It's not what you think it is...

This government shutdown is the least surprising thing to happen since Barack Obama took office. It's been inevitable for some time, and to be honest, I'm surprised that it didn't come sooner during one of fights over the debt ceiling. The unfortunate reality is that this is exactly what Republicans - or at least tea party Republicans - have wanted for a long time. Republicans believe that a) the government is too large and b) that the government spends too much money.
Therefore, "starving the beast", as it were, is the only way to create what they would consider substantive policy to limit the size, scope, and spending of the U.S. government. To use an Obama analogy, they want to use a chainsaw to cut the U.S. budget, when a scalpel is necessary.
Sure, the U.S. government spends too much money. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. all agree with that. But just what the government SHOULD be spending the money on and what it shouldn't is not at all agreed. Conservatives typically believe that we should be cutting any and all social programs; including education, health care, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, etc. Basically those things that support the majority of older and low-income Americans - and don't create profit. While Democrats typically want to cut things like military spending, tax subsidies to wealthy individuals and companies, and raise corporate taxes. These are two different perspectives on the role of government, and to be fair are worthy of a legitimate, healthy debate.
However, the arena for hashing out this debate is not a continuing resolution to pay the government's bills. Especially when Republicans are using it as an excuse to defund the signature legislation of the Obama administration, before it's even been implemented. Republicans don't even want to give it an opportunity to work, even though the American public essentially supported the ACA by re-electing the man whose name has become synonymous with the law.
So by shutting down the government, Republicans have essentially won this round. We can only hope that the American people see what they are trying to do and recognize that Republicans are not attempting to defund Obamacare (the ACA), but instead trying to starve government to the point of ineffectiveness, so that only those essential functions will be taken care of (which for them is military only). There's a good chance Republicans will take the PR hit for this government shutdown, but Americans are so apathetic, misinformed, and myopic, that unfortunately I don't think this government shutdown will have an major electoral impact.

Change and no change...

Today I wanted to write a dual post about the president and myself.

I know a lot of people did not care as much about the RE-election of Barack Obama as they did about the election. The economy is still poor. We will have wiretapping issues. We still use drone strikes. We’re still in Afghanistan. But watching the president take the oath of office, and deliver what many have considered a bold, hyper-partisan inaugural address, I couldn’t help but feel a little choked up at the idea that this country not only elected, but re-elected the first black president in our history. I read a great Eugene Robinson article today, where he talked about what an amazing statement it makes that through all of the president’s trials and tribulations during his first term, he came through with an electoral victory, and race (at least with regard to the president) has become a muted or non-existent issue. Now that is not to say that we’ve attained that post-racial world, but at least the majority of Americans now accept that it’s not strange for a black man to be occupy the White House and maintain the position as the most powerful man in the world.

It is amazing. Sure, we heard a lot of racist undertones (and overtones) throughout the first four years of Barack’s presidency, but most of that stuff was fallen off to a light din in the radical corners of American political life. The president, for all intents and purposes, has changed the dynamic of American politics by not becoming (in the eyes of prejudice people who don’t consider themselves prejudice) a token black president that we as a country can hang our hat on, and then send packing with the election of a rich old white man, but instead an enduring presence during a period of uncertainty and insecurity. Barack is no longer only the first black president, but he is now a re-elected president; and specifically a president re-elected in the midst of continuing economic turmoil. Good on you President Obama, good on you.

Now onto myself. I’m not perfect. I’m sure that I have prejudices just like everyone else, and I’m sure that from time to time I say things that some people cringe at. However, anyone who knows me knows that I make painstaking efforts to be sensitive in what I say, and am the first to correct someone who I feel has said something insensitive or offensive. Again, I’m not perfect and I’m not bringing this up to say that I’m “holier than thou”, but I at least make an effort.

