Occam's Razor

Divided we fall

I woke up this morning and realized I was living in the Divided States of America.

Actually, I have known this for quite a while, but in the last week or so, it has all become so very crystal clear. Like dust on the furniture so thick you cannot see the wood underneath it, I have been sort of pretending to myself that we really do not have completely dysfunctional government. You might say this morning I awoke fully from my intellectual stupor.

Here is what is clear: Republicans will put party and wacky extremist principle before their country. In fact, so will many Democrats. It’s my tribe over your tribe. Our country can go to hell for all they care, and as long as their base is happy, it does not matter. Take the latest cause for bitching: our exploding deficits. Republicans, who were happy when they were in charge to cast votes that caused the deficits in the first place, are now all about fiscal discipline. However, they are not enough about fiscal discipline to, like, actually do something about exploding deficits like maybe raise a tax or two, or simply let a tax cut expire. That might show leadership and political weakness. It’s too scaaaary for them to go there. What would their fellow tea baggers say if they actually moved toward a middle ground?

What an irony. Instead of showing courage, they are actually showing cowardice, not to mention abuse of their public office. When a nation has two wars going on, exploding deficits, ten percent unemployment and hosts of other major problems clearly it is the job of government to come together for the good of the country. At times like these, we need a government that cares more about whether the nation holds together at all, than whether a party gains or loses seats in the next election. By digging in their heals, of course, these political obfuscators only make the situation much worse and I might add much more costly. Inaction only breeds the bigger deficits about which they claim to be so upset.

Scared of rising deficits? It’s not too hard to figure out what’s driving most of them. It’s health care costs. What gives when they rise unchecked? Pretty much everything else gets short shrift, just the way your house would if you neglected the roof and invested it all in lottery tickets instead. If you don’t fix health care, everything continues to get much, much worse. So what is Congress busy doing? It’s trying to not fix health care, even though through a reconciliation process there is an obvious way to do so. Can’t do it. Too scaaaary.

It’s too scaaaary to do lots of things apparently. Too scaaaary to stop telling our military industrial complex to make lots of weaponry we don’t need. To scaaaary to raise taxes on the wealthy back to where they were when Bill Clinton was president and we enjoyed record prosperity. Change is just so darn scaaaary, at least when it requires political compromise. It’s in to be extremely partisan. It’s scaaaary to compromise.

I do give President Obama credit for trying. He was quite brave standing in front of the Congressional Republican Caucus in Baltimore last week. He could not have been more polite and respectful. He simply told Republicans that they have an obligation not just to oppose but also to find middle ground and work on behalf of all Americans. What an idea! It appears that it was not a message they wanted to hear.

It would be nice if there were any leaders in Congress willing to move toward the middle, but it’s hard to see where they will come from because to lead you necessarily take risk. The “leadership” got where it is primarily by moving toward the extreme and eschewing political compromise. What we need is someone with a very firm paddle to move these recalcitrant assholes. They are not leaders. They are pathetic whiners too busy covering their backs to care about the country they claim to love.

It sure would be nice just to hear a tad bit of honesty from these weasels. A mea culpa would be nice. How about this for a start: “You know what? At the time we passed those enormous tax cuts, they seemed like a good idea. They were a mistake. A big mistake. I regret with my whole heart voting for them because they caused this fiscal mess we are in right now. I also regret my vote for the Iraq War. What a waste of money and precious American lives! I cannot undo those votes, but I can vow to do what is right for my country from now on. I will vote to let those tax cuts expire as my contribution to helping reduce our $1.3 trillion dollar deficit. Moreover, I will work with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle to find some middle ground to solve many of our other pressing problems, like health care reform. It’s going to hurt, but I will give a little. In return, I expect the other side to give a little too. It may cost me my party’s nomination, but this time I really will act in the best interest of the American people as a whole, not for my political base. I know this process will be imperfect, but it will be better than the mess we have now. I will not contribute toward anymore of it.”

Gosh, I would vote for someone like this if he (or she) were sincere and actually followed through, even if they were a Republican. It’s not being mavericky, it’s being a statesman. It’s called doing your fucking job.

I would like to see the leadership on both sides of Congress come out with statements like these where they honestly acknowledge their mistakes, pledge to end the pointless finger pointing and pledge to do their jobs. I would like to see the leadership arm-twist their whips and committee chairmen into following along. If necessary, I would like to put the leadership of Congress and the White House in a room with nothing but Dominoes pizzas slipped under the door until they find middle ground. Moreover, I would not let them see their spouses or their children until we have a health care bill that contains costs and covers all the uninsured, a jobs program that puts people back to work doing meaningful work and a climate bill that actually shows Americans want to join the rest of the world in surviving as a species.

