I'll admit I stole the title of this post from John Stewart's book "America: a Guide to Democracy Inaction." When I first got that book for Christmas years ago and read it I was amused, but lacked some of the knowledge and understanding I have now. Sad though it is, the book is aptly titled. We have reached a point where democracy inaction is the norm.
I've spent plenty of time lambasting Republicans for their failure to do anything about the impending fiscal cliff, and rightfully so. The party's woeful lack of leadership and ideas is an embarrassment for them and a travesty for America, but Republicans are not the only group in need of some public shaming. Credit (or in this case scorn) must be given when credit is due, and in this instance Democrats are deserving of scorn as well.
It's true that Republicans have rejected offers that are not only fair, but even favorable to their positions because they are unwilling to compromise even a little bit, but given their past history that's unsurprising. If Republicans don't want to contribute to the nation's future - and they've shown they don't have any interest in that - I still expect Democrats to propose ideas. Sadly the Democratic party, while hugely preferable to the alternative is good in a comparative sense, acceptable in an absolute one. The current haranguing over missing a self-imposed deadline (more on that in a moment) has proven to be a real facade for the American people. While we rightfully blame Republicans for their intransigence and compete lack of ideas, their embarrassing collapse the week before the holidays left an opening that Democrats are either unwilling or unable to exploit. It doesn't matter whether or not they have no ideas or are unwilling to bring them to the table, in the last week, Democrats have shown they are poor leaders as well. In the eight days since House Republicans could not or would not pass their own plan we have gotten...eight days closer to missing a self-imposed deadline. Democrats have been absent. Literally. They went home for the holidays. Gifted both a political and policy win by the disaster that is the Republican party, Democrats have so far given us nothing.
And so we are now three days away from missing a self-imposed deadline that would perhaps lead us into another recession, at the very least scare markets and be a disastrous few days for people's portfolios. And again, all of this is self-imposed. I find myself wondering what the leaders and people of other countries think to themselves - especially those who live in countries suffering from the global economic downturn - when they see that the United States of America, the world's supposed leader, has created a scenario in which we may send ourselves into recession. Democracy inaction indeed. Compromise has become the antithesis of success in the political mind and in political discourse, just not in reality. So we continue to elect those who promise to do nothing useful if it compromises their "values." Compromise, of course, is not one of compromisable values.
Our nation needs fixing, and we need it quickly. In a matter of days we will face tax hikes and spending cuts that we imposed on ourselves to ensure that we got a deal done to avoid those tax hikes and spending cuts. This is the best we can do? The first step in fixing America is fixing our political system. I don't know what that is going to take short of voting the entire lot of politicians out of office and starting from scratch. Democracy inaction has gotten to be both an embarrassment and a threat to the future of our country.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Back to Taxes
Now over a week removed from the tragedy in Connecticut, it appears as though the debate over gun control will have to wait until January at which point President Obama has said he will address it again. I hope this is the case as just yesterday another three innocent people were shot dead in a rampage in Pennsylvania. Of course in between now and then who knows how many individuals have been murdered or committed suicide using guns. The tragedies keep piling up.
But since the gun debate is going to be on hold for the time being and because I am not confident that America is willing to take action steps to address the issue, let us now return to the immediacy of the fiscal cliff, the cuts and tax hikes slated to begin going into effect on January 1, 2013. Even as business leaders and executives were dropping their opposition to tax increases for the wealthy, presumably because they understand the damaging effects of spending cuts, House Republicans were steadfast in their refusal to support higher taxes for anyone, even the people who support higher taxes for themselves. Never was this more evident than on Thursday night when House Republicans refused to support their own leader's plan to raise taxes for only those making over a million dollars annually as a stopgap measure. The bill - a joke anyhow - would have at least put the political pressure on Democrats to do something, but alas the Republican Party is in such disarray that it can't even agree to put pressure on Democrats. It is a truly laughable and embarrassing situation.
The Republicans failure to show any kind of leadership or present any kind of real ideas on taxes and spending opens the door for Democrats to win the day politically and introduce policy that will actually benefit the country. If Democrats can come together quickly and put together a package that passes through the Senate with bipartisan support it could go to the House and presumably pass there with bipartisan support as well. Of course, it is a leap of faith to assume that there are enough Republicans willing to take positive action steps for this to be reality, but at the very least party leaders have to realize that the party is sunk if they can't do anything about the fiscal cliff. Last month's electoral drubbing and the poll data showing that overwhelming numbers of Americans would blame Republicans for falling over the fiscal cliff - and rightfully so - has to terrify party leaders.
