I don't agree with Thomas Massie about a lot of things, but

 I totally agree with him on this point

 There need to be alternative parties that truly represent the people.

The US NEEDS to become a true multiparty democracy.

This comes from a quote from Brent McKenzie's When Separation of Powers becomes a Suggestion in Fulcrum, where he says:

The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty.

Not true since the Founders understood that political factions, which we now call parties, could pose challenges to the system and had significant debates about them. Some saw them as a natural outcome of a free society. George Washington warned against the dangers of political factions in his farewell address, emphasizing their potential to disrupt national unity.  The contentious election of 1800 with its rivalry between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans proved him correct.

James Madison emphasized the need for a system that controls the influence of factions on governance  in Federalist No. 10. Madison believed that a large republic would help control the influence of factions, as diverse interests would make it difficult for any single group to dominate. Unfortunately, he didn't see the problem with the current duopoly system which allows for control of the political sphere by a small group.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention political factions, despite the founders dislike for them. It was thought that the effects would be controlled through the system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, those checks and balances are ineffective and quickly eroding until we will see a constitutional show down similar to the English Civil War, where the legislature takes on the Executive branch. Unfortunately, this is something which the US Constitution does not truly address with its system for amending the constitution.

The issues of factionalism, demagoguery, and the balance of power that concerned the founders still plague us today. I would say they are as bad if not worse now than they were at the beginning of this experiment. 

The "Westminster"/Parliamentary system requires that any failure to pass a budget results in new elections. Of Course, it's "Westminster" since Belgium holds the record for the longest time without a government in peacetime, lasting 589 days from April 2010 to December 2011. This period began when Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned, and no new parliamentary majority could be established despite extensive negotiations. And, as of February 2026, Brussels is experiencing another political stalemate, having gone 542 days without an elected government. This ongoing crisis reflects the challenges of forming a coalition in a bilingual political landscape, where parties often struggle to find common ground.

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't apply for Belgian citizenship when I was living there, despite speaking all four languages and feeling an affinity for the place. I mean, the beer is the best.

Anyway, Belgium's political deadlock highlights the importance of strong federalism and regional autonomy, allowing local governments to maintain essential services even without a central government. Additionally, it demonstrates the need for political compromise and the potential risks of deep divisions within a nation, which can prolong governance challenges. 

While running a government like a business is generally a bad idea. Competition in this sphere to prevent monopolisation as well as cooperation between similar factions is helpful in preventing the ownership of the government by powerful factions. It's long past time the people took control of their government.

I can't say "took back control" since the system has never been one where the people are properly represented in the legislature. This has never, and will never, happen under the current system.

Former Maine State Senate President Majority Leader Rick Bennett on the two party system

 OpenPrimaries is having a video chat with Rick Bennett on this topic:

“I’m running as an independent because Maine’s next chapter can’t be dictated by party bosses in Washington or by the special interests pouring dark money into our elections. Too many politicians today are more focused on partisan point-scoring than problem-solving. The system thrives on conflict, not resolution, and the issues that matter most – housing, our economy, our schools – get lost in the noise.”

I definitely agree with him as my posts on the duopoly and US politics bear out. It's nice to see someone admit that they cannot work within the duopoly system, especially if they were a part of it.

I may be comment adverse, but I have been known to sign petitions to get candidates and parties on the ballot that I do not support. Especially since that's about the only way to break the duopoly lock on the electoral process.

How to break the two-party hold on American politics

The problem with the "no Kings" movement is that they have no idea what they are talking about, which I affirm as someone who has lived in monarchies (UK, Canada, and Belgium). 

The real issue is the duopoly, which is realy only one party pretending to be different. The duopoly is the tool of the oligarchy, which is disgustingly obvious if one wants to admit it.

The US needs new players and parties that actually represent the people.

