the figures given in this article prove - Boehner despised the open rule. Fro 2011 to 2012, before the alleged rebellion, Boehner only had a 4.9% bipartisan vote on amendments rate - almost as bad as conman Ryan's! And some of that 4.9% (perhaps all) was for reasons that do not redound to Boehner's credit.
What confuses the authors is apparently that Boehner liked to make empty statements to the effect that he favored open process. With Donald Trump as President, everyone should realize that a politician saying he favors something can sometimes be a dirty lie.
6
One set of rules; unchangeable no matter who is in control, and LIVE with it. She's right, even though there's going to be a learning curve in the general population where it's gonna hurt a little - but the public has to learn sooner or later, just how the government operates. As far as I'm concerned, anything the republicans have done in recent years is the prelude to a takeover. Time for that to stop.
4
To have such an individual with this acumen grounding and outlook - two heartbeats away from 1600 Penn is frightening
3
Paul Ryan at 3.7%. And to think he was the GOP's savior because he was such a "policy wonk." What a joke.
3
When Republicans are in charge, they do everything possible to shore up their power.
When Democrats are in charge, they do everything possible to share their power.
Why? Why is it that whenever Democrats become in charge of something, the immediate talking point is that there should be bipartisanship and cooperation in Washington. Its like clockwork and comes from not only the media, but from within the party itself.
Meanwhile Republicans never utter the word bipartisan while in power. Only that they will crush the Democrats and undo anything that they have accomplished.
17
Between the media, Mueller, and numerous hopefuls, bantering about to run against Trump, all while the nations focus is on impeachment , I doubt most folks, expect anything to be accomplished at the swamp/deep state. The system remains broken.
1
Really?? The GOP has spent every waking moment since 2011 pretending the Democrats don't even exist. They treat every elected official as utterly illegitimate unless they are Republican and then they just ignore them. Mitch McConnell has said he won't even bring something to the floor unless Trump will sign it, neutering not just Democratic Senators (and thereby their constituents) but Republicans who oppose the bill, should there ever be a Republican willing to put their vote where their mouth is. He has singlehandedly broken the Senate.
There is too much at stake here. The Democrats are not going to impeach Trump unless he would be convicted and that is not going to happen. It would end up strengthening him (as the failed recall did to Scott Walker). The best option is to take a principled stand on what matters and let the GOP vote it all down. Make them sweat in 2020 defending their minority positions in favor of taking away healthcare, packing the Supreme Court with unprincipled hacks who believe that religious law is more important than the Constitution and refusing to put the country over the party.
17
Pelosi disgraced herself by agreeing to rules changes from the cursed "Problem Solvers" caucus funded by No Labels corporate dollars whose sole purpose is to neutralize Democratic resistance to Trump. Bipartisanship is the last thing we need, particularly with Republicans still in charge of the Senate and White House. These rules will allow Republicans to join with a minority of Democrats (the trash ones) to force through bills that can pass the GOP Senate and Trump will sign.
Democrats need to primary and defeat Gottheimer, Suozzi, Rice and all the other IDC-like #FakeDem Blue Dogs in 2020. Our job is to block Republicans, never to work with them.
2
As the graph in this article shows, when Pelosi was Speaker last time she allowed 8 times as many amendments with bipartisan support than Boehner or Ryan did after Republicans assumed the majority. McConnell is still preventing most amendments with bipartisan support.
A better question for this article to investigate would be why do Republicans suppress bipartisanship, why don't they represent all Americans when they are in the majority? The question for Americans is why a Republicans still in the majority in the Senate?
12
The only bipartisan aspect we should truly consider is removing a tyrant from power. Honestly I don't know how it works on the hill but it's hard enough to trust your own and the republicans have done their best to destroy every federal institution and corrupt the rule of law. We have seen some of the most corrupt people take offices of power. There is no dealing with these people and in reality you are allowing them to pull you halfway in their direction.
