Ben Franklin Was Wrong! (and that’s OK)

Yesterday as I watched “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” the round table discussion focused on the US Constitution. I found it very interesting, in particular the view that the Executive Branch has been steadily increasing its power over the other two branches.  It has been my opinion that the biggest problem facing American politics is the fact that our system of checks and balances is no longer administered by the three branches of government, but instead the job has fallen to the two political parties.

This has led us to the rigid orthodoxy that paralyzes any effort to get anything done.  Witness the debate on the debt ceiling.  Neither side can compromise; in fact the word compromise is taken as a sign of weakness.   This tug-of-war has led to Congressional ineffectiveness and enabled (or forced?)  the Executive branch to fill the void of power. While there are many recent examples (Health Care, Libya) in the news today, it is by no means a new phenomenon.  From Obama, to Bush, to Nixon, to Roosevelt, to Wilson, you would be hard pressed to find any President that did not believe in expanding the power of the Executive branch. It’s the answer to an inefficient and messy legislature.  Even Thomas Jefferson, himself a founding father, can be accused of this regarding the purchasing of the Louisiana Territory. I believe that this is the natural order of things, which is precisely why the Constitution was drawn up.

 

Our country was founded on the idea of not having a king, not only were the founders against a hereditary monarchy, but they were also concerned with the idea of placing an inordinate amount of power in the hands of a single individual.

 

I believe our Legislative Branch needs a good dose of humility in order let go of ideological trappings.  Perhaps then they can work together and provide a better check on the Executive branch. On the “This Week”  yesterday Jill Lepore quoted Ben Franklin saying , “let us doubt a little of our own infallibility“.  This got me curious and after some quick research I found the speech she was alluding to.  It was short enough and so good that it is posted in its entirety below.  I believe the sections in bold are particularly applicable to our day in regards to the current climate.

 

Ben Franklin

Before the Constitutional Convention of 1787

 ”I CONFESS that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present; but, sir, I am not sure I shall never approve of it, for, having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment of others. Most men, indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. Steele, a Protestant, in a dedication, tells the pope that the only difference between our two churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrine is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But, tho many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: “But I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.”

In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults—if they are such—because I think a general government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. I doubt, too, whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution; for, when you assemble a number of men, to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected?

It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our counsels are confounded like those of the builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution, because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us, in returning to our constituents, were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects and great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength and efficiency of any government, in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of that government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its governors. I hope, therefore, for our own sakes, as a part of the people, and for the sake of our posterity, that we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the convention who may still have objections to it, would, with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and, to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.”

Finally, as I flipped through the pages of “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine this July 4^th morning, I found the flowing; “virtue is neither hereditary nor is it perpetual.”

The fact that many disparate opinions joined together to create a system of government over 200 years ago does not bestow on the current members of those bodies an inherent merit or distinction for their opinions in the present day.  This virtue must be continuously earned, and not individually only but organizationally as well.  Perhaps, when the House and Senate and work together, we can again have the checks and balances as it was designed.

 

To see the notes of James Madison regarding this speech including some of the discussion that followed click here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_917.asp

Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly are Good for America

Last night Jon Stewart appeared on The O’Reilly factor to discuss the issue of rap artist Common’s appearance at a White House poetry reading.  While I believe the controversy is essentially much-a-do about nothing, I am more excited to see people of different perspectives sitting down and having a more rational discussion without resorting to yelling across cable channels at each other.

O’Reilly and Stewart have met in the past and Jon Stewart has had guests on his show that he does not agree with as well. Admitting that networks have political leanings is a reality we should embrace.  News today is much like the days when big cities had more than one newspaper, each with different points of view.  There is nothing wrong with this.

The problem is when American’s lock themselves into only one channel (or viewpoint) or when people assume that one side has the gospel truth and the other side is impossible of getting anything right.