This brings me to a frustrating point of contention I’ve encountered in American society. I’ve noticed this among white people, but in talking to people of other racial/ethnic groups I know that it occurs there too, that people think that somehow because you’re of the same race that they are free to say whatever they want in front of you. It’s as if because we share the same skin tone it means I automatically agree with your prejudice or outright racism. And then, when I correct the person and let them know that I’m NOT okay with what they’re saying, then I’m questioned as to why I’m so upset about, because “it doesn’t affect me”. And my response is always the same (albeit somewhat trite) – “it affect ALL of us”. I don’t to live in a society where prejudice and racism exist, so I’m offended when it occurs by anyone against anyone. I don’t need to be a member of any particular group to be offended and I shouldn’t have to defend myself for being so. I should be the one (and am) that is questioning the person for thinking that they can “get away with” talking in some loose, effluent manner, just because our skin color looks similar. It just makes me sad and angry.

Hand in hand...

Well, the election is over. Barack Obama is still president. Democrats are still in control in the Senate. Republicans are still in control in the House. Essentially nothing has changed. However (and I guess that is more of a big HOWEVER), it seems as though the American people wanted to keep both parties in control, because we are a divided nation ideologically, but want both sides to work together. The 111^th and 112^th Congresses were both complete failures. There was intra-house and inter-house fighting, along with intransigence toward the president, and it lead to not only low approval ratings, but little-to-no cross-aisle politics. That is not the point of congress, nor does it help improve our country’s economy, which has been languishing over the past 4+ years.

I’m a progressive, and therefore I tend to vote Democrat. And looking back at Obama’s first term, I personally might have a finger to point at some people that I specifically think caused the logjam in congress; but what will I have gained? What will we as a country have gained by pointing fingers? The answer is nothing. Finger-pointing will only lead to further partisanship and blaming. We are where we are, and we need big solutions to the big problems that our country still faces; the economy, international security, tax reform, etc.

Republicans and democrats are not going to magically agree about the solutions to these problems, but if both parties come to the table with an honest desire to work with one another, and to create positive, comprised solutions, I think we’ll all be better off for it. Sure, I’ll probably be frustrated that some of the legislation doesn’t go as far as I think it should (as others will think it goes too far), but that’s the country we live in.

I will say that one thing that has already frustrated me is the reaction by Mitch McConnell to the president’s victory. The same guy who said that the sole purpose of the Republican Party should be to make sure Obama is a one term president, has christened the (hopefully) new era in American politics with a big, wet blanket.

“The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control.

Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely divided Senate, step up to the plate on the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office.

To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet him half way."

Mitch McConnell looks like a turtle (and sounds like one), and the Republican’s first order of business should be to remove him as minority leader in the Senate, and replace him with someone that actually wants to get business done.

The country is changing. There was a lower percentage of white people overall that voted. A higher percentage of women. A higher percentage of Latinos. A  higher percentage of young people. And black voters came out in numbers commensurate with those in 2008. The electorate in this country is becoming less white-male-centric, and therefore the Republican Party needs to start adapting to those changes if they expect to remain a relevant political party in this country. Hopefully this election will be a wakeup call, helping them realize that they need to drop their social policy evangelism, and start recognizing that abortion, welfare, gay marriage, immigration, etc. are not policies that are going to win them elections. Good ideas that improve people’s lives are going to win elections. I’m not trying to help republicans win, but I just saying that it would help move the country in a better direction if everyone comes around.

Wow, isn't he the greatest...

Let me start by saying that by all appearances, Mitt Romney won Wednesday’s (10.3.12) debate. I wouldn’t say that he blew the president away, but he was more confident, had his numbers ready to go, and overall seemed a lot more comfortable attacking the president than the president did defending himself.

That being said, Romney’s presentation was full of a lot more vigor than substance. And it’s not that vigor doesn’t matter, but I think that it’s important to point out this fact before saying that the first debate completely changes the direction of this election. Regarding his tax policy, Romney was evasive, and presently a view that was starkly in contrast to that he has been presenting since the beginning of his campaign. The president pointed this fact out, but Romney shifted and said that he would do nothing that would add to the deficit; well Mr. Romney, unfortunately you can’t have one without the other. Either you plan to cut taxes and raise the deficit, or you plan to cut the deficit and raise taxes. And he scoffed at the president’s characterization of his tax plan as a windfall for rich people, but Romney – in typical fashion – went on some diatribe about the president raising taxes on the middle class and how he [Romney] wants to cut corporate and business taxes to help spur business. These two facts have nothing to do with one another. Obama’s tax plan would not raise taxes on small businesses, unless they’ve become large enough to where they should be paying a higher rate, or they pay corporate income taxes; either way, this would have no effect on such a high percentage of businesses, that pointing to the few that would be affected is ridiculous.