What if America had More Political Parties? - TLDR News

There are many advantages to ending the duopoly, but I am not sure I would go with the parties and the leaders proposed by this. While I talk about the Westminster system, coalition governments are much better than the gridlock which is endemic to the US system.

How the Elite rigged Society (and why it’s falling apart) | David Brooks

OK, I can get alone with true conservatives since I share some of their values. But the US isn't conservative, or Christian, as David Brooks points out. I agree with him when he says, "A key factor of the educated elite is not that they are pro-conservative, they are anti-left. (@5 :00)".  Ths pretty much explains the differences.

What If America Had More Than Two Parties?

One of the main reform which needs to happen before the US can truly see "democracy" (or a republic). I like to quote Julius Nyerere: "The United States is also a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." On the other hand, there needs to be different parties to avoid the consolidation of power caused by the duopoly.

And the there really isn't a difference between a democracy and a republic:

Well, other than the founders had an unrealistic idea that the Roman republic was somehow stable and democracy was the equivalent of nihilism.

It's Guy Fawkes Day, Vote Like a Radical

 

Am I the only person out there that has noticed that this election is on Guy Fawkes Day?

Or is social media censoring that? What is the use of social media if people cannot share information?

Despite the connection of the gunpowder plot, Guy Fawkes has become a hero of anarchists and those who want to see social change (e.g., Anonymous uses the Guy Fawkes Mask).

James Sharpe, professor of history at the University of York, has described how Guy Fawkes came to be toasted as "the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions". William Harrison Ainsworth's 1841 historical romance Guy Fawkes; or, The Gunpowder Treason portrays Fawkes in a generally sympathetic light and his novel transformed Fawkes in the public perception into an "acceptable fictional character". Fawkes subsequently appeared as "essentially an action hero" in children's books and penny dreadfuls such as The Boyhood Days of Guy Fawkes; or, The Conspirators of Old London, published around 1905. According to the historian Lewis Call, Fawkes is now "a major icon in modern political culture", whose face has become "a potentially powerful instrument for the articulation of postmodern anarchism" in the late 20th century. Fawkes is regarded by some as a martyr, political rebel or freedom-fighter, especially amongst a minority of Catholics in the United Kingdom.

I have made it clear that the US system of elections is in serious need of reform. 

And I am voting for Jill Stein in the hope that debate will finally come out in the open.

Why you should vote for Jill Stein (even if you disagree with her political views)

 Of course, you could be ecstatic that the us has a non-functional government, is wasting money, and generally there isn't any political debate worth calling a debate.

On the other hand, if you want to see a serious shake up of the system: Jill's your woman. Particularly where election reform is a matter. The Green Party is proposing changes to the electoral system which would lead to real voter choices.

There are changes in the US political system which are long overdue and they won't happen unless there is a seismic change in the political landscape.

Move on--Nothing to be seen here...

Nothing like watching Fox News and being told about some péché mortale done by the "Democratic" party. Or the reverse on MSNBC, that is the "Republican" party is bad. Problem is that BOTH parties are pretty much the same thing, which is why they need those "Hot button", "culture wars" issues to differentiate themselves the same way Pepsi does from Coke.

Bad news: it's the big donors who call the shots otherwise Bernie Sanders would be well into his Second Term by now (there's a post simmering on why Sanders would have been more popular than most people think, but the short form is that he represents what was historically a red state and was popular with a focus group of Fox News viewers!).

Big money needs to be removed from US politics as one of the top reforms. Although that gives Tucker Carlson something to act surprised about when a Google consultant works to install an FTC head.

Anyway, the elections are not free and fair on a secret ballot by any stretch of the imagination in the US.

The US needs to start practising what it spend a good portion of the 20th Century telling other countries to do while pretending they were pratising what they were preaching. Here's this from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

See also:

• David Sirota and Andrew Perez: Unchecked Corporate Power Is at the Root of America’s Democracy Crisis

This is pretty good too:

It takes two parties to Gerrymander

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that Le Monde would blame the Republicans for the problems in US politics, while not criticising Joe Biden (Le sommet pour la démocratie de Joe Biden a déçu). In fact, France has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the US since both countries have similar problems in their political systems. The problem is that the US's duopoly system is a lot better at hiding the differences by using "hot-button", "Culture wars" issues which are fairly meaningless.

