to the right wing purists who are so giddy these days…

I just had a discussion on Facebook.  All I did was post a video I thought was funny, but a couple of right wing friends got sort of emotional about it. This was one of my answers and thought I’d go ahead and make a blog of it.  (Hint to those who have friends on the right and want to remain friends:  they take Sarah Palin and Fox News seriously).

American politics is a pendulum that swings back and forth.  The Republicans had control of two branches for six years.  It was split for two years.  Democrats have two branches now.  It will probably be split again after next week.  My guess is that the Presidency will shift back and forth, as will the Congress, for many years to come.

This is the way it has been, and the way it will be.

Rather than focusing on these wonderful, pure thoughts that you believe so strongly (ie. pure capitalism is great; pure socialism is evil) — why not be realistic? It’s a pluralistic system.  Obama is not a socialist.  We have a huge country and it requires a huge federal government in order to function.  Somebody must be the CEO of this giant corporation, and some people must make spending decisions.  It doesn’t mean they’re evil.  It’s a hell of a task.

Your ideologies are wonderful for dormitory bull sessions and Fox News stockholders, but why not be real and put forth some ideas that can make this a better place to live, for us, our children, and grandchildren?

Sooner or later, your political party will prevail and have the opportunity to govern — as they did throughout the past decade.

I wish they could be a little more responsible with the budget, national security, and public discourse. The last time they had complete control — from 2000 through 2006 — they blew up the deficit, sliced and diced races and religions, neglected infrastructure, and spent our prosperity on war and extreme wealth for the very richest of the rich.

Does Mitch McConnell make anyone else feel like barfing?

Am I the only one who feels like barfing every time Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and other Republicans in Congress, in regards to health care reform,  say, like silly billy parrots, “the American people do not want this bill.”

makes me feel like barfing

I doubt it.  I’m guessing, if all the people who felt like barfing every time this lie was told actually barfed — the country would be swimming in barf.

This is because, while he endlessly repeats “Americans do not want this bill,” a lot of Americans in fact DO want this bill.

Wh0 are we, the Americans who want this bill?  Chopped liver?  And why does he keep saying we don’t want it, when we do.  Or does he not consider those who agree with him to be Americans?

And which bill do we not want?

That’s the problem.  The House and the Senate passed different bills — and nobody is completely happy with either.  So if they say we do not want “this bill,” they are technically right — since they haven’t defined what they’re talking about.

But most Americans DO want any damn bill that passes and begins to climb the country out of health insurance hell, introduces fair play, and moves us towards, ultimately, universal health care.

Certainly you’ve got polls that say the majority of Americans are against health care reform — because you’ve lied and distorted and scared the bejeezus out of people.

Well, here’s a poll for you:

In August of 2009, SurveyUSA asked 1200 adult Americans a question for NBC News and Wall Street Journal.  The question was “In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?  1) extremely important 2) quite important 3) not that important, or 4) not at all important?

77% said it was either Extremely Important or Quite Important.

So get real.  The American people want Congress to fix the broken system.  That’s why we elected Obama.  It’s the health insurance industry that’s against it, and they’ve spent $380 million buying your votes in Congress and moving those poll numbers for you guys — more money than was spent on the entire 2008 presidential campaign.

Importance of Public Option

Republicans have gone on strike

Is there a deficit?  Most certainly.

Is there job shortage?  Absolutely.

Are workers on strike?  Oddly enough, yes.

I thought the Republicans in Congress wanted to quit talking about health care and focus on jobs.

That’s all we heard for months.

Then why did 29 of them vote not to allow debate on a jobs bill?

upside down

And why did six of them not vote?

And this was for a bill that everybody says is only a fraction of what’s needed.

And this was for a bill that includes mostly tax cuts.

Call it strategy.

I call it a deficit.  Not a budget deficit, but a deficit of ideas, cooperation, good will, and work.

Republicans are not known for being fans of collective bargaining — but it appears they’ve gone on strike.

Is Obama a mature, responsible President?

It was a couple of weeks ago, and I can’t remember his name or the name of his book, but I heard a guy on evening talk radio, on NPR, say that Obama has made a big political mistake by not blaming the weak economy on George W. Bush.

According to this author, Franklin Roosevelt constantly reminded Americans that he inherited a mess that Herbert Hoover’s policies had created.

He always framed his initiatives as efforts to clean up the mess made by Hoover.

The joke was, he said, that Roosevelt ran against Hoover four times.

By contrast, Obama has not even mentioned George Bush’s name since he took office.

It’s hard to believe that this is true. Certainly he’s said “President Bush” at least once in the past eleven months.

I’ve heard Obama say that he inherited this mess, but I don’t recall hearing him say Bush’s name or refer to him at all. Whether or not such an observation is accurate, the spirit of what he said is very true.

Obama has paid a price, because he’s allowed Republicans to blame him for a lot of problems that he did not create and has tried to fix.

Why?

Certainly there are political reasons. He is showing respect for the office he now inhabits and lets other people in his party do the dirty work.

But it might also be an intentional effort to usher in the age of responsibility he has spent much time talking about.

Politics is inherently irresponsible. Republicans blame Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and even Roosevelt for many of the problems we face today.

When the economy thrived under Clinton, Republicans gave credit to Reagan. When the economy lost jobs under George W. Bush, Republicans blamed Clinton.

As a liberal Democrat, I blame Bush and Reagan for many of the problems we have today.

Jimmy Carter inherited a terrible economy.  It got worse.  He blamed the American people.

In politics, blame is the name of the game.

Perhaps Obama wants to play it different.

The economic collapse happened during Bush’s presidency, and all the economists predicted recovery would take years, not months — regardless of who was elected President.

Nobody was certain what would happen or what measures would work — and it’s clear Obama is trying. I trust our President and think he will succeed, but hasn’t had enough time yet.