Then perhaps we ordinary Americans could feel hopeful again. Most likely we would be so thrilled to see government work again, we would reward those who showed the courage to compromise. In fact, mine is a fool’s hope. Instead, our political parties appear to favor dismantling our country piece by piece than compromise on anything. And so we sink further into the muck, sinking in part because we keep throwing more muck on each other. At some point in our not too distant future, the U.S.A. is nothing will be nothing but an ugly mud pit, fit only for the partisan pigs who brought it down.

As for the rest of us ordinary citizens, we sure would like to have a government that works for us again. Unfortunately, there is no place that three hundred million of us can emigrate to in order to get it.

February 2nd, 2010 at 09:26pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2010 | no comments

Two parties could play the disinformation game

I suspect that it was mostly us political junkies who watched President Obama’s speech before a joint session of Congress last night. My wife cares very much about health care reform, but not enough, apparently, to watch the speech with me. It was one of Obama’s better speeches, but it should have been delivered months ago. His administration has been floundering trying to master the health care reform debate and the speech was a belated attempt to regain control of the debate. For such an important initiative, it required better marketing effort than it has so far received.

Granted, Obama has had a few distractions to deal with, like fixing our tanking economy. It appears that our recession is over, but to the unemployed, whose ranks are likely to continue to swell in the months ahead, this is meaningless. Health care reform appears to be in part a victim of an administration trying to do too much at once. It is also the victim of learning too many lessons from the failure of health care reform during the Clinton Administration. Certain those dynamics are still in play, they appear to have floundered responding forcefully to the new dynamics of the debate. With luck, Obama’s speech at least changed the dynamics.

South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson certainly made a name of himself by heckling Obama during the speech. When Obama said accusations that reform would cover illegal immigrants was false, Wilson stood up in the middle of a joint session and called the president a liar. He has subsequently apologized for the incident, although it sounded halfhearted. While he agrees he acted disrespectfully, he still believes that health care reform proposals will indeed cover illegal immigrants, even though this is demonstrably false.

As Wilson demonstrates, Republicans seem to state as fact what could happen rather than what is actually being proposed. Using the “could” argument, of course, anything is possible. A subsequent Congress could explicitly decide to cover illegal immigrants so there you go, it must be true. In the minds of many Republicans, because anything is possible in the future, this means that Democrats are actively planning to make it so. There is a word for this sort of behavior: paranoia. Sometimes paranoia is justifiable. When paranoia extends to acts that are only imagined but have no basis in fact, one of two things is going on. In the case of Joe Wilson, it suggests a psychosis. Wilson could probably use some therapy, including anger management therapy. Most Republicans in Congress though are too smart to be psychotic. Which means that when they spew garbage like these imaginary death panels they are simply lying. Obama was correct to call those spewing these lies what they are: liars.

Wilson apparently transgressed the line of propriety by expressing his opinion during a joint session of Congress. However, being a politician means that you are free to lie the rest of the time, unless you are under oath. The only thing that really matters is whether voters will hold you accountable for your lies. The odds are stacked in an incumbent’s favor, but in the egregious case of Joe Wilson, perhaps not. His outburst spurred many contributions to his likely opposition candidate in 2010.

It may be late in the game, but maybe Democrats should to respond with a weapon similar to the one launched on them. Such a strategy may be hard to swallow, since it is so disingenuous, but it has proven remarkable effective for the Republicans. After all, if Republicans are going to charge as truth things that could happen, why should not Democrats and the Administration feel free to do the same? Of course, it would have the effect of burning bridges with the Republicans, but heck, Republicans have already burnt the bridges! What is the point of reconstructing the bridge of bipartisanship on the Democratic side if the Republicans are unwilling to also reconstruct their side? As I noted recently, bipartisanship is now perceived as for losers.

Perhaps it is time to marshal forces like MoveOn.org in a deliberate disinformation campaign. What would it look like? Here are some lies that, like the Republican lies, could be true, if not now then in Democrats’ imaginations but based on not wholly unreasonable inferences:

• The Republican Party has a master plan to destroy Medicare and Medicaid.
• Republicans hate poor people and want them to die young. Their opposition to health care reform is all about killing these Democrats to create a new Republican majority.
• Republicans also want to destroy the Social Security system because they see it as just more socialism.
• Republicans hate all but wealthy senior citizens. They want to destroy Medicare so their access to high quality care is unrestrained. If this means that other seniors die prematurely, that’s okay.
• Republicans are racists who want to deport African Americans back to Africa and send all Hispanics back to their native countries.