The nice thing is that people in the US are so heavily propagandised and insular that they don't know the difference. Although, one clue is that propaganda is visceral--it works to stir the emotions and short circuit logic. The US is good at propaganda since it has the advertising industry.

Unfortunately, a victim of the mindless, "hot-button" politics is any sense of political compromise as the situation becomes "US" versus "THEM". Bernie Sanders is frightening since Fox News listeners hear him in person and LIKE his policies. Greg Gutfeld lost any cred with me when he went on an ad hominem attack on Sanders.

Sorry, Greg, that shit is the sign of a loser.

Other victims are the media and information in general. I mentioned I was listening to Fox News, in particular Tucker Carlson, but that was because there is no dissent in the other levels of the US media. That's because the media are pretty much monopolised and can control the message worse than any governmental agency.

The problem with US politics is not the Democrats or the Republicans: it's the duopoly system which refuses to let any other party make any progress.

See also:

How the US Propaganda System Works

Why I am on the "outs" with most of the "Gun Violence Prevention Organisations"

Actually, I should say most "legacy" advocacy groups since the issue is less whether I agree with their position on the issue and more that I disagree with their becoming partisan (and it's more than just GVP groups that are guilty of doing this). The partisan aspect not only has caused the groups to support and reinforce a system which is toxic: it has caused these groups to stray from addressing the issues they SHOULD be addressing. That makes these groups totally ineffective and counterproductive.

I'm finally getting to this since I have been receiving a lot of "Trump  is bad" campaigns instead of something relating to the issues in question. First off, I never suffered from Trump Derangement Syndrome the way a lot of people on the left have. Trump isn't the problem: he's very much a symptom of a terminal illness which is US politics.

And one which most of the groups trying to get people to act viscerally have contributed to way more than they should.

"Gun Violence Prevention" isn't on the top of my list. On the other hand, a lot of groups on which it should be a priority are ignoring it, or just making the situation worse. I would agree that people shouldn't have "assault rifles" under most circumstances, but that changes a lot when people are in Cloud Cuckoo Land about the nature of the "peaceful protests" and saying "defund the police".

Patricia and Mark McCloskey should not be laughed at or prosecuted, but should have been given compassion. Especially since I think they represent a good portion of urbanites who are feeling under siege. You don't have an apartment building a few blocks away from where you live burn and not feel a twinge of concern. Saying "defund the police" is total insanity.

The problem is that society is  polarised and the advocacy groups aren't helping things if they join the fray. They should be trying to figure out how to make progress, not make the situation worse. We should be talking to each other, not entrenching ourselves in untenable positions. I'm supporting the non-partisan, not the partisan.

Impeachment...or REAL reconciliation?

Time magazine has published an article, The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, as we wait for the beginning of yet another pointless impeachment. I am even more sure that the result will be yet another acquittal by the Senate 

One can get their own take depending on how you read the Time Magazine article, but the ultimate bottom line is that the US election process needs to be examined. I'm with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) who believes that it would be much more constructive to look into changing the system. I differ with him in that the process should be an intensive look into system.

You think when you vote, you get to pick your leaders… right?

There is also the Gerrymander to thwart election choice.

Stop with the "republic not a democracy" shit since that is pretty much meaningless.

Especially when some elections don't have ANY candidate choice. That is the elections have no candidates from parties that can't win.

A recap for people who want to parrot the "republic not a democracy" bullshit. There is NO difference between the two in modern political thought: well short of republics not having aristocracy. Here are the characteristics of both systems.

1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;
2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;
3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and
4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.

The French Revolution pretty much proved the founders WRONG about the benefits of a republic over a democracy.