As much as I feel gleeful thinking about the far right wing of the Republican Party working themselves out of jobs, I prefer a healthy economy, which means we need sound policy soon. The American people are on board and America's business leaders are on board. In fact everyone is on board except a handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives, the place were America's future goes to die. Democrats in the Senate should work with the President and those Republican Senators who are willing to compromise on taxes and spending to craft legislation that will increase revenue by raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals, but also find meaningful spending cuts, especially from the military and entitlement programs. This sounds daunting, but it's not. Many of the tax increases and spending cuts have already been identified in the multiple "negotiations" between President Obama and Speaker Boehner. All that needs to be done is crafting the legislation and counting the votes. Can a bill get enough support - 60 votes - to overcome a filibuster and pass the Senate? I think it can. There are sensible Republican Senators, more than can be said for their House colleagues. A bipartisan bill that still reflects Democratic priorities could pass the Senate and perhaps the House. A best case scenario is that this results in actual policy that negates the fiscal cliff and places us on sound fiscal footing so that the economy can prosper. A worst case scenario is that House Republicans reject any bipartisan Senate bill further proving that they live in a fantasy world devoid of intellect and ideas, thus hampering their ability to rebound politically in the future.
America needs action and President Obama and the Democrats have been handed an opportunity to forge needed legislation. The onus is now on them to take the initiative and move forward with a bill that will help put us soundly and irrevocably on the path towards economic recovery. Republican intransigence and disarray has reached a nadir that has presented an opening, Democrats must seize it.
But since the gun debate is going to be on hold for the time being and because I am not confident that America is willing to take action steps to address the issue, let us now return to the immediacy of the fiscal cliff, the cuts and tax hikes slated to begin going into effect on January 1, 2013. Even as business leaders and executives were dropping their opposition to tax increases for the wealthy, presumably because they understand the damaging effects of spending cuts, House Republicans were steadfast in their refusal to support higher taxes for anyone, even the people who support higher taxes for themselves. Never was this more evident than on Thursday night when House Republicans refused to support their own leader's plan to raise taxes for only those making over a million dollars annually as a stopgap measure. The bill - a joke anyhow - would have at least put the political pressure on Democrats to do something, but alas the Republican Party is in such disarray that it can't even agree to put pressure on Democrats. It is a truly laughable and embarrassing situation.
The Republicans failure to show any kind of leadership or present any kind of real ideas on taxes and spending opens the door for Democrats to win the day politically and introduce policy that will actually benefit the country. If Democrats can come together quickly and put together a package that passes through the Senate with bipartisan support it could go to the House and presumably pass there with bipartisan support as well. Of course, it is a leap of faith to assume that there are enough Republicans willing to take positive action steps for this to be reality, but at the very least party leaders have to realize that the party is sunk if they can't do anything about the fiscal cliff. Last month's electoral drubbing and the poll data showing that overwhelming numbers of Americans would blame Republicans for falling over the fiscal cliff - and rightfully so - has to terrify party leaders.
As much as I feel gleeful thinking about the far right wing of the Republican Party working themselves out of jobs, I prefer a healthy economy, which means we need sound policy soon. The American people are on board and America's business leaders are on board. In fact everyone is on board except a handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives, the place were America's future goes to die. Democrats in the Senate should work with the President and those Republican Senators who are willing to compromise on taxes and spending to craft legislation that will increase revenue by raising taxes on the wealthiest individuals, but also find meaningful spending cuts, especially from the military and entitlement programs. This sounds daunting, but it's not. Many of the tax increases and spending cuts have already been identified in the multiple "negotiations" between President Obama and Speaker Boehner. All that needs to be done is crafting the legislation and counting the votes. Can a bill get enough support - 60 votes - to overcome a filibuster and pass the Senate? I think it can. There are sensible Republican Senators, more than can be said for their House colleagues. A bipartisan bill that still reflects Democratic priorities could pass the Senate and perhaps the House. A best case scenario is that this results in actual policy that negates the fiscal cliff and places us on sound fiscal footing so that the economy can prosper. A worst case scenario is that House Republicans reject any bipartisan Senate bill further proving that they live in a fantasy world devoid of intellect and ideas, thus hampering their ability to rebound politically in the future.
America needs action and President Obama and the Democrats have been handed an opportunity to forge needed legislation. The onus is now on them to take the initiative and move forward with a bill that will help put us soundly and irrevocably on the path towards economic recovery. Republican intransigence and disarray has reached a nadir that has presented an opening, Democrats must seize it.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
It's a Gun Problem
I'm going to start this post by acknowledging the obvious, America will not be banning guns any time in the foreseeable future, perhaps not ever. Let me also admit that I like guns. I think they are fun. I have fired guns plenty of times, and I understand why people like them.
Now let's move on to why we must have meaningful gun control in America, and why Friday's tragedy was at its core, a gun issue.
For starters, it is worth pointing out that The shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was by no means an isolated incident, it has happened time and again in our country over the years. It is also worth pointing out that despite all of the public massacres that attract media coverage, most gun deaths in America go unnoticed and unacknowledged. No one reports on the suicides that add up to thousands of individual tragedies, and no one cares about gun violence that claims the lives of thousand more poor minorities. As awful as Friday's massacre was, those type of events represent but a fraction of the gun deaths in America each year.