Like Republican lies such as the death panel lie, these lies sound a bit crazy, but not so crazy to not have a whiff of believability to them. For example, it is easy to find quotes by Glenn Beck or Pat Buchanan suggesting they are racists. It is also easy to find far-right members of Congress, like Ron Paul, who really are in favor of getting rid of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  The reason a smear so often works is because you really only need one egregious example to infer the truth about an entire class. In this sense, these lies are more credible than those Republicans have uttered. Since Republican lies have proven good at putting Democrats on the defensive, it is likely these lies would stick like superglue to Republicans. After all, their recent stints in power have left them with little credibility and their approval numbers are in the gutter. Moreover, the lies would keep Republicans busy explaining why the lies are not true, essentially taking the wind from their sails, as their lies did to Democrats at many town halls this summer.

In reality, it is not Republicans whose votes are needed. They will be opposed to it, no matter how much Obama and Democrats try to sweeten it for them. It is Democrats, particularly those Democrats that represent rather conservative districts and states, who are scared. I see it here in Virginia, a purple state. Senator Jim Webb is calling for more time for discussion and debate on health care reform, as if the last fifteen years have not been enough. Senator Mark Warner is being cautious and hedgy, and in particular seems to be backing away from supporting a public option.

Outspoken citizens at town halls are disproportionately influencing both senators. Numerous polls, such as this New York Time poll, show that the public option is strongly supported by a majority of Americans. Democrats have to summon the nerve to vote the will of their constituents. If they do, they will be rewarded by reelection because they will be seen as working for their constituents for a change. However, capitulation to a loud minority will only help ensure that Democrats reenter minority party status far sooner than need be.

September 10th, 2009 at 05:17pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2009 | no comments

The great Republican Party implosion

Newspapers and TV channels are busy writing stories about President Obama’s first hundred days in office. Were they a success? That depends on the tint of your lenses but most Americans would agree, “Hell yeah!” This is remarkable in itself because the economic news for those first hundred days has been dismal and there are only hints that it will improve in the months ahead. Nonetheless, when asked about President Obama’s performance so far, about 68% of Americans give thumbs up. Not only do Americans approve of President Obama’s performance so far by wide margins, about eighty percent also like him as a person. Really, what’s not to like? He’s got it all: charisma, a sunny smile, a low key manner, poise, manners, a trim and muscular body, good looks, two cute kids, a wonderful wife, a Portuguese water dog and (in marked contrast to his predecessor) a brain.

You do not even really have to like the guy to feel the ship of state quickly changing course toward smoother waters. This is happening because Obama knows the levers to pull to actually make it happen. He promised change and thanks to his expanded Democratic Congress, he is quickly delivering. Gitmo is closing along with those overseas CIA black sites where prisoners unknown were probably tortured. As for torture itself: banned. In addition, the Bush Administration’s torture memos have also finally see the light of day. Obama has ordered troop levels increased by 17,000 in Afghanistan. In Iraq, he has given the military instruction to remove all combat forces by August 2010. He shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and made overtures to hold talks with Iranian leaders. Cuban Americans can now legally travel to Cuba to see their families.

Domestically, Obama convinced Congress to pass a $787 billion stimulus bill which among doing vital things like fixing our deteriorating infrastructure and moving us to a cleaner energy future also provides extended unemployment benefits to those who were running out of them. He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, making it easier for women to collect for past job discrimination. Many of the Bush Administration’s most egregious environmental regulations have been rescinded, including those ones that allowed mountaintop refuse to pollute Appalachian streams or mining in The Grand Canyon. He also convinced Congress to pass the largest tax cut for the middle class in history: $282 billion. Not bad for the first hundred days.

Republicans have a point on his record deficits, but offered no viable solution of their own on how to change the economic situation. In any event, Americans generally sense that Obama is a different sort of president, mindful that he cannot throw borrowed money against our problems forever, but also smart enough to know there are times like today when it is actually the smart thing to do.