But it seems that politics is inherently immature. Blame the other side for all problems.

If something is not true, then simply change the facts.

Reagan exploded the deficit while saying that government spending was the root of all our problems.  Bush did the same.

They blamed the Democrats for “taxing and spending,” while they taxed and spent more than Democrats.

At one point, the Bush administration actually had the majority of Americans thinking that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Not true — but the truth didn’t matter. I had conversations with folks who said that inaccuracy was a matter of opinion.

I’m sure many people think Obama is responsible for the economic collapse that took place before he became President. In the next election, the year of the collapse could become a matter of opinion.

We all know, however, that we cannot change the past. We can only do something today, take responsibility for it, and thereby take responsibility for creating the future.

This seems to be Obama’s perspective.

He doesn’t attack the opposition or blame Bush. He even tries to create bipartisan activity in Congress — even though Republicans will have no part of that.

Am I naive, or is this a sign of maturity and responsibility — Obama trying to practice what he preaches?

Can't we all just grow up a little?

The Obama protesters — a noisy bunch — strike me as folks who don’t understand how democracy works.

They are horrified by Obama’s agenda — but it’s not new. This is what he campaigned for.

During the campaign, they made fun of “change,” saying Obama just liked to give ‘pretty speeches,’ accusing him of using ‘rhetoric’ (dismissing rhetoric as something undesirable — when, in fact, it’s something quite useful and necessary).

No — it was actually change.

The push for health care reform should not be a surprise. Many of us gave money and walked many miles canvassing — precisely for this “change.”  We had an election. We won. That’s the way it works.

Granted, he didn’t plan on beginning his presidency with bailouts. Nobody liked that.

But…don’t we want our President to deal with a crisis? Would we have preferred another Great Depression? I think not.

Am I stating the obvious? I think so.

Is this outrage real? If so, it’s perfectly legal and okay — but it’s a little late. That energy should have been channelled into the McCain campaign. Is the outrage strategy for future elections? Possibly. I don’t know.

I feels more like a bunch of babies who don’t know how to lose.

It’s almost as if some people don’t understand what elections are, and that if you care — and I know they do — sometimes your candidate still loses.

In fact, losing is normal and complete victory never happens. Even when your candidate wins, it’s a mixed bag.  We have a pluralistic system in which his or her agenda — particularly in domestic matters — is never completely realized.

Recalling a few Presidential elections:

1972. I was a junior in high school. The Saturday before the election, my older brother dropped me off at a strip mall in Kannapolis, NC. Kannapolis, at that time, was not known for its diversity. Let’s call it a “conservative” area. I’m Jewish.  My hair was long, very curly, and unruly. My partner was another long-haired guy with a heavy accent — our Finnish exchange student.

I don’t think we won George McGovern any votes that day.

I liked McGovern. He said something like ‘We’ve tried getting peace with bombing. Let’s try getting peace with not bombing.’  Something like that.  As a sixteen year old who would soon be registering for the draft, I wanted the war to end ASAP.

I remember, about the time the polls closed on election day, talking with the local newspaper reporter who covered politics.

I remember still hoping that McGovern could win. This reporter told me he thought McGovern might win a few states, but that winning was “out of the question.”

I still remember hearing that cold prediction and not believing it. A few hours later, of course, his forecast was confirmed accurate. The next morning, on the way to school, a friend told me, “Don’t take it so hard. Nixon’s not that bad.” I was not to be consoled.

1990.  Here in Salisbury, we had an anti-Jesse Helms rally.  We marched from the Democratic headquarters, on South Main St., to the courthouse steps on North Main, where we made speeches.  Across the street, Helms supports shouted back. It was crazy — but at least it was before the Helms-Gant election, not after.

1992. I took my daughter to Clinton rallies and to the inauguration. We had a blast. Thus began the indoctrination of another generation.

2000. The debate was held in Winston-Salem, and I took my children.  We watched it in an auditorium, on the large screen, with lots of other Democrats. We saw Al Gore ride by in the motorcade.

In 2004, I spent quite a few evenings on the phone, calling swing states. On Saturdays in the fall, I took my daughters canvassing.  It seemed that every door we knocked on (all registered Democrats) was opened by a hardened, pro-war, Bush supporter.  We canvassed all day on election day, in a slightly more sympathetic neighborhood.  Even in a hopeless effort, which North Carolina clearly was, I like to feel that I’ve helped out a little.

That night, when Bush defeated Kerry, these daughters of mine, and one of their friends who was at our house that night — all of whom had worked quite hard all day — began to sob.

It took me a minute to realize that their grief was real. They were really this torn up about an election. I blamed myself for taking this too seriously and transferring that emotion.  Some things in life are more important than others, and at this point in my life, a national election seemed too abstract to take personally.

“Geez,” I said. “It’s not that bad. It’s just politics.  The pendulum swings back and forth. Maybe we’ll win the next one.”

No words could comfort these three girls, sitting on our living room couch, balling uncontrollably.

I realized that I was caught up in the history as much as the cause, whereas they were devoted entirely to the cause.

I’ve always taken comfort in the advice given by Timothy Gallwey in The Inner Game of Tennis, which goes something like this:  ‘If you pay attention to the score, losing is the norm.  Even so, winning isn’t that great and losing isn’t that bad.’  The idea is that one can win all the time by redefining what it means to win.  Full effort and improvement is winning.

And that’s the problem with folks now. Winning can happen — but it’s rare.  Losing is the norm, and it’s not worth going crazy and having a tantrum.

Politics is fascinating, but we seem to have a decent system that is somewhat self-correcting.

So c’mon, Republicans. Get a grip. Grow up. Play fair. It’s better for the country. There will be more elections, and your day will come again.