Over the past few days I've engaged in numerous debates with a variety of people about the role of guns in America, and there is no denying that boiling this down to a simple gun vs. anti-gun argument does not adequately address the complexity of the issues surrounding our gun-related murder rate. There are a variety of factors at play, all of which must be addressed if we are to prevent more tragedies.
But let's not kid ourselves, the underlying issue is guns. We can start by just examining murder statistics. Americans die from gun violence in alarming numbers. We could significantly reduce, though not eliminate, these unnecessary deaths by implementing meaningful gun reform. But we most also rid ourselves of the fallacy that having guns makes us safer. That's actually not true either. In fact owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by one, whether that death is a suicide or simply an accident. So owning guns don't make us safer, they put us in more danger. It is a statistical fact that guns make our country a more dangerous, rather than a less dangerous place.
In the conversations I've had recently, many people have pointed to things other than guns as being THE issue: mental illness; crime; drugs; etc. It is again worth mentioning that all of these factors play a role, but we can see how the availability of guns, especially of the variety that only America allows, plays an important role.
For starters we must admit that while mental illness is not exclusive to America, gun rampages by mentally ill individuals largely is a uniquely American issue. Not entirely, but largely. Off the top of my head I can think of one example of this in other countries, the shooting in Norway that claimed 81 lives. Of course there are others, but here in America we have had two in a week, one at a mall in Oregon and one at a school in Connecticut. These kinds of things happen all the time here because we are the only country that makes guns so readily available that anyone can get them. Should we do better destigmatizing and addressing mental health issues? Absolutely, and that will probably help, but we can also limit access to guns.
What about suicide rates? Obviously if someone is determined to kill themselves they will find a way to do it even without a gun, but we make it harder to do this in other manners, such as erecting barriers or fences around bridges, or by restricting access to many drugs or chemicals that may be used for poison. Would limiting access to guns result in a decline in the suicide rate? Perhaps, but I think it's undeniable that by making guns easily accessible we do nothing to deter individuals from using them to end their own lives.
Finally, we should consider the deaths that are by-products of crime and poverty. There are again a variety of factors at play here, but an article in the Economist details a few of the difference from gang and drug related violence in Britain as contrasted with America. In that country, far fewer criminals wield guns and thus there are far fewer gun deaths. There are still problems with drugs and crime, but less violent crime due to less guns.
I recently finished reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Among the many issues that he discussed as contributing factors to a society's potential collapse is a refusal to change values when they have lost their utility. While I don't think that guns have lost all utility, and I certainly don't think that our love of guns has put us on a path towards a societal collapse, I absolutely think that we need to reevaluate our thinking on guns. If we read the 2nd Amendment literally, the right to bear arms does not apply to private citizens, but even if we believe that it does, are we really hoarding weapons as a deterrent to government tyranny? I find that argument somewhat insulting to people who actually suffer under the yoke of dictatorships and also laughable as a real solution to the imaginary threat of a hostile government intent on trampling our rights. Assault rifles are deadly when fired at crowds of innocent people, but are they really going to stop military tanks? This is nothing short of ludicrous. The American public is protected now by the American military, there is no need for militias either as means of protecting our well-being or as a deterrent towards a perceived hostile government. What we have instead is an over-abundance of deadly weapons that are turned on our own citizens. Innocent Americans are dying, and it is a gun problem.
I don't long for an America without guns. I think that is unrealistic and unfeasible. I do long for an America that recognizes it's addictions to guns is dangerous and silly. I do want us to examine our gun culture and realize that guns have lost a lot of utility in today's world and that we would be safer if we took steps to regulate and restrict them as we do with other dangerous things. We are the only developed country in the world that has problems with gun crimes, and it can be traced to just that - guns. Other countries struggle with drug issues, gang issues, mental illness and whatever other factors play into violent crime, but they don't have a problem with guns and so their citizens do not suffer, die, and mourn like we do in America. It's a real problem, it's a gun problem, and we need to address it.
Now let's move on to why we must have meaningful gun control in America, and why Friday's tragedy was at its core, a gun issue.
For starters, it is worth pointing out that The shooting in Newtown, Connecticut was by no means an isolated incident, it has happened time and again in our country over the years. It is also worth pointing out that despite all of the public massacres that attract media coverage, most gun deaths in America go unnoticed and unacknowledged. No one reports on the suicides that add up to thousands of individual tragedies, and no one cares about gun violence that claims the lives of thousand more poor minorities. As awful as Friday's massacre was, those type of events represent but a fraction of the gun deaths in America each year.