I like Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly.  I also think Fareed Zakaria on CNN is one of the smartest and well spoken guys on the air right now.  I don’t care for “The Ed Show” on MSNBC or Glenn Beck because I think they both seem just a bit too ready to believe and pass along anything that makes the other camp look bad.

I don’t completely trust Sean Hannity or Chris Mathews, but I will watch them both to get their points of view, with the complete understanding that they look at the same issue from opposite ends of the spectrum.

In the end it really comes down to ratings and money.  No channel wants to share an audience.  They  and their sponsors prefer loyal viewers that they can easily demograph (funny how I don’t see G. Gordon Liddy selling gold on MSNBC yet he’s all over FoxNews, huh).  But this is only good for them, not us.  Being a loyal follower of FoxNews or MSNBC can be addictive.  We like to think of ourselves as being right, so these channels will tell us that what we believe is the truth.  That makes us feel good an, of course, we like to feel good.

To be an informed citizen however, means to allow your beliefs to be challenged.  This is not a pleasant experience for anyone, yet personal comfort is rarely associated with personal growth.  We must understand that in the natural order of things, we will all  make mistakes.  Everyone can and will get something wrong.  Obama, Bush, Gingrich, Pelosi, Jon Stewart, Sean Hannity, you and I will continue to make bad calls.  And we will all do so because we thought it was the right call at the time.  The only thing worse than being wrong is continuing to believe that you are right.  Without differing opinions, how can we really be sure that our thoughts are valid?

We need more honest and frank discussions.  We need to actively expose ourselves to different opinions.  We need to listen to each other and ask ourselves the question “Why does he or she think that?” without reflexively assigning malice to the person we disagree with. It’s a complex world and both sides have legitimate points.  Government is too big. And it is necessary.  Life is not fair.  And, yet, we do have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate.  There are no easy answers.

At the end of the day we need to be able to step away for a bit to let the contradictory ideas filter into our brains so that we can distill our thoughts logically, as opposed to engaging in loud “debates” in which our only goal is to prove to the world (and ourselves) how right we are and how wrong they are. We should always be asking ourselves, “How could I be wrong on this?”.

Socrates had it right when he said  ”The unexamined life is not worth living”.  We need to allow ourselves to be examined by others as well as ourselves.  Stewart and O’Reilly are on the right track, I think.

Hard Rights and Easy Wrongs

               Life is full of choices, some easy and some not so easy.  The most difficult of these are often characterized as choices between a “hard right” and an “easy wrong”.  More often than not these are the types of choices our elected leaders must make.  In dealing with some of the most complicated issues, they not only have to make an individual choice, but also come to a group consensus.  It’s no wonder the actions of Congress frequently leave us shaking our heads.

                In watching the news this morning I came across an example of each of these sides of the coin.  The Defense budget is chock full of places where we as a nation can save money.  Both outgoing Secretary Gates and incoming Secretary Panetta seem genuinely interested in reducing spending, proposing some truly bold ideas that take on the individual interests of certain sectors of Americans.  The newest proposal suggests:

1-      Eliminating the production of the USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

2-      Shutting down production of the M1A1 Tank

3-      Raising fees on the health care plan for retired service members

                 A lawmaker’s general stance towards issues such as deficit spending, or the intelligence of stimulating the economy with government spending goes right out the window when issues like these directly affect their constituents.  But these are exactly the “hard right” choices we need to make.   Congress has an obligation to serve the country, not just their state or district.  We can not get out of this financial mess with only a few cuts, so we will get nowhere if all the interest groups seek only to pass the buck.  This is like a really bad game of musical chairs. 

                But the fact is we are all in this together.  Cut education or cut defense?  I’m a Sailor with 17 years of service and also two sisters who are teachers?  Defense or Seniors?  I have two parents and one grandparent still around (and I’m not getting any younger).  What about health care?  Well, my dad’s a doctor and my wife’s a nurse. 

