This Is The Government You Didn't Vote For
My feelings about the debt ceiling deal is pretty much like this:
I know the White House is pushing to make this seem like everyone gained something from it. That's OK; that's their job. The GOP, Grover Norquist and various Congressional Democrats are doing the same thing. 11th Hour legislation makes for strange bedfellows.
But we need to remember how we got here. Financially-speaking, much of this mess occurred during the housing crisis and the sloppy way it was addressed. Politically -and I can't stress this enough- this ordeal was written in stone the minute the Tea Party-infused GOP won back the House of Representatives.
If Barack Obama should be blamed politically for anything from the Left, it's that he -much like Bill Clinton- did not fight tooth and nail to maintain a majority in both houses of Congress (many people seem to forget that George W. Bush actually came out ahead politically in his first midterm election, mostly due to the resonance of 9/11 and the GOP's subsequent fearmongering).
But other than that? Well, maybe he could have argued things from a more liberal starting point, but he's not a modern-day liberal. Obama is a pragmatic consensus builder, meaning that in the end of the day he doesn't want one side to say they got the wrong end of the deal. Of course, this means that if both parties either love or hate the compromise, he tends to count that as a victory.
Nevertheless, he can't be blamed for that; it's who he is. If liberals wanted the Democratic version of George W. Bush, a president who would force a progressive/liberal agenda regardless of what polls, pundits and majorities in either Congressional body say, then they should have backed someone other than the three finalists of the 2008 Democratic Primary.
Simply speaking, the reason that it appears that the Democratic Party is losing it because they're still being reasonable and diplomatic. The Tea Party have no desire to compromise; they consider doing so to be a sign of weakness. Unfortunately, the Tea Party represents the base of the Republican Party right now, and as I've said before, the GOP fears their base more than the Democrats fear theirs.
"Well, that means the Democrats should have someone like Bernie Sanders primary Obama!" You mean "Independent-Not-Part-of-the-Democratic-Party-Yet-Sent-a-Mailer-Begging-For-Donations-Anyway" Bernie Sanders? How about getting someone who, isn't only a member of the party, but also has a chance of winning in the general election? What's the point of wasting time and resources to "teach Obama a lesson" if the man/woman actually causes an upset (much like Obama did)?
No; the solution is pretty much what I said before: more liberals need to get out of the stands and get into the game. Don't stop at just voting and helping with the campaign, actually run for office. If you don't think there's enough liberals in Congress, run for a spot and help build their numbers, and in addition, make their voices heard. What's needed are liberals who aren't afraid of losing their seat in a reelection because they went all out in their first term; and as long as people are governing to a campaign, that won't happen.
And if more liberals had decided to be a part of this monster called Congress, we would be asking, "What Tea Party" instead of fretting about the country going into default.
(*drops mic*)
UPDATE: This Daily Kos Diarist is pretty in sync with my thinking on this issue. In addition, this diary is good for those looking for the story behind the story, and this one focuses on what's really important.
It's bad but the 2010 election results made this inevitable. I worked through my anger and despair last November; now I'm just looking forward to 2012. There will be no progress until the GOP is completely out of power and that is still a goal worth fighting for.
I know the White House is pushing to make this seem like everyone gained something from it. That's OK; that's their job. The GOP, Grover Norquist and various Congressional Democrats are doing the same thing. 11th Hour legislation makes for strange bedfellows.
But we need to remember how we got here. Financially-speaking, much of this mess occurred during the housing crisis and the sloppy way it was addressed. Politically -and I can't stress this enough- this ordeal was written in stone the minute the Tea Party-infused GOP won back the House of Representatives.
If Barack Obama should be blamed politically for anything from the Left, it's that he -much like Bill Clinton- did not fight tooth and nail to maintain a majority in both houses of Congress (many people seem to forget that George W. Bush actually came out ahead politically in his first midterm election, mostly due to the resonance of 9/11 and the GOP's subsequent fearmongering).
But other than that? Well, maybe he could have argued things from a more liberal starting point, but he's not a modern-day liberal. Obama is a pragmatic consensus builder, meaning that in the end of the day he doesn't want one side to say they got the wrong end of the deal. Of course, this means that if both parties either love or hate the compromise, he tends to count that as a victory.
Nevertheless, he can't be blamed for that; it's who he is. If liberals wanted the Democratic version of George W. Bush, a president who would force a progressive/liberal agenda regardless of what polls, pundits and majorities in either Congressional body say, then they should have backed someone other than the three finalists of the 2008 Democratic Primary.
Simply speaking, the reason that it appears that the Democratic Party is losing it because they're still being reasonable and diplomatic. The Tea Party have no desire to compromise; they consider doing so to be a sign of weakness. Unfortunately, the Tea Party represents the base of the Republican Party right now, and as I've said before, the GOP fears their base more than the Democrats fear theirs.
"Well, that means the Democrats should have someone like Bernie Sanders primary Obama!" You mean "Independent-Not-Part-of-the-Democratic-Party-Yet-Sent-a-Mailer-Begging-For-Donations-Anyway" Bernie Sanders? How about getting someone who, isn't only a member of the party, but also has a chance of winning in the general election? What's the point of wasting time and resources to "teach Obama a lesson" if the man/woman actually causes an upset (much like Obama did)?
No; the solution is pretty much what I said before: more liberals need to get out of the stands and get into the game. Don't stop at just voting and helping with the campaign, actually run for office. If you don't think there's enough liberals in Congress, run for a spot and help build their numbers, and in addition, make their voices heard. What's needed are liberals who aren't afraid of losing their seat in a reelection because they went all out in their first term; and as long as people are governing to a campaign, that won't happen.
And if more liberals had decided to be a part of this monster called Congress, we would be asking, "What Tea Party" instead of fretting about the country going into default.
(*drops mic*)
UPDATE: This Daily Kos Diarist is pretty in sync with my thinking on this issue. In addition, this diary is good for those looking for the story behind the story, and this one focuses on what's really important.
Comments