Over the past few days I've engaged in numerous debates with a variety of people about the role of guns in America, and there is no denying that boiling this down to a simple gun vs. anti-gun argument does not adequately address the complexity of the issues surrounding our gun-related murder rate. There are a variety of factors at play, all of which must be addressed if we are to prevent more tragedies.
But let's not kid ourselves, the underlying issue is guns. We can start by just examining murder statistics. Americans die from gun violence in alarming numbers. We could significantly reduce, though not eliminate, these unnecessary deaths by implementing meaningful gun reform. But we most also rid ourselves of the fallacy that having guns makes us safer. That's actually not true either. In fact owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by one, whether that death is a suicide or simply an accident. So owning guns don't make us safer, they put us in more danger. It is a statistical fact that guns make our country a more dangerous, rather than a less dangerous place.
In the conversations I've had recently, many people have pointed to things other than guns as being THE issue: mental illness; crime; drugs; etc. It is again worth mentioning that all of these factors play a role, but we can see how the availability of guns, especially of the variety that only America allows, plays an important role.
For starters we must admit that while mental illness is not exclusive to America, gun rampages by mentally ill individuals largely is a uniquely American issue. Not entirely, but largely. Off the top of my head I can think of one example of this in other countries, the shooting in Norway that claimed 81 lives. Of course there are others, but here in America we have had two in a week, one at a mall in Oregon and one at a school in Connecticut. These kinds of things happen all the time here because we are the only country that makes guns so readily available that anyone can get them. Should we do better destigmatizing and addressing mental health issues? Absolutely, and that will probably help, but we can also limit access to guns.
What about suicide rates? Obviously if someone is determined to kill themselves they will find a way to do it even without a gun, but we make it harder to do this in other manners, such as erecting barriers or fences around bridges, or by restricting access to many drugs or chemicals that may be used for poison. Would limiting access to guns result in a decline in the suicide rate? Perhaps, but I think it's undeniable that by making guns easily accessible we do nothing to deter individuals from using them to end their own lives.
Finally, we should consider the deaths that are by-products of crime and poverty. There are again a variety of factors at play here, but an article in the Economist details a few of the difference from gang and drug related violence in Britain as contrasted with America. In that country, far fewer criminals wield guns and thus there are far fewer gun deaths. There are still problems with drugs and crime, but less violent crime due to less guns.
I recently finished reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Among the many issues that he discussed as contributing factors to a society's potential collapse is a refusal to change values when they have lost their utility. While I don't think that guns have lost all utility, and I certainly don't think that our love of guns has put us on a path towards a societal collapse, I absolutely think that we need to reevaluate our thinking on guns. If we read the 2nd Amendment literally, the right to bear arms does not apply to private citizens, but even if we believe that it does, are we really hoarding weapons as a deterrent to government tyranny? I find that argument somewhat insulting to people who actually suffer under the yoke of dictatorships and also laughable as a real solution to the imaginary threat of a hostile government intent on trampling our rights. Assault rifles are deadly when fired at crowds of innocent people, but are they really going to stop military tanks? This is nothing short of ludicrous. The American public is protected now by the American military, there is no need for militias either as means of protecting our well-being or as a deterrent towards a perceived hostile government. What we have instead is an over-abundance of deadly weapons that are turned on our own citizens. Innocent Americans are dying, and it is a gun problem.
I don't long for an America without guns. I think that is unrealistic and unfeasible. I do long for an America that recognizes it's addictions to guns is dangerous and silly. I do want us to examine our gun culture and realize that guns have lost a lot of utility in today's world and that we would be safer if we took steps to regulate and restrict them as we do with other dangerous things. We are the only developed country in the world that has problems with gun crimes, and it can be traced to just that - guns. Other countries struggle with drug issues, gang issues, mental illness and whatever other factors play into violent crime, but they don't have a problem with guns and so their citizens do not suffer, die, and mourn like we do in America. It's a real problem, it's a gun problem, and we need to address it.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
What is a Right?
There are no words to describe Friday's tragedy in Connecticut. I cannot say anything that will ease the pain or make things right. I can only offer condolences and prayers to those affected.
What happened was most likely the act of a mentally sick individual who probably needed support he was not getting. In the coming days and weeks we will undoubtedly learn more about the killer, but will we have the fortitude to tackle the underlying issue behind this and similar tragedies or will we sit by passively until another shooting unfolds?
That underlying issue of course is our country's embarrassing obsession with guns, a "right" protected by the second amendment - an antiquated and dangerous sentence: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There's a silly idea if I've ever seen one. Can someone show me the closest well regulated militia? Can someone show me a single well regulated militia? Am I missing something or are these well regulated militias out there putting their lives on the line for our country everyday? I've written before about the stupidity that is Constitution worship, but this tragedy highlights - again sadly - the need for serious changes to our Constitution. I find guns fun, I grew up in Mississippi and I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was fun to shoot a gun, but let's get real with this. We're handing out guns like they're lollipops at the bank, and we're giving out the biggest and baddest lollipops available to whoever wants one. It's asinine in the extreme and people are dying because of it.