                          Voting blocks and special interest groups are made of individuals with complex lives.  Deflecting cuts from one special interest group  to another will not solve anything, nor will it really shield it’s members from the effects of the cuts. Americans are too interconnected for that to be true.

                            No single raindrop thinks it’s responsible for the flood but when the waters at levee, there’s no doubt the flood is here. Not funding NPR may or may not be a good thing, but let’s not pretend it’s the magic bullet budget issue. It’s just not that easy.  But if we really want to make progress every group needs to realize that they have some fat that could be trimmed, and that trimming it may cause some individuals some pain or discomfort.  That’s why I applaud the DOD for embracing reality and facing up to some difficult decisions (even if Congress refuses to acknowledge them).  Now if other groups can admit that we’re all in this together maybe things can get moving. 

                Now for the “easy wrong”.  Representative Anthony Weiner has proposed splitting the Bin laden reward money with victims of 9-11 and the first responders of the incidents.  This is a feel good story, but……really?  Not spending the $50 million as a reward is not the same as having it in the bank.  Weiner is really pandering to his constituents for votes.  It’s unseemly to use patriotic, good intentions to make us feel good in the short-term, while we go broke in the long-term.

              There is no amount of money that can compensate the actions of a great many people, so the government should not hand out money because people “deserve it”.  This country is absolutely full of individuals who deserve more than they get.  Representative Weiner not only has taken the easy route to pandering to his voters, but should the bill be raised to a vote it will ask many more individuals to make the “hard right” versus the “easy wrong” choice.

Both Sides Are Guilty

Politics Daily references Sen. Tom Coburn’s hypocrisy for vowing to ask Kagan tough questions despite being caught lobbing softball questions and doing crossword puzzles during the hearings for John Roberts (a Republican nominee).

Not to be outdone FoxNews reports on Al Franken doodling on a sketch pad and even napping during Kagan’s hearing today.  Of course this doesn’t make the headlines on MSNBC.

This shows us three things.

1- Neither side of the media is “fair and balanced”.

2- Both sides of the political debate can do very stupid stuff.

3- If you want to know the real story you need to get your info from multiple sources (even from that idiot news station you disagree with). 

There is nothing wrong with media having a little slant….so long as I know it exists.  I know MSNBC is left and FoxNews is right.  No big deal.  I read them both and firmly believe that some of their stuff is good reporting and some of it is grinding an axe.  So like my golf game I will slash towards the green with alternating shots to the other side of the fairway. I may never have a great lie (no pun intended) but I won’t end up in the woods either.

 

Redifining Healthcare

Father and child Helmand Province. Note similar face droops.

 

Lots of talk this year about healthcare.  All of which culminated in the big health care huddle at the Blair House on Thursday.  The fundamental differences were, in my opinion, pretty well articulated and I believe they represent honest beliefs.  I think the Republicans are honestly weary of putting the federal government in charge of anything, let alone something as big and complicated of as our healthcare system.  I also believe that Democrat’s honestly feel that one mark of good society is one in which everyone is taken care of.  As I said, both beliefs are honest and both have their substance in good intentions. 

 Unfortunately, what we have now is neither system.  In fact, we have the worst of both worlds.  We have socialized demand with a free market payment system.  Anyone can get treatment in America by presenting to the Emergency Department and that hospital will take care of them.  Often to great lengths and at great cost.  If a woman presents in active labor, she will be attended to by full staffs of doctors and nurses.  Should the child be premature and need to go to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) the newborn will get that.  Is this wrong?  Should we deny these people treatment?  Should we give them some treatment, but draw a line somewhere in the sand?  How do you tell a mother that she does not have the cash needed to run the incubator?  

So, in reality, few of us have actually seen free market medicine in its entirety.  It does exist though.  It can be found in the poorest parts of the world.  During my six month tour in Afghanistan we came face to face literally with this.  I saw a world in which people truly got what they paid for and nothing more.  Families frequently chose to  go without in order to save for a chance to see a doctor.  Sometimes this would involve also saving up for long trips in the hopes of finding treatments.  The more money (or land, or corn, or poppy) you had the better treatment you got. Now this treatment was nothing compared to our system, but some medical facilities were better than others.    

