The contrast couldn't have been greater between President Obama's post-election comments and those of the Republicans. Obama vowed - again - to work with Republicans, to try to find common ground. Republicans vowed to destroy him.
You might dismiss this as a natural consequence of the election results Tuesday, but we've seen the same thing for two years now. Even flush with victory in 2008, Barack Obama bent over backward trying to get along with Republicans (right off the bat, by refusing to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration, probably our president's greatest error).
In fact, Obama kept compromising unilaterally, moving halfway to the Republican side before they'd even started negotiating. And then, of course, the GOP refused to negotiate at all, so the Democrats tended to move the rest of the way, too. And often enough, they still couldn't get any Republicans on board.
Think I'm exaggerating? Obama's stimulus bill - as proposed - was much too small and was 40% middle-class tax cuts. Rather than proposing a better bill and compromising to something less effective, it started out as a compromise, a unilateral compromise requiring nothing from the other side. And yes, partly this was to appeal to blue dog Democrats (like my own Sen. Ben Nelson, the worst of the bunch), but the intent was to start off bipartisan, to propose something Republicans could accept right off the bat.
How did that work? We got a stimulus bill too small to be completely effective, and too much oriented to tax cuts (for which the Democrats have gotten zero credit, anyway), without one single Republican vote in the House of Representatives, and only three in the Senate. OK, we'd be in a lot worse shape these days without it, but Democrats could have started with something really bold (yeah, it is hard to put "bold" and "Democrats" in the same sentence), and compromise during negotiations.
And that health care reform bill, which the GOP has successfully demonized, is based on Republican proposals in the 1990s, when the right-wing was fighting that earlier reform effort in the Clinton administration. It's nearly identical to what the right-wing was proposing back then and to what Mitt Romney actually supported and signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts.
Again, even at the start, the Democrats compromised - unilaterally - on their reform plans, then compromised further as the bill struggled through Congress. Eventually, they ended up with a right-wing bill, still without any Republican support - and with the GOP happily campaigning against their own plan, calling it "socialist" and "government-run medical care."
Now, once again, Barack Obama offers an olive branch, only to have his hand bitten off. I'd like to think this is good politics, but it certainly hasn't worked so far, has it? We Americans say we want bipartisanship, but Republican attacks - pushed 24/7 on Fox "News" - work just as well as they always have. We may claim we want reasonable housepets who know how to get along, but on Tuesday, we voted for rabid dogs, frothing at the mouth.
Meanwhile, Obama has given the impression to the Democratic base that he won't fight for what Democrats believe in. Yes, we've become used to Democrats in Congress folding instantly, at the slightest hint of right-wing opposition. We all know they're completely spineless. But it's almost seemed as though Barack Obama has folded even before he gets any opposition. And how has that worked for him? Now, no one is happy.
Of course, Barack Obama campaigned on bipartisanship, on bringing civility back into our political system, on being a president for all Americans, red and blue. And as far as I'm concerned, his reaching out to Republicans after the election is just fine. I don't expect it to do any good, any more than trying to pet a rabid dog is likely to turn out well, but civility is something our country desperately needs. And I really do not understand why more Americans aren't appreciative of the effort.
However, you can stand up for your own beliefs and still compromise as needed. You can push your own point of view, forcefully, while recognizing that other people might not agree and that you might not get everything you want. Actually leading our country, and effectively using the great bully pulpit of the presidency, isn't somehow unfair. And it doesn't, in any way, preclude bipartisanship. It doesn't preclude compromise, when necessary.
I just don't understand. I don't understand how such a fiery campaigner could turn into a president with no political fire at all. I don't understand how such a calm, conservative, mild-mannered - if, admittedly, black man - can be so successfully demonized as the reincarnation of Hitler. I don't understand how the American electorate can be this idiotic, no matter how "angry" they might be. I just don't get it.
All I can say is that I'm less and less hopeful as time goes on. I haven't given up - we can't give up, no matter what - but I'm not very optimistic.
Posts
4 comments:
A friend and I had a similar discussion he said that the Democrats and the Republicans inevitibly pass the exact same laws no matter who is in power. I tried to disagree, but with Obama at the helm I couldn't point to a single difference. How sad is that?
Obama hasn't started any wars. He hasn't politicized the Department of Justice. His stimulus package hasn't created an economic boom, but it did stop the downward spiral in its tracks. And he hasn't designed a tax giveaway to the wealthiest of Americans (instead, he cut taxes to 95% of working families).
He kept the American auto industry - and likely the auto parts industry - from collapsing (and the government will likely make a profit on our investment). He's increased spending on scientific research and lifted the restrictions on stem cell research. He's also lifted Bush-era restrictions on reporting the casualties in our wars.
The Democrats did pass a significant health care reform bill, even if it's more conservative than I'd like (but they probably couldn't have passed a more liberal one, and Republicans wouldn't have), as well as a separate bill expanding health insurance for children. The Obama EPA is actually doing something to protect endangered species and prevent pollution, and they use real science.
Perhaps most important of all, he's appointed two Supreme Court justices - so far - who aren't complete right-wing lunatics (after all, it's the Republican-appointed justices who've released the flood of anonymous corporate money into our political system).
There is NO WAY that Democrats and Republicans "pass the exact same laws." Haven't you heard the right-wing screaming? However, it is true that laws have to get through Congress, and unlike the GOP, Democrats are a diverse bunch, making it hard to get anything too progressive passed.
But it's the Democrats who gave us Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's the Democrats who've stood up for civil rights (even against the Southern members of their own party), and it's the Democrats who are fighting to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It's the Democrats who've kept abortion legal. It's the Democrats who've worked for environmental protection and corporate regulations.
The Democrats can be frustrating sometimes, but never say there's no difference between them! There's a world of difference! Some Democrats, like my own senator, Ben Nelson, are nearly indistinguishable from Republicans, but they're very much the minority.
Well, I did try to say the majority of that to my friend and I am delighted to have more ammo to hit him with.
But it is very frustrating isn't it?
I mean, Obama wants to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" but he distanced himself from it so much that it basically came off like he supported it.
And you are right that at least the two supreme Court judges Obama appointed aren't right- winger, but they are both middle of the road types who got through Congress because they weren't likely to "rock the boat."
And Health care was expanded for children but if your child is too fat, well your premium will just get higher and higher until you can't pay for it, but they'll hid behind the fact that they didn't technically drop your coverage.
And yes, Obama hasn't started any wars and if Obama or Al Gore had been in charge we never would have invaded Iraq, but all the troops Obama took out of Iraq he put right into Afghanistan.
And regarding the EPA. I've heard that all the oil-leak problems were actually in a weird way caused by the increased regulation. BP was drilling closer to the shore where they could have plugged a leak no problem but it was due to more regulations that they moved the operation so far off-shore. Yes, they lied because they claimed they could fix a leak at that depth and obviously they couldn't. But this was a rare case of regulations biting the environment in the butt.
And why didn't we here about all this great stuff during the election season? I saw Obama and one of the high up Democrat spokespersons on John Stewart and neither of them did as good a job of making a case to vote Democrat as you did!
Well, if you demand perfect, you should probably avoid politics, John.
But look at it this way: Do you think the religious right sees no difference between Republicans and Democrats? Do corporate polluters see no difference? Do racists and religious bigots see no difference? Does Fox "News" see no difference?
You can judge people by the enemies they make, so as far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Party must be doing something right. All these people wouldn't hate them so much if there was no difference.
Post a Comment