It's worth reflecting on what exactly a right is. Rights are meant to protect people, to ensure our safety and our freedom. Many rights do that. We are lucky to live in a country that values our rights and freedoms, but when those rights become destructive then we must question them. The second amendment has no place in our country. Show me that well regulated militia and I'll show you a group of people entitled to their automatic weapons. Owning guns may be a "right," but that reflects our national collective refusal to acknowledge its stupidity. It may be a right, but it should not be. We allow individuals to buy and keep assault weapons. Think about that, assault weapons. It's nothing short of a national embarrassment and innocent people die as a result. When was the last time you read a story about the heroic gun-wielding private citizen who used their firearm to stop a deadly assault? Can someone send me the link to that news story? If a right is meant to protect our freedom and safety then why do we continue to cling to a fake one that costs literally thousands of innocent Americans their lives every year. Do we really think the country will be better off as an armed camp of paranoids who walk around hand on hip eying everyone suspiciously? Shoot first, ask questions later, right? In what world does this make sense? It's a flimsy argument before we examine the data, and once we see the data we realize how truly ludicrous and farcical it is to believe that we are safer if we have guns. I mean it's just simply not true. That's all there is to say.
It's time to reevaluate our "rights" and acknowledge that some of them are actually wrong. Owning weapons should not be a right, and while I acknowledge that we will never rid America of guns, we need to stop celebrating a culture of death. This is not the wild wild west. There are no outlaws or Apaches or grizzly bears lurking beyond the unconquered frontier waiting to be vanquished by the heroic pioneers of yesteryear. We seem to still think we need guns for those kinds of things, but sadly instead we get countless innocent victims. My prayers are with those affected by yesterday's tragedy and for all those who will suffer in the future if we cannot accept the error of our thinking.
What happened was most likely the act of a mentally sick individual who probably needed support he was not getting. In the coming days and weeks we will undoubtedly learn more about the killer, but will we have the fortitude to tackle the underlying issue behind this and similar tragedies or will we sit by passively until another shooting unfolds?
That underlying issue of course is our country's embarrassing obsession with guns, a "right" protected by the second amendment - an antiquated and dangerous sentence: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
There's a silly idea if I've ever seen one. Can someone show me the closest well regulated militia? Can someone show me a single well regulated militia? Am I missing something or are these well regulated militias out there putting their lives on the line for our country everyday? I've written before about the stupidity that is Constitution worship, but this tragedy highlights - again sadly - the need for serious changes to our Constitution. I find guns fun, I grew up in Mississippi and I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it was fun to shoot a gun, but let's get real with this. We're handing out guns like they're lollipops at the bank, and we're giving out the biggest and baddest lollipops available to whoever wants one. It's asinine in the extreme and people are dying because of it.
It's worth reflecting on what exactly a right is. Rights are meant to protect people, to ensure our safety and our freedom. Many rights do that. We are lucky to live in a country that values our rights and freedoms, but when those rights become destructive then we must question them. The second amendment has no place in our country. Show me that well regulated militia and I'll show you a group of people entitled to their automatic weapons. Owning guns may be a "right," but that reflects our national collective refusal to acknowledge its stupidity. It may be a right, but it should not be. We allow individuals to buy and keep assault weapons. Think about that, assault weapons. It's nothing short of a national embarrassment and innocent people die as a result. When was the last time you read a story about the heroic gun-wielding private citizen who used their firearm to stop a deadly assault? Can someone send me the link to that news story? If a right is meant to protect our freedom and safety then why do we continue to cling to a fake one that costs literally thousands of innocent Americans their lives every year. Do we really think the country will be better off as an armed camp of paranoids who walk around hand on hip eying everyone suspiciously? Shoot first, ask questions later, right? In what world does this make sense? It's a flimsy argument before we examine the data, and once we see the data we realize how truly ludicrous and farcical it is to believe that we are safer if we have guns. I mean it's just simply not true. That's all there is to say.
It's time to reevaluate our "rights" and acknowledge that some of them are actually wrong. Owning weapons should not be a right, and while I acknowledge that we will never rid America of guns, we need to stop celebrating a culture of death. This is not the wild wild west. There are no outlaws or Apaches or grizzly bears lurking beyond the unconquered frontier waiting to be vanquished by the heroic pioneers of yesteryear. We seem to still think we need guns for those kinds of things, but sadly instead we get countless innocent victims. My prayers are with those affected by yesterday's tragedy and for all those who will suffer in the future if we cannot accept the error of our thinking.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
The Premature New Republican
In the wake of last month's election trouncing many people, including me, have taken it upon themselves to analyze the tumultuous situation in which the Republican party finds itself. Have they lost the demographics war? Are they still viable politically? Can they come back?