 Once the Western World showed up in the form of NATO the medical capabilities in the area increased exponentially.  In was not uncommon for a Battalion level Aid Station to be the absolute best treatment available for many miles.  As such, individuals would approach the gate and ask to see us.  Providing medical care is good PR and an excellent aspect of Counter Insurgency Operations (COIN), but it was a fine line.  If we provided care to everyone, for everything, on demand we would not only run out of supplies but we would also create a culture of dependence.  Our main goal medically and tactically was to connect the people to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA).  Our CO laid that out to everyone in the unit constantly. It drove every decision.  

 So we ended up seeing a lot of people and treating many, though not always all.  Life, limb or eyesight was always taken care of.  Children were taken care of.  Any injury that was or could have even possibly been caused by NATO forces was treated as well.  But there was a good many things we could not assist with.  Usually these were chronic conditions that we, as a BAS did not have the supplies required.  Seeing human beings in this state and turning them away is not easy. We even saw a man bring his mother in with radiological results from tests done in  Pakistan diagnosing her with throat cancer.  He came hoping we could do something. Unfortunately we had absolutely nothing to help her and we had to turn her away.                                   

Old man in Helmand Province

 

In Afghanistan, especially prior to our arrival, it was just “the way it was”.  People just lived and dealt with their conditions.  If they were bad enough, they just died.  This happened to young and old, men and women.  By disease and by accident. And sadly often times by war related trauma.  

True free market medicine is a difficult thing to look at.  That’s why we as a country have made ethical decisions to treat everyone that shows up at our hospitals.  But when we do that, who actually pays the bill?  It falls on either the government or the hospital.  Neither of which is in a financial position to handle these expenditures.  

 So when we talk about peoples right to health care, we must decide at what point the right stops and the privilege starts.  Does the man above have a right to cosmetic surgery?  Would he have had a right to the treatment years ago before his conditioned worsened?  One thing that free market medicine in Afghanistan has done, is made it easier for people with debilitating conditions to remain engaged in society.  Could you imagine seeing this man  in your supermarket?  Would a person with his condition ever be employable in the United States?    The fact of the matter is, we have different standards in the west.  We would look at him and wonder why he hasn’t gotten himself taken care of, and never thought that maybe he just couldn’t afford it.  So if we go straight up free market, we must prepare ourselves for sights that, although common in the poorer sections of the world, are relatively uncommon here.  In Afghanistan this is just part of life.  

 Lest anyone think this blog is coming out completely in favor of socialized medicine, the fact is we also saw the other side of the spectrum while deployed.  Once the local population found out we had medical capabilities we also saw an increase in people coming to the gate, “just because”.  Those members of the Afghan National Army that were colocated with us were even worse, coming to the BAS for minor scrapes and belly aches that we, in this country, would just deal with ourselves.  There is no doubt that low prices increase demand and making something free has the paradoxical effect of increasing demand while driving down the perceived value.  We see this already in the United States with people activating 911 for a “free ride” to the hospital without knowing or caring how much the service actually costs.  To them it’s not only  free, but a service they feel entitled to.  

So, what we have  in America right now is system that allows access to patients regardless of their ability to pay.  Those least likely to pay are also least likely to use the system efficiently and least likely to prevent problems from occurring in the first place.  We also have medical professionals who must practice defensive medicine, because even those with no ability to pay, retain the ability to sue.  Our “free market” medicine is really limited to preventive measures and cosmetic measures for those who can afford it.  The rest of the system is already socialized to a large degree. This complete imbalance leaves organizations like your local community hospital struggling to figure out how to expand to meet demands (based on patient load as well industry quality standards) without any increase in revenue.  