In addition, Mr. Romney continued to hammer the president on the Affordable Care Act, but failed to offer any alternatives to the president’s plan, or outline what was wrong with it, except to say that President Obama would be stealing over $700 billion from Medicare, which is a lie. The $700 billion dollars is how much less Medicare will be funded over the next ten years, but that will have no impact on how much seniors will spend, but will only impact the providers in how much they will receive (should be noted that this is what providers agreed to). Romney tried to tout his plan, while distancing himself from it; a strange position to be in for a person whose party considers the ACA a “government takeover of healthcare” and “socialist”. But Romney says that it was a good policy for the state, but not a good national policy; which is hard to understand why it isn’t. Wouldn’t the federal government be better of negotiating with giant insurance companies, rather than local government? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Finally, Mitt Romney and the president went round and round about Social Security. Romney kept pushing the Ryan plan for Social Security, basically trying to pander to older voters and those already retired by saying that THEY won’t be affected by his policy, neglecting to mention the fact that those 55 and younger will have their Social Security prey to the open market under the Romney/Ryan plan. Certainly, Social Security in its current form is untenable long term, but policy-makers need to come up with a comprehensive strategy for creating a system that works, because millions and millions of seniors depend upon Social Security to live, and that fact is not likely to change anytime soon. But creating the voucher system where people will have to decide what they want to do with their SSA money is not the solution, and is more likely to create a system similar to the retirement system where some people will lose everything they have in the event of a major crash. It’s bad policy for a social safety net.

Bottom line: Romney may have won the debate, but that doesn’t mean that he did it honestly, or that it will translate to anything other than an email to send to supporters. His message is muddled, his policies are poor (and unclear), and he can’t seem to find any firm ground under which to stand, other than saying that we should elect him for the simple fact that he isn’t Barack Obama.

A man above the people...

Mitt Romney is going to lose this election. There, I’ve made a bold prediction, but one that I’ve held since the Republican primary process started weeding out the fanatics, and went with the safe, boring candidate. Not that picking “safe” means that you’re going to win. It just means that you’re not setting yourself up to lose.

But Romney has managed to completely bungle this campaign. By all accounts he should be winning in the polls, and should be a shoe-in for president. The president [and the country] continues to be let down with disastrous unemployment numbers, and an economy that just won’t seem to pick up. But Romney has failed to make two arguments that I believe are very important to people when they enter that voting both; 1) why do you want to be president?, and 2) what specific policies will you implement that will make the economy better than the current president.

 The first question should be easy, but instead of connecting to voters and letting them know that he cares deeply about this country and that he’s worried about the economy and the people, he just comes off as an out-of-touch rich guy that wants to be president so that he can hang it around his neck like a badge of honor. He wants people to like and respect him, but he doesn’t seem that likeable and it’s hard to respect someone who seems to care nothing about anyone but himself. I honestly don’t think Romney, the man, is a bad guy (I don’t know him personally, so I can’t say), but his campaign has done a terrible job of humanizing him, and therefore nobody feels like they know him, or want to get a beer with him (George Bush II had that going for him). Not that I need my president to be my best buddy, but I think it’s important that he at least attempts to make a connection to the majority of the people.

Which actually brings me to the point of this piece – I’ll come back to question #2 later. A video was leaked this week of Mitt Romney speaking to some high value donors back in May, in which he makes the outrageous claim that “There are 47 percent who are with him [President Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it,”. First of all, this claim is untrue. It has been debunked by several fact checking organizations, and has ironically shown that many of those that Romney considers free loaders are actually (if they’re working) paying a higher percentage of income tax than Mitt Romney. Add to that the fact that Romney is essentially saying that all poor and lower middle class Americans are Obama supporters, so he’s just going to write them off. And if he’s campaigning with that message to wealthy donors, what do you think he’d do during his presidency…?

