I really don't have a benchmark to measure it by. Not really knowing much about the history of American politics (I recall something about an XYZ incident) all I can say is that they were certainly more compliant than the Gingrich congress. Were the Democrats under Reagan more compliant? I don't imagine those under Nixon were.
Any. In fact, the way I read it, it's not limited to America or congress: it's any opposition party anywhere, any time. Been listening to Reid and Pelosi much?
His contention is so absurd that I can barely stand it.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (i.e. Bush's first term, the run-up to and execution of the Iraq war) the Congressional Democrats and the news media were absolutely guilty of embracing the demented Caesarism which gave the executive branch carte blanche. The faintest hint of dissent was chastised as unpatriotic, and the few Democrats willing to stand in front of that train were simply not taken seriously (e.g. Kucinich).
It seems you are conflating very recent (2007-2008) demspeak with the period he's actually referring to (2001-2003).
Except that I'm not, which you'll see if you read the article. My bad, though, it's a pain to find because the page is so long. Here's the very next paragraph down from the one I cited, which quite clearly establishes that Greenwald thinks this went on all the way through 2007
( ... )
To rebut the hyperbole of Froomkin on the "existence of Congress" without much thought, you can note that Bush failed to open up parts of Alaska for oil drilling, and failed to replenish the federal judiciary. One can cite similar vicissitudes throughout the era. The quoted articles largely concentrate on one or two elements (the war, or the budget), and perhaps exaggerate their import. I'd say the whole run was about what one might expect with a cohabitation (In France, they call it "cohabitation" when the President and National Assembly have different affiliations).
I would agree that in the USA the Federal branch has become more powerful than its coequal beginnings, in the case at hand, largely because of the veto threat as a negotiating ploy. My guess is that Pelosi and Reid will essentially run the country under Obama, though this is not particularly odd for the Legislative Branch to have the greatest impact on domestic policy.
Comments 14
Reply
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Reply
Reply
Who are the other candidate congress'?
Reply
His contention is so absurd that I can barely stand it.
Reply
It seems you are conflating very recent (2007-2008) demspeak with the period he's actually referring to (2001-2003).
Reply
Reply
I would agree that in the USA the Federal branch has become more powerful than its coequal beginnings, in the case at hand, largely because of the veto threat as a negotiating ploy. My guess is that Pelosi and Reid will essentially run the country under Obama, though this is not particularly odd for the Legislative Branch to have the greatest impact on domestic policy.
Reply
Leave a comment