The system is most definitely broken, but the solution is not as simple as either side would make it out to be.   I think the answer lies in a little bit of everything.  We need tort reform and we need better preventive services available for all.  We need to ensure that people are covered in some way in order to improve the pay for services aspect.  We need to bring a more consumer driven approach into health care decisions. We need to clearly define the line between rights and privileges of health care and we need to prepare ourselves for the sight of some people being turned away from hospitals because they either are not sick enough or don’t have the money.  I don’t pretend to have the magic wand, but I know that unless the Congress and President embrace the entire reality of the situation as opposed to only the reality they agree with, we will not find the happy medium.  Holding fast to talking points will not cut it.

Took a weekend off from thinking too much

      I have tried to keep this blog going with posts about every 7 days or so.  Though there are a few things that have caught my attention this week, such as CPAC speeches, the media’s new found interest on the fact that Washington is broken, and the upcoming health care summit, I did not get a chance to really sift through my thoughts enough to type them out.  Instead my 14 year old son and I took a trip down to Myrtle Beach to catch one of our favorite bands Flogging Molly.

      Flogging Molly puts on one terrific show and the mixture of guitar, drums, accordian, banjo and fiddle produce a real rocking celtic sound.  The crowd at The House of Blues was awesome.  One great thing about bands like these is they usually play “all ages” shows.  Punk rock is not really about being angry (though there are certainly those types of bands) it is more about connecting with people and not feeling like you need to be framed by the rules of a specific genre.  Here’s a taste of the band in action doing the song “What’s Left of the Flag”.

      One of the best surprises last night was the opening act bands.  Both “The Architects” and a guy by the name of Frank Turner   really impressed me.  Frank opened up with a song called “The Road” which lyrically really captures the spirit of a wandering soul always looking to learn and expererience new things.   The song is catchy and very melodic. It closes up with the verse “So saddle up your horses and keep your powder dry, because the truth is you won’t be here long, soon you’re going to die. So to the heart, to the heart, there’s no time for you to waste, and you won’t find your precious answers by staying in one place, by giving up the chase.”

      Nothing like a good Englishman from Winchester penning what could easily become a Tea Party Anthem.  His song “Sons of Liberty”  rants against government getting too big for it’s brtiches (or is it breeches) as he sings: “Because the people then they understood what we have since forgot: that governments will only work for their own benefit. And I’d rather stand up naked against the elements alone than give the hollow men the right to enter in my home. When they raise their hands up our lives to possess, to know our souls, to drag us down, we’ll resist.”

      He ended the show with this song called “Photosynthesis”.  Any song with the chorus of “I won’t sit down….and i won’t shut up……and most of all I will not grow up” can’t be bad.  It wasn’t and the video is great, too.

      Frank Turner has quite a few albums out and can be found on I-Tunes and he seems to be doing well overseas.  It would not surprise me in the least to see him take off on this side of the pond as well.  Not only is he a great singer/song writer, he put on one terrific show.  If you ever get a chance to see him, I definately recommend it.

      Next week I’ll have more to write about the more serious stuff of our day.  But for this weekend, it was great to just chill out and spend a wekend with my son listening to some very cool live music.

Reaction to Evan Bayh

Evan Bayh and the Republican Reaction

Evan Bayh will not seek reelection.  So what does that mean? If you ask Republican talking heads it is proof positive that the Democrats are running scared.  It obviously means that not only does America not like President Obama, but they plainly prefer the Republican agenda. It’s just that simple.

                I don’t buy that for a minute and neither should the Republicans.  They are setting themselves up for the same fall the Democrats are taking now. Some assume that every election victory, or defea,t is a mandate for, or against, an entire ideology.   It’s this thinking that got the Democrats in the tank.  They assumed that Obama’s victory was all about their entire agenda when, in fact, his election was much more about the hope that Obama could get Washington past the “petty partisanship” and “silly season” he so frequently talked about at campaign events.  If America had wanted a pure agenda driven government we would have seen Hillary Clinton running against Mitt Romney, not Obama vs. McCain.