5
Comments range from recommendations that the new Speaker decide if an amendment is meant to improve legislation to recommendations that the supreme court intervene against rules requiring 60 votes in any question other than treaties, impeachment and constitutional amendments. One relies on a human being transcending partisan politics, the other would legally enjoin partisan parliamentary maneuvers. As a liberal Democrat, I favor the former. However, as an American hoping we can transcend the current polarization, I would lean toward legal mandate over the good and consistent judgement of the next Speaker of the House. Sadly,in my judgement, neither solution works. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed supreme court decisions every bit as partisan as the partisan office holders who have suborned the parliamentary process for political advantage. The only tentative suggestion I can offer is to elect representatives who are noted more for their non-partisan moderation than their party affiliation.
5
The history of the ACA provides a good example of how an open process is open, also, to abuse. As I recall it, Republicans offered more than 200 amendments to the ACA. Most were intended to sabotage the bill, but a goodly number were incorporated. How many Republicans voted for the ACA given the Democrats' good-faith effort to accept Republican input? Why, zero, of course.
12
These changes came from a bi-partisan committee of legislators who want to restore regular order and negate gridlock.
Impeachment is off the table, right Pelosi?
With her in control of the Dems, that is one bipartisan program they can push.
1
They’ll quickly discover what Republicans discovered when they last took over the House: that they would like to be saved from the painful votes they’ll have to take.”
Normally, those “painful votes” are to support broad-based legislation that carries some semblance of advancing the common weal, but may conflict with hardened partisan views of a legislator’s district. The choice then - as it always is in a representative democracy - is to “do the right thing” by the country as a whole and risk being “primaried”, or fall in line with local views of which in many cases is a grossly gerrymandered district. Careerist or selfless legislator, that is the question...no prizes for guessing the path of least resistance.
9
For Democrats to be regarded as offering a fresh start, which is what the last election demands, there is nothing wrong with the proposal for bipartisanship. Speaker in waiting Pelosi knows better than anyone there how the system works. Her record is one of effective leadership. She will continue that route and appears to be unimpressed by Trump’s bluster, unlike her predecessor. He will not intimidate her, rather the reverse will happen, as we saw in that meeting in December.
She is also aware of the reasons for the diversity among the newly elected reps. I expect her to be balanced and thoughtful in her decisions. I also expect her to be inclusive.
Why not critique her performance after she takes the gavel?
22
@MG With Paygo she is off to a miserable start.
The bar graph that accompanies this article clearly demonstrates how the art of compromise was lost when the Republican majority took over the House leadership in 2011. Will Nancy Pelosi be able to bring bipartisan legislation back to the House, or will the same spoiled brats in the Republican caucus still demand their way without compromise along with the spoiled brat in the White House? I wish Ms Pelosi success. But will the rigid Republicans thwart her every attempt to reach consensus? We are all waiting.
7
This reads like a talking point. Especially when the journalist does not use a single example of a floor amendment used by either party to highlight partisan differences for political purposes rather than to push legislation toward passage
6
Speaker Pelosi is going to make an attempt to re-install the soft and hard guard rails of the legislative process. The soft guardrails have been chipped away since the Gingrich speakership. The winner take all mentality has led to obstruction and a paralyzation of the legislative process and the peoples will. Some of the soft guard rails our the limited use of the filibuster, consistency in the rules of debate, the permission of reasonable amendments to the legislation, to name a few. Restraint and forbearance was the unwritten rule up until the time Newt became speaker. Most congressman did not cross that line knowing one day it would come back to bite them, the lack of forethought and maturity of our current Congress is frightening.
19
The success of bipartisan ideas is dependent on the parties working together in good faith. That is hard to do when one party has demonstrate it will use every trick in the book to hold power regardless the will of the people.
12
Every time I read or hear how Speaker Pelosi need to....(fill in the blank), I get upset. Really? Why? Because she is a woman? Who have been effective? Who has been around too long? Many things I value. I love that she can meet with the Bully in Chief and make him look like the blundering fool that he is. She is gentile, and smart; qualities with which he has no acquaintance .