In two posts since the election I have warned against a premature Republican death knell and lauded - or at least hoped for - a new kind of Republican. I'm not a doomsday prophet, and I want a resurgent and contributing Republican party, not one that fizzles into obscurity.
So while I remain optimistic that the Republican party can and will find itself, it's now time for me to come to grips with reality. The Republican party can change, and it must, and I believe it will, but it's going to be a slow, painful process. This was highlighted just this week by uncertainty among House Republicans about whether or not they will back a compromise on the deficit that a majority of Americans support.
House Republicans, sadly, do not worry about the majority of Americans. They, like many politicians, care more about their constituents, or rather, more about the people whose votes they need to keep their jobs. One would think that among those constituents it would be possible to find quite a view of those Americans who want compromise, but alas, due to gerrymandering, that isn't often the case. It's hard to criticize Republicans for gerrymandering without condemning Democrats for doing the same, but the state and local elections broke the Republicans' way in 2010 and so even though Democrats took over 50% of the national popular vote in House Elections, they control only 46% of the seats. So while they can't be blamed too much for gerrymandering, House Republicans can be blamed for setting their own job security over the good of the nation.
This isn't anything truly new, most recently Republicans were seen placing their dogma over the good of the nation, but many of them seem to be coming around on letting go of dogma and pursuing the pragmatic. But enough for a compromise? We'll have to wait and see. There are still plenty out there who shun compromise and solutions. Said Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, "I don't see any scenario where raising tax rates, in any combination of compromise, will solve our problem." Said the rest of the nation to Ted Poe, get it together, man.
Individual Republicans may feel comfortable in their gerrymandered districts for now, but those districts will be gerrymandered again in the future, and the majority of Americans know that a balancing the budget is going to take compromise and dialogue, not "holding the line," against the opposition. There was never any intellectual merit to that idea, and it failed as a political tool as well. Republicans lost seats on "holding the line." As more Americans come to see what many already know, even those gerrymandered districts won't seem as safe.
It's time for the Republican party to become a national party with positive ideas, not a group of deadbeats clinging to outdated dogma and horrifically antiquated views on social morality. Sitting in an ivory tower - or a hand-crafted Congressional District in Texas for that matter - doesn't make you right, and it doesn't allow you to hold the nation hostage so you can continue to pursue dogmatic purity. America needs fixing, and the American people spoke last month. Come on board, or eventually the American people will speak again and find someone who wants to make the nation better.
In two posts since the election I have warned against a premature Republican death knell and lauded - or at least hoped for - a new kind of Republican. I'm not a doomsday prophet, and I want a resurgent and contributing Republican party, not one that fizzles into obscurity.
So while I remain optimistic that the Republican party can and will find itself, it's now time for me to come to grips with reality. The Republican party can change, and it must, and I believe it will, but it's going to be a slow, painful process. This was highlighted just this week by uncertainty among House Republicans about whether or not they will back a compromise on the deficit that a majority of Americans support.
House Republicans, sadly, do not worry about the majority of Americans. They, like many politicians, care more about their constituents, or rather, more about the people whose votes they need to keep their jobs. One would think that among those constituents it would be possible to find quite a view of those Americans who want compromise, but alas, due to gerrymandering, that isn't often the case. It's hard to criticize Republicans for gerrymandering without condemning Democrats for doing the same, but the state and local elections broke the Republicans' way in 2010 and so even though Democrats took over 50% of the national popular vote in House Elections, they control only 46% of the seats. So while they can't be blamed too much for gerrymandering, House Republicans can be blamed for setting their own job security over the good of the nation.
This isn't anything truly new, most recently Republicans were seen placing their dogma over the good of the nation, but many of them seem to be coming around on letting go of dogma and pursuing the pragmatic. But enough for a compromise? We'll have to wait and see. There are still plenty out there who shun compromise and solutions. Said Congressman Ted Poe of Texas, "I don't see any scenario where raising tax rates, in any combination of compromise, will solve our problem." Said the rest of the nation to Ted Poe, get it together, man.
Individual Republicans may feel comfortable in their gerrymandered districts for now, but those districts will be gerrymandered again in the future, and the majority of Americans know that a balancing the budget is going to take compromise and dialogue, not "holding the line," against the opposition. There was never any intellectual merit to that idea, and it failed as a political tool as well. Republicans lost seats on "holding the line." As more Americans come to see what many already know, even those gerrymandered districts won't seem as safe.
It's time for the Republican party to become a national party with positive ideas, not a group of deadbeats clinging to outdated dogma and horrifically antiquated views on social morality. Sitting in an ivory tower - or a hand-crafted Congressional District in Texas for that matter - doesn't make you right, and it doesn't allow you to hold the nation hostage so you can continue to pursue dogmatic purity. America needs fixing, and the American people spoke last month. Come on board, or eventually the American people will speak again and find someone who wants to make the nation better.