                Unfortunately, “the party” got to Obama.  Or maybe he was already there and we were just fooled.  Either way, we aren’t getting what we asked for.  Instead of starting with the low hanging fruit and getting some momentum going, they  (the Democrats) decided to take on the biggest issues on their plate.  I assume the reasoning was based on their supermajority status.  They believed that this was their best chance to get the whole enchilada.  Well, thankfully it didn’t work.  Perhaps the Democrats should consult John Kotter’s 8 Step Change process.  I’d say they made it step 5 or 6, but certainly never got it all done.

                So they went far left and in the process alienated people like Evan Bayh and empowered the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Bayh was never a considered a strident ideologue. If anything, it was people in his own party that had issues with him, even accusing him of promoting Fox News talking points .  He again made no friends in powerful Democratic circles when he told ABC News , “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country — that’s not going to work too well.” So with all this, why are the Republicans painting this as an anti-Obama move?  Do they feel the country looks no further than the (D) or (R) behind a politicians name? It’s because both parties want keep and expand their influence and power.

               If the party powers had their way Congress would be like the Electoral College, where the only thing that mattered was the number of electors sent in Washington.  Bayh was not one of these political zombies and it appears that he got tired of banging his head up against a wall.

                So what do I hope the Republicans do?  First off, they should publically call out the good work that Bayh did.  They should recognize the areas of agreement and contrast that with the Peolosi’s  and Reid’s in power.  It would also be wise for the Republicans to think about what they should not do as well.  They should seriously look at the opportunity this election cycle represents and think “how could we screw this up?”, then make sure they avoid doing exactly that.  Looking at the recent past, the answer to the question seems to be by reaching too far to soon. So they should be careful to resist this temptation.

                America wants progress not any strict ideology.  Start in the middle ground and let the far right and far left gently mold bills from both edges until you find out exactly what both sides like and can still agree to.  Should the Republicans start out on the extreme right and cede all control of the agenda to the party elite nothing will get done .  Again.

Side note: Here is a link to a great video about the different types of government.  I believe we as a country are becoming an oligarchy of officials unelected by the people and thus largely unknown by the people.  This is on both sides of the aisle.  Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

The Super Bowl Party That Should Have Been

The key to getting along is some beer and a good football game.

      Successful organizations find ways to bring their people together at various opportunities in order to break down the barriers that inhibit efficient operations. More than one deal has been struck over a cold beer. In business, in politics, and in life in general, the more we interact with each other, the more likely we are to find common ground.

      Competing idea’s are not new to our country. In fact, they are the heart of what makes us great. One of the best books I’ve ever read on this is The Thirteen American Arguments. In it, the author states that arguments are the heart of our government. But disagreements don’t mean we can’t talk to the other side.

      Two hundred years two of the most polar opposites in American Government were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. But these two individuals still managed to come together in what is known as one of the great compromises in our nation’s history when Jefferson invited Hamilton to his house for dinner. What became known as the Dinner Table Bargain shaped both financial policy as well as the location of our nation’s capital city.

      What we need is to seek out opportunities to talk to the other side without shouting and yelling. We have seen some efforts to this end recently that should be celebrated. It was good that President Obama went to speak to the Republicans. It was good when Jon Stewart appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor”.

      What is not productive is when one side of the argument tries to use these episodes to keep score. Also not productive is when opportunities to truly build bridges are missed, purposefully or not. The President missed a golden opportunity to build alliances with his Super Bowl gathering tomorrow. Only one Republican was invited. Was an invitation extended to Representative Cao (R- LA) because he, like Obama, is rooting for the Saints, or was it because is one of the few Republicans that supported the Health Care Bill?

      Either way, he’s not the guy that needs to be there. Granted it’s a small gathering of people. (Politics Daily reports that there will be three other Representatives and one Senator, along with some military veterans and various Cabinet members at the event). But this is definately an opportunity lost. What would have been better is if he would have invited people of differing thought process and then made the mandate “no talking about business”. 