But let’s take the statement at face value; let’s say that it is a true statement. I still don’t understand what is so abhorrent about people living in the wealthiest nation in the world expecting to be provided with health care, food, or housing. I mean, it’s not like people are expecting multiple houses and car elevators; they expect that those lavish items are reserved for the super-rich in this country. Those are basic necessities, which we should be providing to everyone anyway, regardless of whether they’re productive, unproductive, working, not working, active, lazy…it doesn’t matter. Asking for health care, food, and shelter, is essentially asking to continue to live, that’s all. I guess the so-called compassionate conservatives don’t have compassion when it comes to poor people; or maybe it’s just rich, out-of-touch, liberal/conservative, flip-flopping Republicans that don’t have compassion or empathy for poor people.

The second important question that Romney has failed to answer is what specific policies he will implement to turn around the economy. He says that he will end "Obamacare", but that really doesn't account for much. Most of his other fiscal policies resemble those of the Bush administration; tax cuts, deregulation, etc., along with cutting in "entitlement" spending and closing loopholes. But his cuts in entitlement spending and closing loopholes have been completely nonspecific, and therefore have lead to a lot of speculation as to where and what will be cut. The romney campaign has decried all of these speculations as way off the mark, but has yet to disclose comprehensive policy ideas that would actually have a change of cutting the deficit and debt, or spur economic growth in any way. Basically we're looking at a candidate who just thinks he can be elected as the anti-Obama. Former president Bill Clinton said it best in his speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention, referring to the Republicans and the Romney campaign; "We left him a total mess. he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in." Helluva campaign slogan for Romeny.

They've lost their minds...

While I recognize that I, as a man, do not have a lot of insight into what it is like to be sexually assaulted or raped, I think the furor over the politics surrounding the topic over the last several months necessitates a post.

I think President Obama yesterday gave probably the best response a man can give regarding rape, and the politicizing of it; “The idea that we should be parsing, qualifying, and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people, and certainly doesn’t make sense to me,” and followed by “What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians – a majority of whom are men – making healthcare decisions on behalf of women.” Exactly.

And while I don’t necessarily agree that conservatives are waging a “war on women”, I think their problem is that they’re politicizing issues that are inherently personal, not political. Republicans support the status quo in most respects, and this includes the continued subjugation and control of women by men and policy. That is why Roe vs. Wade was so abhorrent to conservatives, it revoked male control over a women’s right to choose what she wanted to do with her body, and instead gave the right to choose to the person who has the most insight into what is best for her…herself. Conservatives are still clinging to these antiquated ideas of meek women who need guidance from their knowledgeable husbands, fathers, brothers, male friends…politicians. And instead of raging a cultural war on the issue, which at least makes more sense - attempting to sway the majority of the public to feel a certain way – they’re waging a cultural war by proxy, the proxy being an ultra-conservative party platform and implementation of ultra-conservative policies.

With the support of the Republican Party lying mostly with old people, wealthy people, and religious people, all of whom have an interest in the continued subjugation of women, it’s no wonder that they continue to pander to those crowds. But what they’re missing is that regardless of how they feel, or what they say, women are not going to sit idly by while conservative assholes push harder and harder to go back to a time when their rights were limited to what their husbands allowed them to do. We’re in a new era (and have been for decades) where women will stand up for their rights; protesting, voting, running for office, donating to politicians and parties that support their rights. And with old people dying, and their antiquated ideas dying with them, eventually these radical conservatives will realize that they were and are on the wrong side of history. The culture wars WILL BE LOST by conservatives.

Onto the actual comments made by Rep. Akin. The guy represents the party; what he said is what they believe. They put complete intolerance to abortion, regardless of rape or incest, as part of their party platform for the Republican convention. It’s kind of difficult to throw one of your members under the bus for saying something that is part of the open party platform.