Did anyone examine the quality of McConnell, Boehner or Ryan's ability to be effective legislators? Does anyone put their feet to the fire for obstruction and failure to even try to reach any bipartisan policies?
Please support this amazing woman, who continues to be a lady in the old fashioned way, to present the best leadership for the Nation not just her party.
25
Let's get rid of the Hastert rule.
10
You simply can’t play nice when every time you turn your back, you get a knife stuck in it!
9
These current changes sound like good ideas that are easily corrupted. Until all parties go to Washington D.C. to do their jobs rather than keep their jobs, these problems will continue.
11
The rules changes proposed by the Problem Solvers Caucus and agreed to by Ms. Pelosi are a positive step. While the process is frequently messy, the whole point of us being represented is that our reps get to participate and vote on legislation and amendments. And if those votes are electorally risky, so be it.
The tough issues: taxes, immigration, budgets, guns, etc. will always be risky. However, votes on the floor allow voters to hold their reps accountable for actual votes, not political sound bytes.
Transparency and accountability are must-haves in a representative democracy. I'm anxious to see how the new process works.
23
The concern I have is that any effort at being more inclusive or more open to amendments from the other side won't be met with like consideration.
From my perspective as a long-time independent, most Republicans see how much they can get away with while Democrats whine about it; most Dem.s try to be balanced and reasonable while Rep.s try to take advantage. The party which stagnated most of Obama's efforts and went along with Most of Trump's, isn't going to suddenly become reasonable when they're in power.
Voters aren't much better; GOP-ers seem to enjoy their party poking Dem.s in the eye, more than seeing anything worthwhile getting accomplished.
It will be revealing to see how the Rep. Senate acts this year, while the Dem. House tries to be more open and inclusive.
I'm pleased to see the effort to return to more productive and civil legislative process, BUT I feel the Dems need to constantly remind GOP and public of the difference. Along with the new rules, there should be a frequent comments of 'Under last year's rules you wouldn't have been allowed to...', or 'If this was the Senate you wouldn't be allowed...' House GOPs may develop conveniently short memories of how they've acted, unless reminded often.
16
@Mark Miller From my perspective, most generalizations turn out to be just that.
2
If "bipartisan" means we will continue to ignore Climate Change and allow Trump to INCREASE the use of coal, then "bipartisan" is not an option.
In WW II, FDR & Truman agreed on "unconditional surrender" and with respect to Climate Change, nothing less than a complete reversal of Trump's policies is the only answer.
Rest assured that Mueller will continue to provide evidence of Trump's many infractions until America demands Trump's impeachment.
Stop placating Trump. Appeasement didn't work in WW II, it won't work with Trump.
Removal from office is the only answer so toss "partisanship" out the window and use all of the available information and Trump failures for removal from office.
3
Sometimes reading the comments is rather depressing. This is one of those times. The extremely low level level of reading comprehension displayed by many commenters is quite disturbing.
The article notes that Ms. Pelosi has agreed to a more open process and then noted that she may come to regret doing so since it is quite likely that the Republican minority will simply play politics by offering amendments that will cause pain to some Democrats.
That's pretty much it. They weren't demanding more bi-partisanship. The Democrats decided to allow members more opportunities to offer amendments. They also committed to creating bills in committees and not behind closed doors as the Republicans did. They need to hide their evil work. We don't since we're trying to do what's good for the people not the donor class.
I myself am not much worried. What makes an amendment difficult for a member? The fact that you will anger some supporters no matter which way she votes. The best approach in such a case is to argue forcefully for what you think is best. Explain why something that sounds good in the abstract would actually be bad.
We need to totally lose the running scared look. The majority is with us. Treat us all as adults, explain why we can't have our cake and eat it too. Show how absurd the Republican positions are, on everything.
34
Please please, Democrats, and especially Speaker Pelosi, do not compromise on the Wall or any other nonsense from this administration. This argument goes further than government shutdown or costs of construction. Quoting Center for Biological Diversity: "At risk are 93 threatened, endangered and candidate species [which] would potentially be affected by construction of a wall and related infrastructure spanning the entirety of the border."