Friday, December 7, 2012
The New Republican
Last month I blogged about the premature obituary being written for the Republican party. Sure all of their voters are old and white in a nation that is rapidly becoming less of each, but there is no need for Republicans to go quietly into the night. Well...actually there is a need for some Republicans to go quietly into the night, which is exactly what I blogged about, but it now seems as though I'm not the only one saying it.
In his op-ed yesterday, David Brooks, a man I cite frequently as one of my favorite Republicans, wrote about "The Republican Glasnost," lauding Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Paul Ryan for recent speeches they gave for the Jack Kemp Leadership Foundation Award. In their speeches Ryan and Rubio sought to distance themselves from the callousness that has become official party platform. In doing so they also distanced themselves somewhat from the stupidity, acknowledging for example that extreme poverty is both morally unacceptable and an economic drag. In essence, they disavowed much of what their party has become. While these new Republican "revelations" are nothing that decent and intelligent people don't already know, they still represent an important step forward for a party that has spent most of the last three decades rotting in a moral and intellectual vacuum.
But while Brooks lauds Rubio for his soaring rhetoric, it was Ryan's comments that most illustrate the significant step the Republican party COULD take. Said Ryan when discussing how to combat poverty, "The truth is, there has to be a balance. Government must act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do.”
This is actually spot on though still lacking specifics. Still these kinds of speeches aren't meant for specifics, they're meant for laying out big ideas, and Ryan nailed it. Where was this guy during the Presidential campaign? This is exactly what we need to hear, because it is exactly what we need. The public and private sectors are not mutually exclusive, they are partners. Until we realize that and work on harnessing the power of both entities, we are doomed to remain in the rut of mediocrity, with a dysfunctional system that cannot solve our problems.
By no means does this mean that the Republican Party is a reasonable and responsible party ready to contribute to the national conversation. It's possible that the extremists will again show their ugly heads during the upcoming battle over the fiscal cliff, but there was really only one direction for the party to move given how low they have sunk recently. It is encouraging to see Republicans starting to eschew fringe ideology for respectable and effective centrist ideas. If they can now figure out how to drop their ugly social values and contribute positive ideas about streamlining government and applying market solutions to our nation's woes then we may very well see a resurgent Republican party, and we may very well benefit from it.
The new Republican is a work in progress, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but it seems as though the electoral drubbing has shocked some sense into the party. For America's sake, I hope that is the case.
In his op-ed yesterday, David Brooks, a man I cite frequently as one of my favorite Republicans, wrote about "The Republican Glasnost," lauding Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Paul Ryan for recent speeches they gave for the Jack Kemp Leadership Foundation Award. In their speeches Ryan and Rubio sought to distance themselves from the callousness that has become official party platform. In doing so they also distanced themselves somewhat from the stupidity, acknowledging for example that extreme poverty is both morally unacceptable and an economic drag. In essence, they disavowed much of what their party has become. While these new Republican "revelations" are nothing that decent and intelligent people don't already know, they still represent an important step forward for a party that has spent most of the last three decades rotting in a moral and intellectual vacuum.
But while Brooks lauds Rubio for his soaring rhetoric, it was Ryan's comments that most illustrate the significant step the Republican party COULD take. Said Ryan when discussing how to combat poverty, "The truth is, there has to be a balance. Government must act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do.”
This is actually spot on though still lacking specifics. Still these kinds of speeches aren't meant for specifics, they're meant for laying out big ideas, and Ryan nailed it. Where was this guy during the Presidential campaign? This is exactly what we need to hear, because it is exactly what we need. The public and private sectors are not mutually exclusive, they are partners. Until we realize that and work on harnessing the power of both entities, we are doomed to remain in the rut of mediocrity, with a dysfunctional system that cannot solve our problems.
By no means does this mean that the Republican Party is a reasonable and responsible party ready to contribute to the national conversation. It's possible that the extremists will again show their ugly heads during the upcoming battle over the fiscal cliff, but there was really only one direction for the party to move given how low they have sunk recently. It is encouraging to see Republicans starting to eschew fringe ideology for respectable and effective centrist ideas. If they can now figure out how to drop their ugly social values and contribute positive ideas about streamlining government and applying market solutions to our nation's woes then we may very well see a resurgent Republican party, and we may very well benefit from it.
The new Republican is a work in progress, and there is still a lot of work to be done, but it seems as though the electoral drubbing has shocked some sense into the party. For America's sake, I hope that is the case.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Plan that Isn't
As we get closer and closer to the new year and the looming "fiscal cliff," it appears as though progress on rectifying our budget issues is further away though the time left to solve them draws nearer.
In the aftermath of the election, it seemed as though both Republicans and the President struck something of a more conciliatory tone, but since then things have predictably gone sour. Republicans rejected the President's initial offering that would have increased revenue by $1.6 trillion primarily by raising taxes on the wealthy.
