The Daily Hurricane has been in existence for around a year and we have heard all of the claims that this is an echo chamber for progressives. Funny thing, we've had more disagreements, arguments, and downright nasty brawls amongst ourselves in the past year than we ever had at the other sites we frequented. Naturally, I have been at the center of a lot of this, but at the same time I think this is a microcosm of where the Democrats in Congress need to go. At this point, it is more important that they settle the disagreements in their own party then working with anyone on the other side.
There have been calls for bipartisanship along the way from both sides. Yet, when it gets to brass tax there is either no negotiation or negotiations are in poor faith. The health care debate was a prime example. Both sides agreed reform needed to be done. Both sides got their say, but when push came to shove, the Republicans entered in their pieces and then failed to vote for the bipartisan measure. Many conservatives love to call it Obamacare, but Obamacare would have included at least a public option if not single payer. Now, conservatives at the state level are suing and threatening to turn down funds. Of course, many of them accept the funds and then make it look like it was their idea. Bipartisanship indeed.
In his final inaugural address, George Washington warned against "the spirit of the party." Washington may have been our only president not to belong to one faction or another. Some still think he was one of our top five presidents. Our local deacon told a story about Washington where rode by in his work clothes during the Revolutionary War. He came to help repair a fence. He found a corporal who was barking orders at the enlisted men. Washington asked why the corporal wasn't helping out and the corporal said that the work was beneath an officer like him. Naturally, Washington made sure the corporal knew who he was when the job was done and that the work was not beneath the general.
Bipartisanship doesn't necessarily require that kind of manual labor, but it does require humbling of self. It requires good faith and it requires a representative (or senator) to represent the people that they were elected to represent. There are too many in Congress that represent party leadership or an ideology. The best example would be Ron Paul. Paul represents Galveston in addition to other areas affected by Hurricane Ike. That was a time when his constituents needed him to help grease the tracks for government to come in and help. Except, Paul doesn't believe in government assisting citizens. So, the gears of government slowed to a standstill for many in the community. Many are still waiting for help. If he were really representing the people in his district he would work for them and not for his ideology.
Still, Paul will likely win his next election. Gerrymandering has taken such a hold that most districts aren't up for grabs. The only people being squeezed our of Washington are the moderates. The numbers of Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate have never mattered as much as it does now. Committee leadership and legislative agendas should always favor the majority, but both sides have worked together before. As the gap between progressive and conservative widens it makes it more difficult for anyone to work together. There are just some principles that people should never violate.
As far as TDH being an echo chamber, I suppose that is true in the sense that we don't have any clear conservative voices. Unfortunately, I don't see how that would work well anyway. Our site requires some collaboration and it definitely requires civility. Civility is even lacking in some of the arguments amongst ourselves. In many ways, our leaders mirror regular society. It used to be that we could at least agree on the facts and the fact that all of us love America. I try to concede the second point in any discussion. It's becoming harder and harder when the first is no longer true. When people either buy into outrageous lies or spread them knowingly, it makes it hard to work with people. Where is the common ground supposed to come from? Do we compromise and agree that the real facts are actually the facts? That doesn't seem like a lot of progress.
I've read the Hurricane on and off since it's been up-have yet to see y'all lower yourselves to the base and uninformative stuff I've read elsewhere.
As for it being an "echo chamber", and any other similar criticism coming from the right? Isn't finger-pointing their forte? Honestly, how does one give serious thought to concepts like bipartisanship, when the underlying mentality is:
"Reagan was my hero"/"What's good for me is good for me and to hell with you"
Perhaps I have used this before, but one of my favorite lines in "Seinfeld" was from George Costanza when he was "teaching" Jerry how to lie and beat a polygraph. He said, "Remember, it's not a lie if YOU believe it."
I am gonna tell you what the Hurricane means to me. It means there ARE reasonable, well intended people out there who genuinely care for their fellow man, particularly those who are less privileged. Reading the chron.com open blogs used to depress me. I wondered how many people in this country actually think that way. I can't tell you how many times I went home from work (where I do most of my surfing) really depressed. "My God, where do these people come from? Who raised them to feel and think like that?" Now I see the folks here at the Hurricane and I don't feel so bad. Sometimes, I even think there IS hope for our country. But it's gonna take time.
You are 100% right.
I would point out that constituents don't always want lots of money spent. So representing constituents doesn't always require spending money.
I would prefer an echo chamber, rather than having to constantly prove reality to a bunch of cloistered conservatives.
I feel the reason it seems like an echo chamber is because the lies don't fly around here. When a CONservative attempts to spread their propaganda, whether they believe it or not, it is always confronted with fact.
Often when someone is confronted with the truth, after having believed a lie for so long, there is a natural reaction of denial.
The Republicans are divisive and petty, nothing we say here will change that. Or maybe it will, we keep discussing the truth no matter where it leads. They made their bed, now they must lay in it.
I use to consider myself a moderate, until G.W. Bush stole office. Then I was decidedly pushed further to the left. Here I will gladly stay.
P.S. Scott there is nobody I would rather disagree with than you. ;)
I would prefer representatives that can make the hard choice to vote against the narrow interests of their constituents to benefit the nation as a whole. That would reflect an understanding that government revenues aren't limitless, and that every dime comes out of someone's pocket. It would also reflect an understanding that not every problem has to be solved by government. There is no "man behind the tree"* with unlimited money in his pockets.
*Don't tax him, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree
Fair enough, but there was more in that bill than the 96.1 million. I guess the point is not about earmarks (although everyone loves to make it about earmarks) but in having representatives that actually vote on bills based on how it would benefit their constituents rather than for party or ideology.
I may be way off base here, Scott, but didn’t Ron Paul end up obtaining something like 22 earmarks worth 96.1 million for his constituents, at least some of which were for post-Ike repairs? I know he voted against the spending bill itself, but he then got more money than any other republican, correct? I also remember that he took a lot of criticism for that and was called a hypocrite, among other things. I don’t agree with him at all for voting against the bill, but I certainly don’t think it was hypocritical of him to obtain as much money as he could. After all, the money was going to be spent so why not make sure that the taxpayers in your district get some of it back.
Just so you know, I’m not a huge Ron Paul fan and I don’t think that his idea for a pure capitalist utopia would ever work. I just rather liked this particular maneuver because he didn’t allow his personal ideology to rob his constituents of what was rightfully theirs.