These grim realities, and other environmental threats, do not get a mention in the Pelosi-controlled debate. To those of us who are passionate about wildlife, it is imperative to stand firm. Extinction is forever , and the environmental arguments against the wall are the most immediate and compelling.
11
How long will we have to wait for House Republicans to sign on to bi-partisan legislation to reduce carbon emissions and to reverse massive tax giveaways for the wealthy and corporations? If only Nancy Pelosi would let them support such actions!
5
Members of the House of Representatives could choose to govern responsibly, to do the business that their constituents pay them to do, instead of trying to embarrass each other ahead of the next election. There is no requirement that they "take advantage" of an open rule.
5
I am not fond of Pelosi and her need to be bi-partisan. iN the meanwhile, she suppresses the democratic left, who are the real leaders. How much longer will we have to put up with these autocratic boss-tweed democrats? Tired of it..And in addition, anyone who makes 'tinkle' a word on national news, or some weird image of a 'tinkle party ' - good god, no more Pelosi, please... Lets find someone who can think and talk at the same time, and is not mired in politics from the machiavelian perspective, but instead from an idealist dreamer perspective..
6
So Democrats should give away the election to Republicans in the interest of some single-issue Democrat who cannot win?
Good luck with that!
7
@grace thorsen. As a centrist political person I applaud your ‘idealist dreamer perspective’. Back in the real world, those who have lived thru (50+) years of political ups and downs understand that progress is made consistently when taking smaller bites from the apple. Eating the entire apple at once seldom works. IMHO, shooting for the tree is asking for the tree to fall on you.
5
@Larry Thompson really, buddy I have lived through sixty years of this and how is that idea of little bites on the apple working out for ya??NOTe have NO progress on global warming initiatives since SCOTUS appointed Bush, we have no jprogress on bank regulation, on reinforcing thelock box of social security that Gore ran on.. Show me one area in the last thriry years where small bites on the applie have resulted in progress..twe are in the sixth mass extinctino of species, and pelosi won't give the cliamte change group subpeoona power because she is the italian more interested in power than scientific reality of climate change..tell me, Larry, whatis better since Gore lost?
1
And nary a mention of the Hastert Rule. Would have been enjoying comprehensive immigration reform years ago instead of wall nonsense. And probably avoided Tyrant Trump.
9
Speaker Pelosi is not interested in any open process. When Trump allowed the press into their meeting about border security speaker Pelosi she said "can't we do this behind closed doors." This was because she knows that her anti wall stance makes no sense. Trump should bring the head of the border guard into the meeting to talk some sense on camera to Pelosi and Schumer.
3
@P McGrath
Ya, I don't think so. If you believe that, I don't think you listened to the entire exchange. Ms. Pelosi prefers to handle these meetings in the traditional way. She knows that telling Trump he's wrong in front of the cameras will not get her the reaction she wants. After it was clear that Trump was going to insist to play it for the cameras, both she and Schumer changed strategies and got Trump to declare on national television that he would take the full blame for the government shutdown.
You may not like Pelosi, but she's going to run circles around Trump.
18
@P McGrath You talking about the time Trump tried to ambush the Democrat leaders by publicly shaming them into helping him (and us) pay for his wall? How"d that work out? He ought to thank them for saving him from reneging on his campaign promise that someone else would pay for it!
6
@P McGrath May I ask, please, what part of the border wall does make sense?
5
Why is it her problem to "fix"??? I'm all for a smooth running government, one that even has lawmakers crossing party lines to vote for their constituent's best interests (gasp!). But that hasn't been the political environment since our former worst president left office in 2009. We've got Trump and the truly anti-American McConnell in office for at least another 2 years. Now is not the time to play nice.
36
@kirk s: Buchanan, GW, and Trump have a firm hold on the bottom 3 rungs. Buchanan at the bottom, Trump, then GW is my ranking.
