Ira 2: America as a one-Party StateEssay title: Ira 2: America as a one-Party StateINTRODUCTION:Our current period of single-party dominance is the key topic of Robert Kuttner in his article “America as a One-Party State”. He lists three reasons that America could become a nation where the dominant party rules, primarily in the House of Representatives. He then states that “the internal workings” of major legislation has radically changed. The most drastic of these changes occurring since the induction of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas in 2002. DeLay has nearly eradicated floor amendments for both parties, through the rules process. Rarely before the DeLay “revolution” did any bill pass from a conference committee. Then the trouble with voting machines were complicated by the fact that the top producers of the new machines were backed by Republicans, and all worried about the poorest of Americans not being competent enough to use those “ATM type” machines. There are still more reasons for this split, this divided government, but Kuttner says that is better than the one-Party state.
1. Question One: What is the main thesis or argument?In his article, Kuttner uses three reasons to describe how America is at risk of becoming a single-party dominated nation. First, he blames the ineffectual legislative opposition in the House of Representatives on the Republicans. This apparently handed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay the power to diminish the minority party to a “token” opposition. Second, through DeLay, electoral rules have been reestablished to make it extremely difficult for any incumbent party to be elected, barring an unforeseen calamity within the political scene. Lastly, Kuttner visualizes if the right secures one more presidential election (and in hind sight, it has), the destruction of liberties by the federal courts appears to be a closer reality.
Through just this small amount of information from the beginning of the article, we can easily see where Kuttner’s beliefs lie and they are not necessarily with the Republican Party. So, is this article Democrat bashing similar to the “Bush bashing” of the article by Carl Cannon? Yes, but only on a minor scale, Kuttner’s main argument is about the dictatorship of Tom DeLay, creating major problems for our political society. Between DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, who is considered to be as powerful as DeLay, they have changed the face of House politics.
2. Question Two: What are the basic facts that the author uses to support the main argument?It is obvious it took lengthy research in order to put together this article. I feel that the author achieved many of his “facts” from observation and reference materials from the actual happenings in the House of Representatives. He relates to us that the actual beginning of change started as early as 1987. This gives birth to the detail that over time the percent of bills coming to the floor with rules prohibiting amendments has increased from 56 in 1995 to 76 in 2003, to the article’s present where nearly all bills do, the opposite of the 70% promised in 1995 by Republicans.
It is natural that Kuttner should pull as much negative information from his research of the “leadership” of DeLay as possible. He explains how the Senate conference committees are being utilized by the Republicans and turncoat Democrats to undermine and change or create (as in the major provisions of the Medicare bill) bills, according to the single-party needs or wants. The appropriations bills show us how much of the substantial bill drafting has been effected by this power of DeLay, where Kuttner promptly points out that while the Democrats had a 40 year majority, they did not over extend their power in the same way. These abuses cannot continue, although the Democrats feel it would make them feel weak if they bring it to the press and complain.
3. Question Three: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the article?One of the most easily seen emasculations of the article is its validity today. True, it does give us great hind sight and outlines in a definite order the workings of the Republicans to gain single-party dominance. However it would be wonderful to have an update, using at least the author’s manner of grouping information, facts and opinion. Another integral part of the article’s mechanisms is vastly overused, that of high level vocabulary, which will rapidly decrease the average audience. That in retrospect nearly defeats the purpose of writing an article to provide information to the public, when many of the average Americans today, including far too many college educated individuals, could not understand
[…]
One of the most easily seen emasculations of the article is its validity today. True, it does give us great hind sight and outlines in a definite order the workings of the Republicans to gain single-party dominance. However it would be wonderful to have an update, using at least the author’s manner of grouping information, facts and opinion. Another integral part of the article’s mechanisms is vastly overused, that of high level vocabulary, which will rapidly decrease the average audience. That in retrospect nearly defeats the purpose of writing an article to provide information to the public, when many of the average Americans today, including far too many college educated individuals, could not understand
[…]
This is why I think that the term “pioneers” is such a bad term for a party that has made no serious efforts to do what they can to build upon the ideas and policies of the current administration. If a group comes within the party-political power structure to be true political “leaders” or even a viable viable and productive political alternative to the United States government or its political system, it is quite possible that it will be in fact a Republican Party that is very much on the mend, in a far superior situation under the current leadership of President Obama. It will be much more challenging to get even a semblance of legitimacy, if not authority, in both houses of Congress into which members can sit for many of these years. With a strong Democratic leader and president elected, there is very little chance that our nation will regain its present status even if only a very tiny minority of Democrats return to the White House.
[…]
I just think that the term “pioneers” is such a bad term for a party that has made no serious efforts to do what they can to build upon the ideas and policies of the current administration. If a group comes within the party-political power structure to be true political “leaders” or even a viable viable and productive political alternative to the United States government or its political system, it is quite possible that it will be in fact a Republican Party that is very much on the mend, in a far superior condition under the current leadership of President Obama. It will be much more challenging to get even a semblance of legitimacy, if not authority, in both houses of Congress into which members can sit for many of these years. With a strong Democratic leader and president elected, there is very little chance that our nation will regained its present status even if only a very tiny minority of Democrats return to the White House.
As for the word “loyalty”? The term and its connotations should be noted that, in the real sense, it translates as loyalty not to the United States or any other group but to a significant minority of the country as a whole and a whole. As for why it is used there, I am sure there is a lot of good reason on that front. The current GOP leadership has in general been a little bit arrogant. It does seem to have had great success with