In my last post I celebrated the recent budget agreement...kind of...well I mentioned that we had one, but I was more excited by its existence than its content. Though inconsequential in substance, I hoped that just the agreement itself could push Congress to do something real. I mentioned, specifically, that perhaps the deal represented the Republican party breaking up with the tea party.
Perhaps my inclination was correct. I'm not overly optimistic, but I am encouraged, because in the aftermath of the deal even normally ridiculous people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are condemning the tea party denouncers of the deal. In fairness to the tea party, the deal is garbage. All Americans should be annoyed that after three years of nothing, the best our elected officials can do is agree to minor changes that should have been the starting point - not ending point - for any negotiation. Of course the problem with any deal the tea party would have supported is that it would have been way worse than that which we have. Not only would it have harmed the country even more, it would have further dampened the Republicans political prospects. After all, the policies espoused by the group so far have many Republicans fearing their party is going the way of the dinosaurs. More policies that would cause even further harm to the American people probably don't sit well with those seeking to preserve the GOP.
So there has been a split. After years of being the lap dogs for the tea party, it seems that Boehner and McConnell have had enough. Both of them have been lambasting the more foolish members of their party for, well, being foolish. Although this represents nothing new for the rest of the country, it is refreshing to hear Republican leadership telling the tea party to shut up. They've spent four years dragging the country backwards supported by no one except the members of their safely gerrymandered districts and a spineless "leadership" incapable of leading and fearful of their own electoral prospects.
Perhaps Republicans are finally tea partied out. While there are still legislative battles ahead, and the tea party will inevitably continue to fight as long as it can, I sincerely hope that the remnants of the sane Republican party have seen the light, and that in the largely insufficient budget we won a much bigger prize: the beginning of the end of the tea party.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
It's Alive!
A budget lives! Well, sort of, but it will live! It was passed by the cantankerous old House, which means it's a near certainty to get through the much more docile - if still overly silly - Senate.
Something as mundane as a budget, which used to be an annual certainty, took us three years, a shutdown, and a near default, but we got one.
So for all the agony, unnecessarily self-inflicted pain, and trying political battles what did we get? A pretty modest compromise. The deal isn't good, but neither is it bad. It just is. For all the fighting we ended with what Democrats and Republicans could have gotten years back if they'd have just agreed to meet each other half way.
The real accomplishment here isn't what is in the budget, it is the budget itself. That this is true reflects a sad reality, but it's still true. The House and Senate agreed on a budget, the House passed it, the Senate awaits. A Christmas miracle!
What I'm most hopeful this means is a step in the direction of sanity in Washington. Despite the shenanigans in the Senate, it does seem we will have a budget. Has the cloud of extreme partisanship lifted? Has the Republican party broken up with the tea party? Does anyone think Congress might pass some legislation proactively? What are the odds of that happening?
While I feel encouraged by this moment of compromise - and the negotiations leading up to it - I'm longing for meaningful legislation and not just 50/50 split budget compromises that don't really address any of the financial or economic issues we face. Let's view this as a springboard for something bigger and better. There is reason to be excited by this budget deal, but only if we use the momentum to do something more substantial.
Something as mundane as a budget, which used to be an annual certainty, took us three years, a shutdown, and a near default, but we got one.
So for all the agony, unnecessarily self-inflicted pain, and trying political battles what did we get? A pretty modest compromise. The deal isn't good, but neither is it bad. It just is. For all the fighting we ended with what Democrats and Republicans could have gotten years back if they'd have just agreed to meet each other half way.
The real accomplishment here isn't what is in the budget, it is the budget itself. That this is true reflects a sad reality, but it's still true. The House and Senate agreed on a budget, the House passed it, the Senate awaits. A Christmas miracle!
What I'm most hopeful this means is a step in the direction of sanity in Washington. Despite the shenanigans in the Senate, it does seem we will have a budget. Has the cloud of extreme partisanship lifted? Has the Republican party broken up with the tea party? Does anyone think Congress might pass some legislation proactively? What are the odds of that happening?