This plan was of course met with howls of disgust from Republicans, many of whom still believe that it is possible to close the deficit on spending cuts alone, but many of whom also don't actually care about really closing the deficit, and apparently none of whom can do math.
Republicans are right to ask for spending cuts to go along with tax hikes, but here's the problem, they don't actually have a plan, and they're still unwilling to accept that tax increases are necessary. Their stupidity and intransigence is becoming farcical. Take recent comments made by Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor:
“I’m not asking the president . . . to adopt our principles. I’m simply asking him to respect our principles by not insisting that we compromise them. Because we won’t.”
What Mitch has said, is that Republicans won't compromise. Their principles, no, their signed pledge, dictates that they not raise taxes. It is not only mathematically impossible to cut the deficit without tax increases, it is ludicrous and dangerous to to try, but Mitch McConnell has stated on the Senate floor that Republicans will not compromise their principles. So what's it going to be Mitch? Are you going to break your oath to Grover Norquist and do what's best for America, or are you going to remain stubborn until the American people vote all of you out of office?
Of course, all this Republican refusal to cooperate only sheds more light on the fact that they simply do not have a plan. Mitt Romney's whole campaign was built around bashing Obama's record and talking about his time as governor or CEO of Bain. The goal of this being to mask the fact that he and his party lack real ideas for America's future. It's not that they couldn't have good ideas if they tried, it's that they simply aren't trying. I've said time and time and time again that America would benefit greatly from a Republican party that brought real ideas to the table; a Republican party that experimented with market-oriented solutions to issues like transitioning us to clean energy, or that actually proposed targeted cuts that would make the government smaller and more efficient without sacrificing the Americans who rely upon government services. But that Republican party does not exist. It is a figment of our imagination, something we wish for, but it is not real. No, the Republican party is both morally and intellectually bankrupt, and it is to all of our detriment.
I'm confident Republicans will eventually stop making a fuss over taxes and begin to compromise, though this won't be driven by any sense of urgency to help the country, but rather the fact that, according to polling data, a vast majority of Americans will blame them if the talks fail. Still, their protests have lost credibility if not volume, and Republicans have been exposed for what they really are, a party of ideology and not ideas. The plan that isn't is the best thing Republicans can bring to the table. It's an embarrassment for them and a travesty for America.
In the aftermath of the election, it seemed as though both Republicans and the President struck something of a more conciliatory tone, but since then things have predictably gone sour. Republicans rejected the President's initial offering that would have increased revenue by $1.6 trillion primarily by raising taxes on the wealthy.
This plan was of course met with howls of disgust from Republicans, many of whom still believe that it is possible to close the deficit on spending cuts alone, but many of whom also don't actually care about really closing the deficit, and apparently none of whom can do math.
Republicans are right to ask for spending cuts to go along with tax hikes, but here's the problem, they don't actually have a plan, and they're still unwilling to accept that tax increases are necessary. Their stupidity and intransigence is becoming farcical. Take recent comments made by Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor:
“I’m not asking the president . . . to adopt our principles. I’m simply asking him to respect our principles by not insisting that we compromise them. Because we won’t.”
What Mitch has said, is that Republicans won't compromise. Their principles, no, their signed pledge, dictates that they not raise taxes. It is not only mathematically impossible to cut the deficit without tax increases, it is ludicrous and dangerous to to try, but Mitch McConnell has stated on the Senate floor that Republicans will not compromise their principles. So what's it going to be Mitch? Are you going to break your oath to Grover Norquist and do what's best for America, or are you going to remain stubborn until the American people vote all of you out of office?
Of course, all this Republican refusal to cooperate only sheds more light on the fact that they simply do not have a plan. Mitt Romney's whole campaign was built around bashing Obama's record and talking about his time as governor or CEO of Bain. The goal of this being to mask the fact that he and his party lack real ideas for America's future. It's not that they couldn't have good ideas if they tried, it's that they simply aren't trying. I've said time and time and time again that America would benefit greatly from a Republican party that brought real ideas to the table; a Republican party that experimented with market-oriented solutions to issues like transitioning us to clean energy, or that actually proposed targeted cuts that would make the government smaller and more efficient without sacrificing the Americans who rely upon government services. But that Republican party does not exist. It is a figment of our imagination, something we wish for, but it is not real. No, the Republican party is both morally and intellectually bankrupt, and it is to all of our detriment.
I'm confident Republicans will eventually stop making a fuss over taxes and begin to compromise, though this won't be driven by any sense of urgency to help the country, but rather the fact that, according to polling data, a vast majority of Americans will blame them if the talks fail. Still, their protests have lost credibility if not volume, and Republicans have been exposed for what they really are, a party of ideology and not ideas. The plan that isn't is the best thing Republicans can bring to the table. It's an embarrassment for them and a travesty for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)