A hundred days is just a number. You can be certain if the houses of Congress were divided, his successes would be much smaller. Myriad problems and issues lie ahead, like his promise to provide health insurance for all Americans. However, under a budget reconciliation agreement, the Senate cannot filibuster its health care proposal, meaning it is likely to happen more to his liking, and sooner rather than later. Not that it would have mattered now anyhow. Yesterday, on Day 99, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter found it politically convenient to become a Democrat. At this point even Norm Coleman realizes that his appeals will be for naught and that Al Franken will eventually become Minnesota’s second Democratic senator. That means Democrats will reach the magic 60 votes needed to prevent Republican filibusters assuming, as is always dubious with Democrats, that none cross the aisle.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party seems determined to implode. It is like they want to be politically irrelevant. Democrats held their nose and let Senator Liebermann caucus with them when he won reelection as an Independent in 2006. They pragmatically decided doing so just increased their share of committee seats and power is what the game is all about in Congress. When Senator Arlen Specter switched parties yesterday, some Republicans like Rush Limbaugh felt compelled to kick him on the rear on his way out the door. The message is clear: rather than be a “big tent” party, The Republican Party wants to become even more insular and actually enjoys being mean and nasty.

How Republicans can possibly become politically relevant again while maintaining these attitudes is unclear at best. There does not appear to be a new set of Americans waiting out there for which this message has any appeal. They don’t understand why Republicans have to be both insular and obstructionist. They want politicians to actually solve problems. Since The Republican Party is now essentially The Conservative Party, their only answer to today’s problems is to throw sand into the gears of government. The rest of us are pretty sure that since this didn’t work for the last eight years it probably won’t work very well in the next eight years either.

Moreover, many of these same conservatives, who just a few years ago we proclaiming “My country, right are wrong”, now want to secede from the United States. Apparently, to many Republicans loyalty to country only lasts as long as they are in charge. According to a Research 2000 poll, half of the Republicans in Texas prefer seceding to staying in the union. There is patriotism for you. I guess this is easier to take your chips and go home than it is to do what you have to do to regain power: accommodate others with many but not all of your opinions. A pragmatic Republican Party for example would be agnostic on gay marriage, since a new generation of Americans simply doesn’t understand why gays should not marry. This would not only encourage not only gay independents to become Republican, but also large number of Libertarians who don’t understand why in a free country gays cannot be as free as the rest of us. Since they cannot, they hamstring themselves into what looks like a long period of political irrelevance.

Normally a midterm election means the opposing party picks up seats. The omens do not look good for Republican pickups in 2010. Democrats are likely to increase their majority with the retirement of Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. With only 23% of Americans identifying themselves as Republican (versus 33% as recently as 2003), it is hard to see where Republicans can pick up seats. It certainly doesn’t help when Republicans pick Club for Growth candidates to field in the general election. It only makes them look more extreme.

It remains to be seen how long The Republican Party will choose to be out of power. If they are waiting for America to become more conservative, it is likely to be a long wait. Their best hope as always is to hope the other guy screws up. Unfortunately, President Obama is proving to be the most politically adept president since Ronald Reagan. He will doubtless make mistakes, but it is unlikely he will make large and egregious mistakes due to not thinking through an issue sufficiently. His poll numbers speak for themselves.

The way things are going, The Grand Old Party may soon become The Grand Dead Party.

April 29th, 2009 at 07:38pm Posted by Mark | Politics 2009 | one comment

My first Seder

Last Thursday, President Obama hosted a private Passover Seder in the White House. It was news because in the 232 years we have been a nation, no President had ever hosted a Seder before. Of course, we never had a Jewish president before so that might explain it. While the Seder was welcomed by America’s Jewish community, they can be forgiven for wondering why it took so long. The most likely reason amounts to tacit Anti-Semitism. Supporting the state of Israel and all that is fine, but actually participating in some solemn Jewish customs in our most public of houses somehow seemed a bridge too far to its previous Christian chief executives.

President Obama hosts the first White House Seder

While Seder is a Jewish tradition at Passover, as I discovered you don’t have to be Jewish to have a Seder and find meaning in the event. For some reason, I got through fifty-two years without having attended a Passover Seder. That changed last night when our friend Fox, who also happens to be Jewish, invited a small group of us mostly Gentiles to her brownstone apartment in Silver Spring, Maryland for a belated Passover Seder. It was probably significantly toned down from Passover Seders in most orthodox Jewish families, but it was a Seder nonetheless from dipping sprigs of parsley in a bowl of salt water to the washing of hands (twice), to the matza ball soup (quite delicious!) to the singing of Next Year in Jerusalem.