While I feel encouraged by this moment of compromise - and the negotiations leading up to it - I'm longing for meaningful legislation and not just 50/50 split budget compromises that don't really address any of the financial or economic issues we face. Let's view this as a springboard for something bigger and better. There is reason to be excited by this budget deal, but only if we use the momentum to do something more substantial.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
The New Home of Terrorism...
...Is the country we have neglected for three years while a massacre unfolded before us on high-definition television: Syria. While the presence of jihadists has nothing to do with American inaction, the circumstance and turmoil caused by our moral abdication of dealing with the situation in Syria has made that country fertile ground for a renewed threat against the West by Islamic fundamentalists.
If this surprises you then clearly you haven't been paying attention. The situation in Syria has been deteriorating for years, and the entire world has cowered in the face of pressure from Russia not to intervene. Instead of working to proactively right a moral injustice, we sat on our hands and now the chaos has consumed the entire country and the Islamist elements of the opposition have gained more power at the expense of the more democratically-inclined rebels. With no stability, no law, and a sense of abandonment brought on by the fact that the outside world has done nothing to stop their plight, it ought not surprise us that Syria is becoming ground-zero for terrorists with Al Qaeda's leader referring to it as a promising staging ground.
As I have said on multiple occasions, the United States and other nations that have the means have a moral obligation to stop atrocities such as this one. It isn't our job to be the world's policeman, it is everyone's job, but not everyone has the means. Those nations that do should feel obliged to use those means to prevent large scale murder.
But perhaps you don't subscribe to that argument. Live and let live, you say, or in this case, live and let die. As this very foreseen story unfolds and Islamic extremists settle into Syria, our national security is threatened. When we do not stand up for human rights we sow dissent and anti-American sentiment not to mention failing to stabilize a lawless environment from which terrorists can safely plot and launch attacks.
This has been obvious for quite some time, and while there was never an easy solution, inaction was always the worst, albeit the easiest course. So we did nothing, and now we wonder if we will be reading about drone strikes against Al Qaeda in Syria in two years. Apparently, this threat of terrorism is so scary that we are now considering talking to the Assad regime. It's hard to imagine how we could have managed this situation more poorly.
While I hope it isn't the case, I fear that our lack of action has only empowered the wrong people in Syria, and made it possible that Syria becomes the new home of terrorism. It is in our national interest to do the right thing, even when it is difficult. That's a lesson we should have learned already, but seeing as how we have not, perhaps the spiraling chaos in Syria will serve as a wake up call.
If this surprises you then clearly you haven't been paying attention. The situation in Syria has been deteriorating for years, and the entire world has cowered in the face of pressure from Russia not to intervene. Instead of working to proactively right a moral injustice, we sat on our hands and now the chaos has consumed the entire country and the Islamist elements of the opposition have gained more power at the expense of the more democratically-inclined rebels. With no stability, no law, and a sense of abandonment brought on by the fact that the outside world has done nothing to stop their plight, it ought not surprise us that Syria is becoming ground-zero for terrorists with Al Qaeda's leader referring to it as a promising staging ground.
As I have said on multiple occasions, the United States and other nations that have the means have a moral obligation to stop atrocities such as this one. It isn't our job to be the world's policeman, it is everyone's job, but not everyone has the means. Those nations that do should feel obliged to use those means to prevent large scale murder.
But perhaps you don't subscribe to that argument. Live and let live, you say, or in this case, live and let die. As this very foreseen story unfolds and Islamic extremists settle into Syria, our national security is threatened. When we do not stand up for human rights we sow dissent and anti-American sentiment not to mention failing to stabilize a lawless environment from which terrorists can safely plot and launch attacks.
This has been obvious for quite some time, and while there was never an easy solution, inaction was always the worst, albeit the easiest course. So we did nothing, and now we wonder if we will be reading about drone strikes against Al Qaeda in Syria in two years. Apparently, this threat of terrorism is so scary that we are now considering talking to the Assad regime. It's hard to imagine how we could have managed this situation more poorly.
While I hope it isn't the case, I fear that our lack of action has only empowered the wrong people in Syria, and made it possible that Syria becomes the new home of terrorism. It is in our national interest to do the right thing, even when it is difficult. That's a lesson we should have learned already, but seeing as how we have not, perhaps the spiraling chaos in Syria will serve as a wake up call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)