Politics

In a recent NYT Op-Ed column, conservative commentator David Brooks wrote: “In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the political debate has fallen into predictably partisan and often puerile categories. Conservatives say this is Obama’s Katrina. Liberals say the spill is proof the government should have more control over industry.”

Although I doubt it was Mr. Brooks’ intention, his quote puts the spotlight on an common and significant difference between Conservatives (typically Republicans) and Liberals (typically Democrats) — with the Conservatives winding up on the wrong side of the tracks.

Liberals “predictably” argue for more “government control.” Increased government regulation is indeed one common goal of liberals. Liberals would argue that, while government is far from perfect and can contribute to wasteful spending, unregulated business is the greater of two evils. Under the best circumstances, government serves as the watchdog for the “common man,” the citizen without the money, power and lobbyists to otherwise compete with the interests of big business. You (especially if you are a conservative) may disagree with this position. But you cannot dispute that it is a legitimate political position — a statement of principle.

Conservatives’ main arguments (at least according to Mr. Brooks) are typically statements such as “this is Obama’s Katrina.” Rather than a statement of principle or indication of what action they might propose — it amounts to name-calling. The intent is to disparage Obama at every opportunity and thereby, hopefully, gain a political advantage. I also find it ironic (as John Stewart similarly pointed out) that this particular Conservative tactic rests on comparing Obama’s actions to an even larger screw-up by his Conservative predecessor, George W. Bush. Not to mention that, at the time of Katrina, these same Conservatives were likely supportive of Bush. In other words, they are not only name-callers but hypocritical name-callers.

I don’t mean to suggest that Liberals always take the high-ground and are never guilty of similar behavior. But, on average, you are much more likely to see things split this way than not. Remember, I am not the one who initially made this point. I’m just the messenger. The message originates with an acknowledged Conservative —  pointing out what is readily taken as the “predictable” truth.

What’s worse here is that, what the Conservative side of the debate lacks in principle and honesty, it makes up for in emotional appeal and political effectiveness. Shouting phrases like “Obama’s Katrina” over and over again on Fox News resonates with their political base much more than anything that Liberals manage to do. That’s one key reason that Liberals too often come out on the losing side of these “debates” with Conservatives — regardless of the relative merits of their “predictable” positions. As long as the public rewards Conservatives for their approach, the situation is unlikely to change. If anything, in this current hyper-partisan climate, I only see things getting worse in the months and years ahead.

Here is a quote from a recent New York Times article on the health care reform legisltaion:

“Even if Democrats could reach agreement among themselves, Republicans have vowed to use every parliamentary weapon to block the legislation. By using budget reconciliation procedures, Senate Democrats could limit debate, but not necessarily the number of amendments, and Republicans are prepared to offer dozens.

Centrist Democratic senators are also reluctant to use the (budget reconciliation) procedure, knowing Republicans would attack it as an effort to jam the bill through the Senate.”

These two paragraphs succinctly summarize why the Democrats keep losing political battles with Republicans. The Republicans unashamedly threaten to use “every parliamentary weapon to block the legislation.” They even somehow manage to do this while largely avoiding being labelled as obstructionists, despite the Democrats claim that Republicans are the “party of no.”

Meanwhile, Democrats are “reluctant” to try even one hardball procedure in an attempt to pass the bill, fearful of how the Republicans would attack them. The sad part is they are probably right. Republican attacks would harm them — while Democratic attacks on Republicans are ignored like water running off a duck.

Some friends of mine have defended this sorry situation, claiming that the explanation is that Democrats refuse to stoop to the low level of Republicans. “You don’t win by doing exactly what you criticize your opponents of doing.”

It sounds nice. But the facts say they are wrong. The Republicans are winning by doing just that. What they are doing is not illegal or immoral or unethical. It’s just not very nice. But it works. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s reality. And until Democrats accept this, they are destined to lose.

While the Democrats try to pass some vague muddled “health care reform,” the Republicans are opposing “Nancy Pelosi’s trillion dollar government takeover of health care.” Which sound bite do you think gets more traction with the public?

And so it goes.

Her are a few questions I asked myself this week. I leave the answers up to you:

• Given that the Supreme Court divides up 5-4 on virtually every important case, with conservatives judges supporting the Republican viewpoint and liberals supporting the Democratic viewpoint — why should I have any respect for their decisions? If essentially half the judges strongly disagree with any decision, along political lines, why should I believe their decisions have even a wisp of impartiality? [Sadly, I've been forced to ask this before.]

• Republican Senators are succeeding in blocking all significant legislation by hanging together and adopting “Just Say No” as their motto. The media are largely giving them a pass on this.

Why am I almost certain that, years from now, when Republicans control the Senate, and the Democrats try the same Just Say No tactic, Democrats will be assaulted as anti-democracy and obstructionist? What’s worse, the attacks will work. Because that’s how ineffective Democrats are. They lose on both ends.

• Given that we are constantly told that both political parties need to move to the center to succeed, how can it be that they are 100% divided on everything. If they are all near the center, shouldn’t there be some overlap?

• Exactly how hypocritical are Republicans when they lambast a health care reform bill now that is essentially the same as a bill they supported back in the 1990’s?

• When is Obama going to learn that winning requires that he be on offense at least occasionally? His comments in the State of the Union address are a good start, but they require strong follow-up. When the Republican’s attack him and his response is mainly to say “let’s work together,” he looks weak and is doomed to fail.

It’s like he’s in a baseball game where his side is always in the field while his opponents are always at bat. You can’t ever score runs that way, no matter how well you play the game.

Remember the mantra of Republicans regarding nominees to the Supreme Court? “We oppose ‘activist’ judges, the ones who assume that the function of the Supreme Court is to write legislation rather than just interpret it; the ones who are willing to turn over years of precedents to achieve some political goal.”

So, under previous Republican administrations, we got non-activist judges. Right?

Wrong.

What could be more “activist” than reversing decisions dating back nearly a century, and ignoring established legislation such as the McCain-Feingold act — and ruling to allow corporations complete freedom in spending money on political campaigns? That’s exactly what the “conservative” 5-4 majority on the Court did last week.

Are the Republicans objecting to this? Don’t make me laugh.

Talk about hypocrisy. It doesn’t get more blatant than this. It appears that a judge is only an activist if their ruling is one that Republicans disagree with.

Meanwhile, thanks to this new ruling, we can sit back and watch a complete corporate takeover of America (assuming it hasn’t happened already).