The Glorious Revolution

It is uncanny how when you read history the same issues seem to come up over and over again. I am now reading 1688: The First Modern Revolution by Steve Pincus, a book about the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688-9 where the English Parliament took over from the King the control of government. He provides a detailed discussion of the issues and controversies that drove the revolution, contending that it was much more of a modern revolution than previous historians have thought. Many of these issues appeared again a century later in the American Revolution, almost as if the Americans were not even aware of all that had intervened between 1688 and 1788. In particular the opposition between an agrarian view of property as land, and the commercial view of property as the produce of trade and manufacturing as well as land. The contrast is between Jefferson and Hamilton.

I am thinking of writing an essay entitled "Senatorial Pretensions" focusing on the transformation of the Senate in the 1806-1820 period, but I am not sure how much more research I would have to do.

I will be on vacation from 1/20 to 1.31.  By the way, my book is now published as an ebook on amazon.com.

symbolic voting

The upcoming vote on the repeal of the health care legislation is a clear example of what I call irresponsible voting in the House. It is a vote that will have no consequences, essentially a free vote for each representative because there is no chance that the result of the vote will have any effect on the health care law or any other aspect of government. It is pure political posturing, and as such it is a waste of valuable time that could be applied to real legislation. Congress has enough trouble getting anything done as it is to waste its time posing. I am not in favor of getting rid of the health care legislation, but the Republicans are in the majority in the House, and they should be able to make the changes they feel are necessary to it, even if this means defunding parts of it. But this is real legislation, not just theatre. Symbolic votes are for me only evidence of the basic weakness of the House under the present structure.

The House Majority

I am in an interesting position with regard to the Republican takeover of the House. On the one hand, being a Democrat, the fact that the Senate will be able to block some of the actions of the House, and perhaps moderate its anticipated effort to cut spending and potentially ruin the economy and the well-being of the vast majority of Americans for the sake of the rich, is a good thing. I am glad that the Senate will have a restraining influence on Republican stupidity. I am in favor of maintaining the filibuster rule because it wold allow the Democrats in the Senate, if necessary, to use it to block efforts by Senate Republicans to entice a few Senators--such as our beloved Nebraska Senator Nelson--to vote on their side. Otherwise a simple majority vote against House bills would be sufficient to force the House to compromise with the Senate.

On the other hand, I believe that in principle the House should be able to make legislative decisions without the interference of the Senate or the President. My suggestion to subordinate the Senate would have just this result. In the larger view, I am confident that the House, expressing the will of the people, should and would be able to determine policy for the country.

I reconcile these two contrary positions by saying that the present irresponsible Republican House is the result of the fact that in many ways they are not responsible for what happens. It is not that I don't like what they are proposing to do as much as it is that how they propose to do it is unrealistic. If they had clear responsibility they would be more responsible.