Democrats Bev Perdue, Peter Orszag Call for Less Democracy

Mere coincidence? Bad timing? Fate? Or are Democrats becoming more honest in their coming unglued? In a coup of incredible timing two prominent Democrats, Governor Bev Perdue of North Carolina and Peter Orszag, former Obama manager of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), came out in public pronouncements suggesting perhaps the US is a little too democratic.

Governor Perdue gave a chat to a small audience and suggested perhaps the Congressional elections in 2012 should be skipped, ya know, just this time around, for the sake of less partisanship. Orszag wrote an op/ed and offered that perhaps "radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."

In fairness I understand the point these two individuals were forwarding. They were both trying to demonstrate that partisanship clogs the wheels of government, and indeed that is true. Our two party system serves as a form of checks and balances as well as the separation of powers found in the Constitution. When the voting public switches parties in the midterms they are sending the political message that they do not want the former majority party to continue to have their way. Isn't this obvious to the point of blinding clarity?

Recall the 2002 first Bush midterm election. The Republicans GAINED seats in the House, so that was the people agreeing with Republican efforts. When the public sent the Democrat majority packing in 2010 it was the voting public telling the lefties and Obama "ENOUGH!" Get it? Of course lefties get it, but since it doesn't suit them they deny, deny, deny. Wouldn't want anyone to believe their lyin' eyes, right?

Where their statements run off the rails is really found in the hypocrisy of their point. When the Democrats took over the House after the 2006 midterms and Pelosi became Speaker, the exact same situation existed then as now...the House held by one party and the opposition holding the presidency. When Pelosi and the House instituted more than 300 investigations into all things Bush Administration from 2007 until Obama was inaugurated in 2009, I don't recall Democrats too concerned with gridlock and partisanship at that time.

In fact I recall leading Democrats felt it was their duty to gridlock DC. They interpreted their capturing the House as a mandate from the people to stop whatever it was the Bush Administration wanted to do.

Given the history and the facts, why all the whining now? The constant refrain from the left is "the people want DC to stop being partisan and compromise." (paraphrased) Funny, but from 2007 until Bush left office in 2009, the left didn't seem to mind extreme partisanship at all, and we certainly DID NOT hear them going on and on about the public wanting the new Democrat led House to compromise with that evil Bush, now did we?

Truth is the Democrats believe their partisanship is a good thing, but conservative or Republican partisanship is not. Democrats believe their 2006 Congressional win was a mandate but the Tea Party win in the 2010 midterms was an anomaly.

And another thing....how come when Democrats tried to stop as many Bush Administration efforts as possible, that wasn't "hoping Bush fails?" Clearly it was exactly that and nothing more. So if Democrats work their political butts off freezing a Republican president and his agenda, that is them doing the people's bidding, but if Republican's try to freeze out Obama, that's racism and hyper partisanship?

There is one more aspect to this show we need to notice. That the side doing all the whining and screaming about partisanship is the side that LOST the last election. By virtue of losing the midterms in such a massive fashion the people were telling DC they wanted a change in direction. Since when and in what reality does the side that wins owe the loser a compromise?

Do the Patriots spot the Chiefs 35 points in order to achieve compromise on the outcome of the game? Did the US owe the Nazi's and the Japanese Empire "compromise?" Where is the rule that says the winner must cave in to the loser and do what the loser wants? Did I miss a fundamental aspect of history and reality somewhere? Only when Democrats lose are such asinine lies forwarded as an incumbency upon the winners to meet the losers halfway. Leave it to a hopeful lefty to try to convince one that even when the lefty is defeated, the winner still owes deference to the lefty.

There is a saying out there that goes something like this - "Politics is theater for the ugly," or as Jay Leno is quoted as offering "politics is just show business for the ugly." I think it might behoove folks to remember that. Political posturing is nothing more than theater. Important and necessary theater, but theater nonetheless.

SOURCES: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/perdue_suggests_suspending_congressional_elections_for_two_years_was_she_serious

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/09/peter-orszag-so-over-democracy/42966/