1
To respond to the title's question, why would she and why should she in the face of Mitch McConnell's scorched earth policy before Obama even took office? Mitch was backed by fellow Republicans in that drive as well.
In the interest of comity and bipartisanship? Republicans (and their supportive voters) threw those ideas out with the bathwater!
McConnell and his troop declared war, so war it is!
10
So traditionally Pelosi has introduced more bipartisan bills than the Republicans but now uou are questioning whether it she is bipartisan enough? Where were the articles about Republican's total lack of bipartisan bills for the last 8 years? Since both sides are the same, yadda, yadda, yadda- why should Pelosi be bipartisan at all?
13
"any legislation coming out of the Democrat-led House stands little chance of success unless it embraces the views of both parties." I'm not sure it's Pelosi's job to pass legislation that embraces the view of the Trump led GOP.
Quite the opposite. To borrow from Mitch McConnell, the Democrats' number one immediate goal is to make what's left of Donald Trump's political life nasty, brutish, and short.
17
Once again, I find myself disappointed with the New York Times. Where were your calls for House Republicans to seek more bipartisanship? Instead of pressuring Pelosi to work with House GOP, why don't you acknowledge that she was the last speaker to have 30% bipartisan work in the house?
Is it too much to hope for, that you started Nala Jane the achievements of Democrats in general and female representatives in particular?
8
I hope and pray that the Democrats will work hard to legislate and compromise, and get things done. The country needs leadership. Partisan politics are not the answer and never have been.
1
McConnell and Republicans made the new rules for all to abide by. They ensured that there's no going back and Republican voters need to hear that message so they don't make the same mistake again.
It will be a difficult lesson, but one worth learning, no matter the pain.
8
@Ernest Montague, I hope and pray that the Republicans learn the meaning of "legislate and compromise" it has not been the Democrats who have been the spanner in the works. The GOP shop is named: Partisan politics R us.
2
While the Constitution permits Congress to make parliamentary rules, it does not permit Congress to make parliamentary rules that contravene the Constitution.
The framers clearly intended that senators and representatives should be permitted to introduce legislation and call for a vote. The Supreme Court should rule any parliamentary rule, device or mechanism that prevents this from happening unconstitutional. Committees controlled by political party hacks should not be allowed to prevent measures from being introduced or brought to a vote.
The Constitution provides that all measures brought before Congress require only a simply majority with the exception of constitutional amendments, treaties and impeachments. The Supreme Court should rule any parliamentary rule, device or mechanism that attempts to impose a higher threshold—such as the Senate’s “60-Voter Rule” or the House of Representatives’ Hastert Rule”—unconstitutional.
Since the Constitution assigns political parties no role in government, seating in Congress should not be determine by party affiliation. Senators and representative are supposed to represent states and residents of their congressional districts, not political parties. Seating should be allocated accordingly.
5
Of course, the Court will never get there, the political question doctrine and all that. The Framers also didn’t want the courts interfering with the internal rules of Congress, however misguided they may be. (See, e.g, the awful Hastert Doctrine.)
2
@David
The framers expected Congress to abide by the rues. They set a simple majority for all measures except amendments, treaties and impeachments. Where did you get then notion that the framers didn't want the courts to require Congress to abide the constitution.?
1
So "bipartisan amendments" dwindled dramatically after 2011. When Republicans took control of the House. And your question is 'Will Pelosi allow or take more bipartisan amendments than the Republicans?'
I think this is the wrong question. The question should be -- Why should Democrats allow any more bipartisan amendments than Republicans have when they controlled the House? Why should Democrats expect Republicans to do anything differently than when they stymied Obama for eight years?
Congress has been so dysfunctional over last five sessions that a good study would be a close examination of the procedural delays and maneuvers that have caused so little to be achieved. Who controlled the chamber, whose authority was exercised to avoid amendments or votes, and who benefited? My intuition would be that this was weaponized by Republicans, entirely to block President Obama from achieving any of his more ambitious goals. Certainly the Congress worked much more aggressively against the Executive branch from 2009 to 2016 than it did in 2017 and 2018. "Congressional oversight" and "checks and balances" have become oxymorons the last two years.
