[e40]

The comment I was replying to was more general.

There are lots of examples of Republicans sabotaging government legislation. The most recent case is the immigration deal reached by Senate Democrats and Republicans. They did this to make the current administration look incompetent so they could allow Trump to "win" on the issue next year.

[rayiner]

You would have a point if the border deal gave republicans what they wanted but they rejected it anyway. But the border deal is a compromise between Democrats and a minority faction of the Republican Party that wants cheap immigrant labor. It includes things like immediate work permits for illegal border crossers claiming asylum, and enforcement provisions that don’t kick in until 5,000 crossings per month (five times higher than the rate when Obama was President).

Rejecting a compromise bill is in no way “sabotage.” Republicans (probably correctly) perceive that public sentiment about immigration is such that they can hold out for a better deal.

A truer example of “sabotage” would be the immigration compromise under Reagan. There, the parties reached a deal to combine amnesty with stronger border protections. But the second half of that deal never happened.

Regardless, you dodged my point about blue states. If the US government was dysfunctional because of republicans, blue states should be like Denmark—at least within the spheres where the state governments have primacy. Maryland should have world-beating schools, transit, healthcare, compassionate policing, and etc. Almost all of those are domains that are almost exclusively within the province of the states. But as a Maryland resident I can assure you it’s nothing like Denmark. The American inability to operate government effectively and efficiently is a bipartisan issue.

[e40]

Your reply is disingenuous. The deal was between Senate Republicans and Democrats. They agreed fully. They only people that don't like the deal are the extreme House Republicans and they represent a powerful but minor of Republicans in the House. If you look at everyone in Congress, there is definitely general support for the failed bill. And, the failed bill is a step in the right direction. To say it was a compromise is absurd, unless you want every bill to be perfect when it is voted on. There can always be further refinement of the law, through future legislation.

On your other point about blue states. There are a lot of people who think blue states are much better places to live because of their legal/legislative climates. Ask people in Oklahoma who want IVF.

In general, governing is hard and I'm not about to say that Democrats have perfected it or are even doing it effectively, on an absolute scale. I am saying that the current Republican party is (other's said it here first) a cult with a criminal at the head of the ticket and a bunch of obstructionists in the House and Senate. They care nothing of the rule of law, when it is they who bend it, but they will scream bloody murder if the other side takes a tiny step in that direction.

[rayiner]

> The deal was between Senate Republicans and Democrats. They agreed fully.

No it wasn’t. The bill was negotiated by three Senators (Murphy, Sinema, and Lankford). At no point did Senate Republicans as a whole endorse or vote for the bill.

> To say it was a compromise is absurd, unless you want every bill to be perfect when it is voted on.

Bills don’t have to be perfect, but there’s no reason to make major concessions to the other side when public opinion is on your side. Republicans have a historic opportunity to turn down the ratchet on immigration. Why would they blow it on a bill that gives immediate work permits to illegal border crossers?

> There can always be further refinement of the law, through future legislation.

If republicans agreed to make 5,000 illegal crossings a day—five times higher than the level under Obama—the new normal, it would be extremely difficult for them to later turn back that dial.

> There are a lot of people who think blue states are much better places to live because of their legal/legislative climates. Ask people in Oklahoma who want IVF.

In 2021/22, more people moved from California to Texas alone than the total number of IVF births nationwide. The purpose of government is to serve the overarching needs of the whole public: schools, transportation, safety, housing, healthcare, etc. Enacting policies that are arguably beneficial or more compassionate to this or that small minority of the population is not a replacement for good schools, efficient transit, affordable housing, and safe streets.

Europe actually heavily regulates IVF and surrogacy. For example, Germany and Norway ban egg donation. Those countries are still much better governed than any blue state because schools, transit, roads, and safety are far more important to the median person.

The reason the “culture war” rages in US politics is that neither party can offer effective governance to voters. The only way they can differentiate themselves is on this philosophical and moral issues.