But that is where Republicans are these days. They’re clandestinely (or at least they wish they were) pushing for radical right-wing legislation, while pretending they’re moderate. There is NOTHING moderate about “parsing” rape into different categories. Rape is rape. It’s tragic when it happens, and awful that our society is constantly questioning and blaming victims, instead of asking why there are so many rapes that are occurring. The questioning after a rape becomes a woman’s burden to bear, instead of questioning the person who was responsible for the rape. The questions that are asked are ludicrous; what were you wearing? Had you been drinking? Had you been using drugs? Did you know the person? Had you had sex with anyone else recently? These questions are moot. We don’t ask someone who owns a jewelry store that gets robbed why they keep their valuable items on the counter, instead of locked away in a safe. A crime is a crime, and we should not subject the victim to further anguish and diminution by grilling them on what THEY could have done differently.

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and the Republican Party support legislation to outlaw a woman’s right to choose what is right for her, even in cases of rape and/or incest. This needs to be known, and Republicans need to be shamed. This is not a political issue, but because Republicans are using politics as a cudgel in the culture wars, Democrats need to strike back by destroying (politically-speaking) the Republican Party.

The truth...

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46941182#46941784

Where has this guy been?

Not only was this speech a good political move, especially for a president that has maintained low but respectable ratings despite a fledgling economy, but he was right on.
Democrats are so quick to qualify any comments they make about politics, by stating that both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the ineffectiveness of government, and especially of Congress. While I think it’s important to recognize how poisonous money to both Democrats and Republicans has been to our political process, when we’re looking at actual legislating, it’s naïve or just completely disingenuous not to recognize that Republicans are holding up the process.
Republicans say that the president and Democrats in congress will not work with them; but what they fail to recognize is that when you come to the table with something so radical, and tell the other side before negotiations, and all throughout negotiations, that you’re unwilling to negotiate, it makes it somewhat difficult to get anything done. The president came into office hoping to work with Republicans, despite a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and an overwhelming majority in the house. However, even with Republicans in a position of considerable weakness, they managed to throw wrenches in the cogs of government, and it was only be the skin of their teeth that Democrats managed to pass the Affordable Care Act.
Since then, and especially since the midterm elections, Republicans have done literally everything they can – including lying, delaying, chastising – to hurt the president politically, but have unfortunately spent no time actually legislating. Their goal, as stated, is to make President Obama a “one term president”. They believe that any substantial, positive legislation, no matter how much bi-partisan support it might get, will not get passed. The only legislation that has been passed since the Affordable Care Act have been only those laws necessary to prevent government shutdowns, the discontinuation of the unemployment insurance, the discontinuation of the payroll tax holiday, and the like. No new substantial legislation is on the horizon, and I don’t see any formulating anytime soon.

While Republicans have been the main focus of my ire during almost the whole Obama administration, I have to say that I received something yesterday that really angered me.
After Barack Obama was elected president, his campaign warchest still had a ton of money left in it, and a lot of excitement to go with it. Therefore, the people that were involved in the campaign started a political action committee called "Organizing for America". That PAC has since become (with the upcoming election) "Obama for America". I have no problem with this, as they wanted to continue to campaign for Obama's policies, and they knew they were going to have a tough election fight in 2012.
However, what I do have a problem with is that I received an email from them yesterday telling me that they were going to be supporting an Obama super PAC called "Priorities USA". What??!! Excuse me??!! I typically just delete these emails, but I after reading the subject - "We will not play by two sets of rules" - I knew exactly what they were going to say. The person whom the email was supposedly from was "Obama for America" campaign manager, Jim Messina. Messina basically spends the first of the email explaining about the awful decision (which I fully agree) in Citizens United, and how Republicans have been raising and spending massive amounts of super PAC money. And how the majority of that money spent has been on negative ads, and that Republicans are looking to raise about half a billion dollars in super PAC money before this election is over.
Alright...I'm with you so far.
Then, he goes on to say that because of this, we (Democrats, I guess he's saying) need to put aside our disdain for the Citizens United decision, and just go ahead and support super PACs. He says that this election is too important to NOT support super PACs, and that while we disagree with the decision and want it overturned, we will need the money to compete with Republicans. I CALL BULLSHIT!!!
Are Republicans going to raise a ton of money from super PACs...sure. However, even without the support of the "Obama for America" or the Obama administration, the president would receive tremendous super PAC support for his re-election. Legitimizing these awful entities by saying that it's necessary to support them, is only going to make the argument against them that much more difficult.
Obama's whole message in 2008 was that he was receiving massive numbers of donations for small amounts that were adding to a huge flood. That was a good message, and I think it could be again. Once these super PACs become a "necessity" to combat the other side that is using super PACs, they'll be a mainstay in the political process. Just to be clear, super PACs undermine our democracy, and should be made immediately illegal.
I cannot believe that "Obama for America" would take this stand, and it makes me seriously question their ethics as an organization and their view of the political process. I will support President Obama in the election, but I will give absolutely no money to "Obama for America".