Passover Seder is something like a Jewish Thanksgiving. The Pilgrims gave thanks having made it to the New World and for their first harvest. The Jews celebrate their miraculous escape from Egyptian slavery as well as remember its horrors. Unlike Thanksgiving, which is primarily an occasion for overeating and maybe a little giving of thanks, Passover Seder commemorates the liberation of a people, which is perhaps a lot more meaningful. (I grant you the Pilgrims in their own way went to the New World seeking their own liberation, or at least an escape from religious persecution.)

Christians today are busy celebrating Easter, their holiest of days. Many of the more devout ones also celebrated Holy Thursday last week, infamous of course for The Last Supper. I was one of the many people who had largely tuned out that The Last Supper was a Passover Seder with Jesus as the guest of honor. Just as Christmas was timed around Winter Solstice to bring in the heathens, the timing of Easter over the Passover seems a trifle suspicious. What are the odds that Jesus just happened to die on the cross during the Passover? (One in 52, actually.) The Catholic mass strikes me at least in part as a way to co-opt and disenfranchise Passover Seder. Jesus broke matza on Holy Thursday and shared it with his disciples, the closest thing he had to family. During a mass, priests break the host into parts, and hosts are shared with the faithful during Holy Communion. (By the way, while matza is pretty boring bread, I prefer it to communion wafers.) In a way, Catholics celebrate Passover Seder every time they go to Mass.

Thanksgiving really is a holiday-come-lately. Passover Seder was already an ancient custom when Jesus held The Last Supper. Perhaps that was why my first Seder yesterday felt special, because I was participating in a ritual far older than Christianity. Moreover, its message is timeless. Who cannot feel joy at the miraculous liberation of a people? Who cannot feel touched that the Jews over so many millenniums take time once a year to never forget their enslavement, their long years in the desert and their return to the Promised Land?

Passover and Exodus, like many religious events, likely has a core truth to it, but is probably mostly myth. It is likely that not all Jews went to work in Egypt and even after the Diaspora we know some Jews still lived in Palestine. Few actually believe that the waters of the Red Sea parted for the Jews, although they may have found a relatively dry path on their way to the Sinai over the Reed Sea, while Pharaoh’s armies got stuck in the muck. Whether Yahweh sent plagues or Egypt was going through a bad time is hard to say. I doubt any plague disproportionately spared the Jews. It is doubtful Jews were interminably lost in the desert for decades. It is much more likely that, like Gypsies, they were treated as uninvited guests wherever they went and kept roaming but stayed near sources of known water. In any event, Exodus makes for a compelling story and likely does speak to the reality that large numbers of Jews were enslaved in Egypt and managed to break free. Much of Jewish history and law derives from Moses’ oversized presence.

In fact, as bad as enslavement was back in Pharaoh’s time, the Holocaust was much worse. The state of Israel does celebrate a Holocaust Memorial Day, which in their calendar falls between April 7th and May 7th. The Pharaoh’s sins against the Jews were relatively minor compared with Adolph Hitler’s: Pharaoh wanted to enslave and abuse the Jews, not annihilate them. Passover is so established that it will never go away, but perhaps in time Jews will elevate Holocaust Memorial Day to a holiday of similar stature and magnitude.

More Gentiles like me should consider incorporating Passover Seder into their annual customs. The Unitarian church I attend hosts an annual Passover Seder. I had never considered attending before. I will be more likely to attend them in the future. My experience is that it is impossible to attend a Seder without feeling some of the suffering, oppression and liberation that Jews have experienced. In my opinion, Americans of all faith should routinely practice Passover Seder. So plaudits for President Obama. As acts of leadership go, this is a minor but important one. Let us hope it will be celebrated annually in The White House from now on.

April 12th, 2009 at 12:29pm Posted by Mark | Life 2009, Politics 2009, Sociology | one comment

Putting the “bye” in bipartisan

It is clear that President Obama did not spend many years in the U.S. Senate. As an Illinois state senator, he was used to crossing the aisle in Springfield. When he came to Washington, he made a habit of crossing the aisle in the U.S. Senate too. He rarely crossed the aisle to compromise his own principles, but to try to find consensus so that the notoriously slow U.S. Senate would actually move on some issues. His goals were laudable although the number of times this approach actually worked was rather small. Few issues were sufficiently nonpartisan that significant groups of senators could be persuaded to put country or simple pragmatism ahead of party.

As president, Obama wanted to do the same thing. His thinking is that our economic crisis was grave and as large a national challenge as September 11th was for President Bush. After September 11th, Americans and Congress largely rallied behind President Bush. Democrats largely decided they would accede to him on foreign policy matters, but even on many domestic policy matters, such as large tax cuts, they acquiesced. Such accommodations though were rarely bipartisan. They amounted to capitulation. Democrats were rarely successful in convincing Republicans or President Bush to accommodate their ideas.