Can you say "the Terror"?

America Deserves Donald trump

Don't let the title cause you to think that I approve of the current US president. No, this is an affirmation that a nation gets the government it deserves.

And the US deserves Donald Trump for all its failing to properly address the issues that it faces. In particular, the failings of its rigged political system. But that is a symptom of something much larger. I would say that the anti-intellectualism which is a feature of US society is another contributing factor.

What really pissed me off isn't the election of Donald Trump and the failure to properly address the cause, but an ignorant statement made by someone in authority about US immigration. Although, not sure how much “authority" can be given to someone who is director of the US tenement museum. The comment was along the lines of people whose ancestors came here and became citizens somehow are similar to the "dreamers" of today.

Part of this was based on the fact that immigration laws weren't that strict up until the late 19th-early 20th Century; however there were still immigration laws.  That is a flawed argument for a myriad of reasons: the basic one being that laws change.  You can't legally try a case which happened in the past using current law or judge a modern case by outdated law.

Another issue at work here is the national myth that people came here for a better life, which wasn't always true.  The US needs to get in touch with its convict immigrant heritage since, besides slaves, not everyone came here for a better life.

Prior to the US War for Independence, the US was the dumping ground for England's convicts:

As the 17th century drew to a close, lawmakers sought a less harsh punishment that might still deter potential offenders; penal transportation with a term of indentured servitude became the more common punishment. This trend was continued by the Transportation Act 1717 (16 Geo. 3 c.43), which regulated and subsidized the practice, until its use was suspended by the Criminal Law Act 1776. With the American Colonies already in active rebellion, parliament claimed its continuance "is found to be attended with various inconveniences, particularly by depriving this kingdom of many subjects whose labour might be useful to the community, and who, by proper care and correction, might be reclaimed from their evil course". This law would become known as the Hard Labour act and the Hulks act for both its purpose and its result. With the removal of the important transportation alternative to the death penalty, it would in part prompt the use of prisons for punishment and the start of prison building programs. (source)

Of course, the situation here was solved by Australia, but that is an aside. The term "indentured servant" sounds a lot better than convict. it also plays into the aspirational aspect of the US myth: "your ancestors came to America as a Servant in hopes of a better life."

That plays out a lot better than your ancestors were shipped to the colonies to escape the noose.

Of course, it also puts a different light on early American immigration in that blacks weren't the only people shipped to the Colonies against their will.  And do some research into indentured servitude in the Early North American Colonies if you are going to try and argue that it wasn't as bad as being a slave.

Of course, trying to draw a distinction between slavery and indentured servitude is useful if you want to divide people up by race. Add "Bacons Rebellion" in Virginia to the reading list.

But the real issue here isn't slavery or race as much as it is the aspirational aspect of immigration. As long as the myth is that people came here for a better life, one might "forgive" a person for breaking the law because they want a better life for their family.  On the other hand, Australia used to have cheap fares for immigrants up until recently, but now has incredibly strict immigration laws. Is there a lesson to be learned here?

Personally, I don't think an unlawfully present person's life happens to be better since they know they can be deported. The "dream" if there really is one is that people will someone ignore that the unlawfully present person is violating immigration law: even if it doesn't come with strong penalties.

But the real upshot here is that the US deserves a president who gives the appearance of possibly being much more affluent than he really is (isn't that the real issue with his tax returns?).  One doesn't need tax returns since there are multiple bankruptcies and other evidence his "wealth" has not been beneficial to those around him.

But the bottom line is all about the dream.  Maybe it's time for a strong dose of reality.

Thoughts on the British Election

Britain has a hung parliament, which means that neither party really has enough members to make a majority.  The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is now being seen as a coalition ally for the Tories. That goes to my Thoughts on US Third Parties since the DUP is a relic of the troubles and known to people like me who spent time in Ulster, but pretty much ignored.