I think Pelosi should allow amendments when they don't dilute the purpose of the legislation, when they serve the interests of the American public broadly. I see no need to worry about 'good faith', because the Republicans no longer understand the meaning of that phrase, starting at the very top.
27
@Jim Brokaw Your response seems to be: "Johnny hit me last week so it's ok for me to hit him back, then everything will be great."
1
@Ernest Montague -- No. My message is that Democrat's amendment process should be to allow amendments that extend or preserve the legislation's benefits to the greater American public. Amendments designed to 'put the other party on the spot', or to 'put the opposition on the record so we can use it in campaign ads' should not be allowed. Too often the amendment process, instead of broadening or deepening the scope of legislation, is designed primarily to capture a political advantage against the opposition party. Amendments offered in the spirit of truly improving the legislation being amended should be allowed, but amendments designed and intended to politicize the vote should be blocked. Want to see how many truly non-partisan amendments originate with Republicans in the next Congress?
6
@Ernest Montague Tell it to Merrick Garland.
5
Any change to bipartisanship depends on Republicans. Unless “moderate” Republicans materialize, and rebuff Trump too, the fake-issue, extremist GOP nutcases will deserve a slap-down from Speaker P.
13
I applaud that Ms. Pelosi is willing to open House procedures to a more open format. Democrats need to be seen as the party of openness which breaths fresh air into our stagnant system. If impeachment is to be sought it must be seen as a bipartisan effort. In the Senate it is now one man rule, Mitch McConnell. and he is not about to give up any of his power to any form of consensus. Perhaps we need to impeach McConnell, but I am not holding my breath.
6
Republicans have no interest in a bipartisan effort that is not their own. McConnell proved that for 8 years during the Obama presidency.
7
Ms. Pelosi must forget "bipartisanship" and do what is right for 99.9% of us.
The Internationale Mafia 0.01% Robber Baron/Radical religion Good Old Boys' cabal is trying to take over OUR United States of America through the once honorable republican party. Their operatives in OUR government are doing everything they can to destroy OUR institutions and social safety nets, and rob us blind, with their inherited/stolen wealth. They have no intention of "cooperating". That is not what they are about.
WE THE PEOPLE must keep pressure on Traitor Mitch McConnell and his brethren in OUR U.S. Senate and on OUR U.S. Supreme Court to hold them in check until they can be replaced and/or neutralized.
26
Let' hope so. Forcing one sides's views on the other is not working.
I hope we realize we need need to govern for the other hald too.
Otherwise we are ALMOST as bad as Trump.
She will do the country a great service if she makes that he goal and legacy.
1
Show me where you asked this of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and I won't cancel my subscription.
63
The media has a double standard with Democrats because they aren’t afraid of us—since we play by the rules. Cowards come in many forms.
13
@Jenny, the House Problem Solvers Caucus, who generated many of these rules changes, was created in 2017, after Ryan set the rules of the last Congress. They did advocate for changes, but the rules are typically set at the beginning of the 2-year term. So the caucus decided to put their foot down for the new Congress and insist on changes in exchange for voting for the speaker. The caucus, BTW, is bi-partisan, consisting of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. These rules changes are a bi-partisan effort to reform the house after years of locked-down debate.
7
You really buried the lede in this one. The value of this article doesn't come from its accounting of bipartisan votes (which are declining), but from its deeply buried explanation of House rules specifically designed to defeat efforts to build bipartisan coalitions.
Of course a completely open amendment process would quickly devolve into a circus as the minority party offered an endless array of amendments designed to embarrass the majority and bog down the legislative process. But the proposal of requiring a vote on amendments with broad bipartisan support (20 cosponsors from each party) makes so much sense it makes one want to throw shoes at the leaders of both parties for failing to enact it.
47
@Green Tea
Amen to both parts of this comment. I was feeling totally frustrated reading this but not knowing what process it was that was going to be allowed. I think the NYT spends too much time tracking the political oneup-manship of the parties. Instead, make the real information about how our system works more accessible.