"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it." ~ Eugene Debs

The state of the campaign...

The 2012 national presidential campaign has officially begun. It began last night with the president’s third State of the Union address. The president used language from his 2008 campaign, through the year-long healthcare debate, through the debt ceiling fight, as well as presented some new ideas that are blueprints for his 2012 campaign strategy.
It’s true that a lot of the president’s speech was overly hopeful and hyperbolic, and a lot of the “plans” he presented are never going to come to fruition. However, he is the president of the United States, and it is not only the duty of the president to try and make the country better, it is also the duty of the president to help citizens of this country have confidence that that is true. Republicans seem to be focused on how awful things are – the State of the Union rebuttal was a great example – and want to point fingers at whose fault it is, or who has been unable thus far to completely flip the economic downturn. It took more than a decade to cause the housing bubble and crash, to deregulate banks t the point where they could gamble with our savings and retirement, to deregulate industry to the point where they would re-form near monopolies and use lobbyists to push policies that protect them; the fact that it took a while to create these problems, it makes sense that it’s going to take longer than three years, two terms, or even a few terms to solve these problems.
The president’s administration has been imperfect to say the least. He’s let some people down. He’s continued some of the most appalling policies of the Bush administration. He’s been incredibly insular, when his stated desire early on was to stay open. He’s been dogged about working across the aisle, but has continued to do so even when his attempts were to his – and the country’s – detriment. However, his ideas still remain solid, and he remains an amazing campaigner who will no doubt excite the skeptics and those who feel betrayed.
A personal highlight I had during the debate last night showed that Obama is always so serious, and showed that the charismatic campaigner from 2008 is still there. He was making reference to outdated regulations, citing a particular regulation that considered milk to be oil, and therefore taxed dairy farmers up to $10,000 a year for containment. He goes on to say that with that regulation, it’s ‘worth crying over spilt milk’. He got crickets in the chamber, but the cheesy joke showed a different side of Obama than we’ve seen during his administration – the serious, somber, cerebral administrator.
The president will not officially begin campaigning until after a winner has been declared in the Republican primary, but his State of the Union address was an framework of legislation that he thinks will be successful in his next term, as well as issues he thinks will be politically advantageous in the upcoming election. His policies and campaign style are winners, he just needs to convince the American people of this.

