Pivotal Politics in the 111th Senate There are two sides to every issue. Progress relies on compromise and strength—and the effects of neglecting such ideologies can be seen in the controversy of climate change in the 111th Congress. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was an energy bill created in hopes of reversing climate change; despite the efforts of several senators drafting climate change bills, the Senate failed to pass legislation in the 111th Congress. The events occurring in this process can be explained further by pivotal politics. Lieberman, Kerry, and Graham were a group a mixed Republican and Democratic senators who spent a great amount of time outside the committee process as an attempt to widen the
…show more content…
While there is no single cause for the fall of the climate change proposal, there were several reasonable components. Perhaps it was the combination of a lack of leadership from the president, a weak economy, an integrated republic opposition which created a lack of Bipartisan support, and the Senate filibuster taking charge. What also didn’t help the matter was the fact that Democrats were not merely prepared to make another tenacious vote, paired with the Democrats from coal states’ reluctance to drive business interest by increasing the price for polluting. In an issue like this, skepticism was inevitable and the impact the skeptics of global warming had on this issue was harsh; this group was able to weaken the amount of public support that the bill had been gaining and draw the attention away from the matter as a way to decrease the level of urgency that was effectively needed for the bill to pass. The pivotal players in this case included president Obama, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The median voter is the House of Representatives, pushing for the energy bill with a cap and trade policy, and the filibuster pivot is enacted by the Senate. Legislators’ ability to pass policies is affected by two supermajoritarian procedures: the executive veto and the Senate’s filibuster procedures. In this case, the ability of legislators to enact the cap and trade policy was put to a stop by …show more content…
Krehbiel’s model also has the inability to explain the agenda and lack of commitment and action from various individuals involved in the energy bill planning, execution, presentation that contributed to the decision making process. “No specific assumptions are made about the ability of a political party to shape individual lawmakers’ decisions” (Krehbiel, pg. 26, 1998); perhaps it should. If Krehbiel’s model worked with party discipline and bicameralism, it would be much more victorious than party preference by itself. Krehbiel’s model needs to account for party differences in the Senate for this situation to make the most sense of this case. Using the chart from “Ideology in the 111th Senate,” the estimated pattern for Democrats and Republicans of the 111th Senate to sway towards liberalism and conservatism can be decoded. There is a general trend in the chart that shows Democrats with a score of -1<0 and Republicans with a score of 0<1, with a score of -1 being completely liberal, to a score of 1, being completely conservative. This chart helps to fill in the void of party association that Krehbiel’s model is lacking, which, when coupled with the previous model, can further clarify the reasons for the climate change
While there is no single cause for the fall of the climate change proposal, there were several reasonable components. Perhaps it was the combination of a lack of leadership from the president, a weak economy, an integrated republic opposition which created a lack of Bipartisan support, and the Senate filibuster taking charge. What also didn’t help the matter was the fact that Democrats were not merely prepared to make another tenacious vote, paired with the Democrats from coal states’ reluctance to drive business interest by increasing the price for polluting. In an issue like this, skepticism was inevitable and the impact the skeptics of global warming had on this issue was harsh; this group was able to weaken the amount of public support that the bill had been gaining and draw the attention away from the matter as a way to decrease the level of urgency that was effectively needed for the bill to pass. The pivotal players in this case included president Obama, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. The median voter is the House of Representatives, pushing for the energy bill with a cap and trade policy, and the filibuster pivot is enacted by the Senate. Legislators’ ability to pass policies is affected by two supermajoritarian procedures: the executive veto and the Senate’s filibuster procedures. In this case, the ability of legislators to enact the cap and trade policy was put to a stop by …show more content…
Krehbiel’s model also has the inability to explain the agenda and lack of commitment and action from various individuals involved in the energy bill planning, execution, presentation that contributed to the decision making process. “No specific assumptions are made about the ability of a political party to shape individual lawmakers’ decisions” (Krehbiel, pg. 26, 1998); perhaps it should. If Krehbiel’s model worked with party discipline and bicameralism, it would be much more victorious than party preference by itself. Krehbiel’s model needs to account for party differences in the Senate for this situation to make the most sense of this case. Using the chart from “Ideology in the 111th Senate,” the estimated pattern for Democrats and Republicans of the 111th Senate to sway towards liberalism and conservatism can be decoded. There is a general trend in the chart that shows Democrats with a score of -1<0 and Republicans with a score of 0<1, with a score of -1 being completely liberal, to a score of 1, being completely conservative. This chart helps to fill in the void of party association that Krehbiel’s model is lacking, which, when coupled with the previous model, can further clarify the reasons for the climate change