As for the proposal itself and the potential for regret, 20 votes on each side seems like a pretty high bar. I can't really imagine an off-the-wall Republican proposal designed to embarrass getting 20 Dem co-sponsors. Instead we will hopefully get just a little more trust and willingness to work across the aisle.
14
Well, let’s just suppose the Republicans kept control of the House. Would their Speaker promote bipartisan legislation?
Not on your life.
59
@Paul Bernish and, what's really sad, nor would the New York Times ask them to.
12
Leadership means having the courage to envision a future and inspire your constituents to sign on. Instead we have politicians that look to polls when deciding what would be most acceptable.
3
@christina kish not all politicians. Rep McGovern is seeking to lead differently. If we want Congress to change, we need to support the good politicians and vote out the obstructionists.
5
She has two problems, ie dealing with the republicans in the Senate no matter what she does in the House and dealing with an ego maniac demagogue in the WH (and those are some of the nicer things I can say about him).
Nevertheless, push for progressive things that a majority of Americans are for, #1 being affordable, universal, quality health care like just about all of our peer countries have.
Even if if doesn't because enacted because of republican objections, put the ones who voted against it on notice that it will be the #1 issue in 2020. It would give the dems the best shot of sweeping the three branches.
What not to do is obsess on dogmatic issues like identity, ethnic obsession, where either a majority of Americans don't agree and/or are counter productive to gains already made in these areas.
An example of this would be to be vigilant on gains made by women re discrimination, harassment etc. but don't go on a feminist obsession, where all women must get 50% of everything whether they deserve it or not or even want it and bash current day men for five million yrs. of existence and be turned into feminists.
Hillary went in that direction and it helped cast her onto the dust heap of history.
Obama ran as an American and not as an identity obsessed black man and served two terms.
7
Of course the Dems should not do what the GOP has done...really, perhaps it should depend on the content of the amendment...however....
My take from this piece? Nancy Pelosi is going to attempt governance with a bunch of cynical/corrupt toddlers. They should be ashamed of themselves, pull on their big people pants, and finally get down to the people’s business.
38
How about, for a change, our legislatures stop the partisan mandates, and work for their constituents? That would be a change for the better for society as a whole.
It gets tiring watching and listening to our elected officials constantly badgering one another, while we, the American people suffer.
Is it not time that politicians worry about us, the electorate, rather than themselves and their reelection.
9
Mitch McConnell and Republicans set the tone and showed that there are no rules but winning. Democrats need to play by those Republican rules or lose.
2
It is quite possible the voters are not as divided as the establishment leaders are among themselves. But who knows given how polls and columns are done nowadays.
2
"Since 2011, they have been only one of every 20 such votes." That, in a nutshell, is the Ryan and Republican legacy. Stifle debate keeping even amendments that were supported by both parties off the floor. Then we have true obstructionists like Goodlatte and Savannah's law. The same is true in the Senate where McConnell, the grand obstructionist, kept justice reform from a vote. This is where democracy was distorted and destroyed.
31
So the Republican Congressmen says “If you make an open rule, people will simply take advantage of it. The majority has to have the ability to see its will being done.”
Well, no, imposing the will of an often thin majority isn't in fact what politics is about. It may mean not getting your way all the time; it should certainly mean not getting everything you want and nothing the other guy wants. "Thy will be done" is part of the Lord's Prayer, not the Pledge of Allegiance. While you don't want irrelevant or merely obstructionist amendments tacked on (and as we know, those would be the kind Republicans would be most likely to put forth), we would be less polarized and divided if the likes of Ryan and McConnell hadn't been so devoted to making sure nobody else ever got a say, no matter how clearly the voting public had raised its voice.
If you have to vote for a bill that contains some things you don't like but more things you find necessary or urgent, then treat your constituents like adults and explain that. Educate them on the issues. Try having an honest conversation instead of bloviating. Americans are tired of the dysfunction; we want more leadership and less fear-mongering and base inflammation.
31