Unless we are talking about Iris Robinson, who is sort of the Ulster version of Michele Bachmann, but much more amusing.  Iris went down with something called Irisgate. [1] Michele Bachmann is only an embarrassment for people who come from Minnesota (Iris did her part to embarrass Ulster Unionists,  but did it in a way that was funny [2]).

So, Most people know little about the DUP besides it being a political party founded by Ian Paisley which Iris Robinson once belonged to: if even that much. Of course, that pretty much sums up the DUP for those who don't know anything about it.

On the other hand, this is a party which pretty much would be like the religious/reality challenged right wing of the US Republican Party: Except they had nothing to do with Irish Republicans since they were Unionists (people who know Irish politics will get that comment).

Well, other than trying to kill the Irish Republicans (which clarifies the previous comment a bit).

Where was I? Oh, yeah, an otherwise insignificant party is playing a big role since there isn't a real majority in parliament, which also gets into how a parliamentary system works. 

That is the party with a majority runs the show. The leader of the majority party runs the government. If the party can't run the government it is dissolved, which happens if they can't pass a budget bill. 

Taking that description it is easy to see why the US isn't a parliamentary democracy since the current "leader" not only lost the election, but lost it with 46.4% of the popular vote (his opponent did slightly better with 48.5%, but still not a majority).  The opposition is known to not pass budget bills, leading to the government actually shutting down.

The US would go through governments faster than the Italians or Belgians, making both countries seem paragons of stability, if it were a parliamentary democracy.

Seriously, the bottom line of watching the UK election is that the US has a defacto parliamentary system since the legislature has the power of the purse.  Any small party (or faction) is better off being separate since the large "coalition" parties are meaningless. 

Another thing I have to say is that people are sick of politics as usual.  The Brexit vote, US, French, and UK elections have demonstrated that "non-traditional" politicians can do well.  Bernie did a hell of a lot better than I thought he would have.  And Trump showed that a clever politician can game the system (he spent far less than Clinton and got free publicity by being outrageous).

Also, people need to understand they are not as powerless as they are led to believe. In the US, they can vote their consciences in legislative elections to make more of a statement than they can in the presidential election.  The real power is in the legislature (which makes the electoral college superfluous).

And the establishment parties need to understand that they are near the end of life if they don't undergo drastic changes.

[1] Irisgate probably made Iris Robinson better known than her husband, Peter, which compounded the embarrassment since Peter Robinson was DUP leader at the time.
[2] Alternate version of this here.

Thoughts on US Third Parties.

This comes from watching the French election, which is a similar legislative-executive system to the US.  I will also admit to voting Green from a disgust with the US duopoly (i.e., the Democrats and Republicans) and its stranglehold on the system.
In a way Dan Savage is correct, the third parties should be running candidates lower down the ticket, in particular for the legislature. That is because a third party would be more effective in pushing its agenda there, or at least in blocking other parties from pushing theirs. It is more effective to be a spoiler/fixer in the legislature than in an election.  Third parties will become a force to be reckoned with once they demonstrate they have power, but they need to be the force to do what the obstructionists in congress have been doing. Or to thwart the obstruction.
One of the Clintonista/Democrat talking points was that the party is a coalition of various political views, but the duopoly parties are failed coalitions.  In some ways, they have become titular left-right parties, although I would argue any difference is more in appearance and relation to hot button issues (e.g. abortion and gun control [1]).  The past election showed how detrimental relying upon hot button issues is to real issues (e.g., the environment).
Third parties are good for keeping politics real. Case in point are the presidential debates which are no longer run by the League of Women Voters.  The president of the LWV, Nancy M. Neuman, denounced this action when the LWV ceased having any real control over the debates:

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Neuman said that the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on
September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated "behind closed doors" and vas presented to the League as "a done deal," she said, its 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation.
Most objectionable to the League, Neuman said, were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings. Neuman called "outrageous" the campaigns' demands that they control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues.
"The campaigns' agreement is a closed-door masterpiece," Neuman said. "Never in the history of the League of Women Voters have two candidates' organizations come to us with such stringent, unyielding and self-serving demands."
Neuman said she and the League regretted that the American people have had no real opportunities to judge the presidential nominees outside of campaign-controlled environments.

lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud
I would that change is drastically needed in US politics, particularly its system of elections, but that will not come as long as the duopoly holds power.
I have pointed out that the Electoral College needs to be abolished, yet the fact that Clinton's "loss" was due to her failing to secure enough votes in the Electoral College is again overlooked and substituted for blame on everything except the existence of that body (as was the case in 1990).  Both times the "losers" won the popular vote.
Of course, abolition of the Electoral College is only one thing in what is probably a long wish list of electoral reforms needed in the US:

open debates run by an impartial body like the League of Women Voters, shorter election cycles, open primaries, ranked choice voting, return of the fairness doctrine and equal time rule (Trump used the lack of it to get shitloads of free publicity), campaign finance reform--if not publicly funded campaigns, easier access to the ballot for parties, reform or abolish the electoral college, end gerrymandering, handcounted paper ballots or receipts, and I am sure that is only the beginning.

While one can dream that there will be internal change, it doesn't seem likely since the parties still seem entrenched in the same behaviours which have led to the US political system being the disaster it is.
OK, we also need to add in media consolidation here since it is one way the "state" can get away with  form of censorship, but only allowing one message to get out.  Also controlling any opposing voices.
Any real change has to come through the system since violence will backfire and result in the wrong type of change.  Thus any dissenting parties best chance has to be to try and thwart the duopoly and use the duopoly's power against it.
Change has to come, but it must come by using the system to gain power and then force change.
[1] This is not to say gun control is not important (or abortion), but these issues have been used to get people to vote against their interests.  Neither is one of left and right, but of public welfare and safety.

No surprises from Gov. Martin O'Malley

I've mentioned that I know Martin O'Malley and my connections to him.

If you think I'm anti-gun: Martin makes me look like one of you lot!

Anyway, he has just signed into effect some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, which comes as no surprise to me.  I'm not sure where Maryland fell in the gun law pile, but I thought they were somewhat strict.

Now, Gun magazines will be limited to 10 bullets, gun ownership by people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility will be banned, and Maryland State Police will be able to suspend the licenses of gun dealers who fail to comply with recordkeeping obligations.

This says several things to me with the main one being that there is the political will to get stronger gun laws in place.

Martin is a politician (I'm too smart to be one).  He wouldn't do something if it were going to cost him political points.  And I think he wants to emulate the Kennedys and take a stab at the presidency.

Well, with some politicians seeing the blowback from failing to vote for background checks--he may have a point.

The real question is where will gun politics go in the US?  Especially now that there may be an end to the Public Health research ban.

The Truth from inside the GOP

Crosspost from MikeB by permission 

This is firsthand about the inherent dishonesty of the Republicans and how they do business.  How can anyone of conscience support this kind of politics?

Former Republican professional staff member on Capitol Hill, Mike Lofgren has an informative article about how the Republican hard liners are harmful to the US: Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.

The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel - how prudent is that? - in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.

Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might - the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was "bring it on!"

Better yet:

The GOP cult of Ayn Rand is both revealing and mystifying. On the one hand, Rand's tough guy, every-man-for-himself posturing is a natural fit because it puts a philosophical gloss on the latent sociopathy so prevalent among the hard right. On the other, Rand exclaimed at every opportunity that she was a militant atheist who felt nothing but contempt for Christianity. Apparently, the ignorance of most fundamentalist "values voters" means that GOP candidates who enthuse over Rand at the same time they thump their Bibles never have to explain this stark contradiction. And I imagine a Democratic officeholder would have a harder time explaining why he named his offspring "Marx" than a GOP incumbent would in rationalizing naming his kid "Rand."

Read more here