Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwfunk | Hacker News Reader

Just about the only thing Congress has been doing for the last 6 years is preventing the president from doing anything. Seriously, that's it. So if that's your criteria for congressional success, mission accomplished.

However, pushing back against the president is only one of many things Congress is designed to do. Other things include governing the country and dealing with its problems. These are the tasks they have been useless at. Long on obstruction, short on governance. It's what their supporters elected them to do, so in some sense they are doing the will of the constituents, but it doesn't make it any more adult or responsible or constructive.

View on HN

> Long on obstruction, short on governance.

So, this is fun. Two elections ago, Australia voted in an obstructionist party with an obstructionist leader - Tony Abbott. What were his policies? "No!". That was it. His policies were basically to deny the incumbent government anything.

So, he got into power. Despite being a senior political veteran of over two decades, he had no policies. It turns out that the "No!" doesn't cut it when you're in power, and it's all you've trained yourself to do. He lasted less than one term before his party replaced him, despite that same party using their opponent's previous early leader replacement as election material.

So, in short, Americans now have a government that has trained itself to be obstructionist and not think about actual policy and consequences. Good luck.

> Just about the only thing Congress has been doing for the last 6 years is preventing the president from doing anything.

That is correct. And the electorate just validated them for their service at protecting the nation.

So, you're saying that Obama winning in 2012 was a validation by the electorate of the work he did during his first term? I can see that. Well, since by your logic the electorate has already validated the ACA, I'm sure that the incumbent won't do anything to change it.

Based on your username, you're clearly a thoughtful, mature, and rational person, who is constantly fretting over details and being their own worst critic and relentlessly playing devil's advocate with their own beliefs in pursuit of the truth. So by your logic, Clinton winning in 1992 and 1996 was clearly a validation by the electorate of Democratic policies in the '90s. I'm sure those policies will find a resurgence under Trump, since as you say elections represent the will of the country as a whole, and not something far more complicated than that. It's so refreshing living in such a black and white world, where everything's simple to understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com