A Bad Rap

There is a fairly common narrative going around the country today within Democratic and liberal political circles, that President Obama’s first term has been a failure. Not in terms of getting things done, per se, but in terms of living up to the hype of hope and end of partisanship that he so eloquently stated he would bring to Washington, DC and the country at large. I disagree.
I don’t disagree that there was a tremendous amount of hype surrounding the then first-term Senator, or that the Obama campaign took advantage of that hype to propel Mr. Obama into the White House. However, my disagreement stems from the idea that President Obama has failed to live up to this hype, or that he has failed to move beyond partisanship. You blanch?
The hope surrounding candidate Obama was that he was going to “change Washington”. While the specific understanding of this concept is rather muddled and ambiguous, and understood differently by almost every person in the country, the general idea was that the cronyism, corruption and extreme partisanship needed to end. So Mr. Obama swoops into Washington with a Democratically-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, and people start saying that what they always say when either chamber of Congress changes from one party to the other, that the President has a mandate. Just as a small digression, I will say that I hate this term mandate, as it undeservedly gives whoever is using an almost carte blanche authority to do whatever they want in the name of it. Tangent aside, Democrats eagerly got busy on their plan for overturning many of the more unpopular and unproductive policies of the Bush administration. President Obama welcomed Republicans, even though a large minority, to bring ideas to the table for shaping policy moving forward. The president tried to create transparency in government, and figure out what were some major policy matters that both sides wanted to deal with.
It was just about this time that the idea of reforming the healthcare system came to the forefront. For the next several months congress fought this issue back and forth, with the Republicans adding little to no actual policy suggestions, but instead repeating the message that the whole bill should be scrapped and the process started anew (euphemism for “kill the bill”). Republicans did not want healthcare reform; both because they thought jobs and the economy should be the number one focus of congress, and also because they – like Democrats in congress – had insurance and prescription drug lobbyists breathing down their necks, and stuffing money in their drawers. So the president did what he could to remain above the fray, while reasserting to both Democrats and Republicans alike, that this was going to be the most comprehensive healthcare reform in the last 50 years, and that they needed to figure out how to bolster care, provide options, and reduce costs. Republicans wanted nothing to do with this, so Democrats were left to fight this battle out themselves and suffered devastating scars from the battle.
Democrats not only got a bad healthcare reform bill, but suffered devastating losses in the 2010 midterm elections. The Republicans gained a few seats in the Senate, and won a huge number of seats in the House, thereby taking back one of the chambers. The president, though crestfallen over the demoralizing losses Democrats suffered in the elections, was nonetheless prepared to remain above the fray and work with Republicans on creating sound policy. What the president didn’t see coming was the influx of hard-lined tea party freshman that were not willing to work with moderate Republicans, Democrats, or especially the president on anything. Their view of government was that it was too big, and they saw their wins a sort of directive to begin the long, slow process of killing it from the inside.
Republicans, in typical “do anything to win” fashion, decided that they had to pander to the extreme tea party wing of their party, and as a result, the whole party shifted further to the right – both with regard to fiscal and social policy.
President Obama responded in his typical conciliatory fashion, welcoming the new members to congress and telling them that he was excited to work together. The new members were less than excited, however, to work with the president, or anyone else for that matter, and were hell bent on cutting government spending, taxes and any form of social “welfare” (i.e. any and all government programs) that they could. Their goal had nothing to do with creating jobs, but instead was simply pandering to their dogmatic ideology and the loud extremists that supported it.
Obama has since spent from then until now grinding out weak legislation after weak legislation, all in an effort to get something – anything – done, but continuously getting a stick in the eye from Republicans; both on the weak legislation itself, but also on his failure to lead. It’s a bizarre world. The president has made an effort to not only include Republicans in the discussion, but have given them more than ample representation in the bills he’s helped produce, even to the detriment of his own ideological principles. While some may see that as weakness, it’s actually showing a lot of strength and leadership, and the president is now taking flak from all sides for his neutrality.
I think the bottom line is that the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are unhappy with the president is a testament to what a good job he’s doing. Neither party really cares what party the president is a part of, as long as he’s willing to do whatever they want him to do. This president isn’t doing anything ideological for either party, and therefore neither of them can stand him for it. Although the American people might be frustrated by how ineffective government seems to be these days, it’s not the president that should take the blame, because he actually is doing what he said he was going to do, and he has brought change to Washington, it’s just that congress hasn’t yet received the memo.
To quote the Alfred from The Dark Knight, speaking of how Batman must be the bad guy for a while to do the right thing, “Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it, but that's the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice.” This is what Obama is doing, and this is what he will continue to do. It might cost him the 2012 election (although I’m not really sure who to, as the Republicans have a very weak field), but he will continue to do what he has to do, and sign weak legislation, because that’s what he knows he has to do to get Republicans and Democrats to work together.