To show Republicans he was serious, Obama nominated three Republicans as members of his cabinet. He retained Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, gave the job of Secretary of Transportation to Ray LaHood (formally a representative from Illinois) and nominated as Secretary of Commerce New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, before he abruptly withdrew last week. He was trying to show Republicans that he was serious about running a bipartisan government. He then invited Republicans to tell him their ideas for this proposed economic stimulus bill. The final bill to be signed Tuesday incorporates many ideas pushed by Republicans including large tax cuts.

What did he get for all this effort? In the House of Representatives, every single Republican voted against the House bill as well as the final bill. On the Senate side, three moderate Republican senators crossed the aisle, the bare minimum needed to keep the bill from being filibustered into defeat. Two were moderate senators from Maine who have to win reelection in a state that like most of New England is trending blue. Pennsylvania Senator Arlan Specter, also from a predominantly blue state, was the only other Republican senator to break party ranks. He did so with some trepidation. This vote may well cost him in 2010 when he runs for reelection. His concern is not so much the general election as with the Republican primary. Americans in general support President Obama’s stimulus bill, but the Republican rank and file are up in arms.

Republican opposition is thus partially rooted in opposition from the party faithful. Most Republican politicians are also ideologically opposed to the bill. Considering the size of the tax cuts in the bill and the fact that for the last eight years Republicans have embraced deficit spending, you would think they would be in a more accommodating mind. However, this calculus assumes that Republicans want the economic recovery plan to succeed. Rush Limbaugh articulated their true feelings rather well when he recently said he hopes that Obama fails.

Of course they do! Obama failed to understand that for Republicans, party triumphs over country. This is because they cannot conceive of the United States as a “good” country unless it reflects their governance because they know what is right and Democrats do not. It is that simple. If Obama’s plan succeeds, and frankly, the odds are against Obama, it will mean larger Democratic majorities, more years of political estrangement and no clear way to get back power. If it does not succeed, or is perceived to have been ineffective, by voting No they can say “We told you so”, which sets them up for possible electoral gains in 2010 or 2012. In short, by voting No, there were few political downsides and plenty of potential upsides. It reinvigorated the party faithful, who were feeling dispirited and morose over their drubbing in the last two elections. It showed that they stood on principle, something they were not so great at during the last eight years. Standing on principle, they hope, positions their party to be seen in a new light. Since they are out of power anyhow, the way back into power is to be well positioned when the other party screws up. With a government as large and as unwieldy as ours it is not hard to screw up.

As I mentioned, Obama’s economic recovery plan is unlikely to yield the hoped for results. Like all legislation out of the Congress, it is ultimately a work of political accommodation. In this case, by accepting so many Republican ideas, the plan became watered down and is likely to be far less effective because it is less focused and coherent. Tax cuts have failed to stimulate the economy in the past but here they are yet again. While they won’t work this time either they do give Republicans something to take back to voters, while giving them cover because so few of them actually voted for the bill. It is unlikely that the nearly $800 billion bill, in spite of its huge size, will be enough to really jumpstart the economy. Most of the money will not be spent in 2009, and as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product, the amount of money is rather tiny. It is likely better than doing nothing, as it provides vital funds to extend unemployment benefits, food stamps and health benefits to millions of Americans who desperately need them, but it is more of a Band-Aid than a solution.

The reality is that bipartisanship is dead in Congress and is likely to remain so. Obama may want to bring about bipartisanship, but it is only possible if the parties want to be bipartisan. While the American people in general embrace the idyllic notion of bipartisanship, there is no sign that that our political parties want to govern in a bipartisan way.

Obama is a smart man but I am still surprised he did not see this coming. Bipartisanship has great promise, but the soil is not now right for it to grow. It is unclear if the soil will ever be sufficiently fertilized. Thus far, it has had no upside for him except possibly keeping his approval ratings sky high. As a means of effecting helpful policy changes, it is counterproductive. In the future, it is likely that President Obama will give lip service to bipartisanship and work with Democrats and a handful of moderate Republican senators to get the changes he needs. Clearly, Republicans are only interested in promoting their own political resurgence and are hostile toward any actions that might help Obama succeed in these perilous economic times.

February 15th, 2009 at 10:40am Posted by Mark | Politics 2009 | 2 comments