      How about Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell sharing photo’s of grandkids at halftime?  How about Nancy Pelosi telling Scott Reed about great places to take the family in Washington this spring? How’s that for incomprehensible images?  What about a gatering of nothing but Republicans?  Unfortunately, as is, this event will do nothing to break the echo chamer of party politics. If anything it may add to it.

      If these people don’t have the ability to drink a beer and watch a football game together, how do we expect them to solve trillion dollar problems? Congress needs to accept the fact that, despite differences in philosophy, they, as a group, are tasked with getting things accomplished.   If they don’t learn to hang together, they should hang separately. We as Americans must quit cheering for “our side” at the expense of progress. We need to demand from our governemnt (as opposed to demanding from our party) results, not excuses.

A New Post Partisan Era….Almost, But Not Quite

       It’s been a few days, but I still wanted to take some time to put my spin on the State of Union Address. Not point by point, but in a broader view.  The one thing I think Washington needs to change most is their tone with each other.  As such, I think President Obama took many steps to affect the organizational culture of today’s politics.  Some steps were positive, some were negative and some were more like marching in place.

          Chronologically speaking he started out good.  He addressed the issue head on to Congress.  He chastised them for not being able to work together, but in this regard he never went far enough.  I have no problem with the President giving Congress a lecture.  I have no problem with the President calling out the Supreme Court.  I think we need to have three distinct branches of government that keep tabs on each other. 

          Checks and balances were meant to work like this.  The governmental system crafted by the founders is really a hodgepodge of the other systems.  The Senate is an aristocracy, the Supreme Court an oligarchy, the House works under populist principles and then you have the Office of the President to add a dash of monarchy.  Each type of government will have leaning towards one type of special interest or another.  This is the idea of self regulation.

        Unfortunately, the more we have all the members of these organizations rallying around the flag of a specific party the more they cease to represent those groups of people they would normally look out for.  Instead, they begin to work for party leadership, an invisible group that operates in the background to align the various players with the goal of holding onto and expanding the power of the party.

      So I am happy to see the President take on the Congress and the Supreme Court.  Finally, I thought, he’s triangulating in the right way.  Throughout the speech though, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop.  I wanted a good moment where he would look at the left side of the chamber and telling a cheering Democratic Party…..”Hey, I’m talking to you too!”.  That was the zinger than never happened but should have.

       To make matters worse the next morning I received this in my email box:

Bob – I just finished delivering my first State of the Union address. I set out an urgent plan for restoring economic security for struggling middle class families. This is my top priority, but I cannot do it alone — and that’s why I’m writing to you now. Tonight, I called on Congress to enact reforms and new initiatives to defend the middle class — to create millions of new jobs, support small businesses, and drive up wages; to invest in the education of our children and the clean energy technology that must power our future; and to protect the economy from reckless Wall Street abuses. And I made my position on health reform clear: We must not walk away. We are too close, and the stakes are too high for too many. I called on legislators of both parties to find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. I have no illusions — there have been setbacks, and there will be more to come. The special interests that have shaped the status quo will keep fighting tooth and nail to preserve it. So tonight, I’m asking you to join me in the work ahead. I need your voice. I need your passion. And I need your support. Can you help fuel our fight for the middle class with a monthly donation of $15 or more?https://donate.barackobama.com/StateOfTheUnion We have just finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don’t quit. I don’t quit. Let’s seize this moment — to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. Thank you for making it possible, President Barack Obama Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes. Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee — 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

 

      A fundraiser letter from the DNC using the name of the man who had just said that members of government should quit operating in campaign mode all the time.  Classic. I gave ten bucks to Obama’s campaign back in the day, and as such have been on the DNC mailing list since.  So I get emails from POTUS (aka the DNC sending out messages conveniently not authorized by the Candidate).  I assume, but do not know for certain, that the RNC operates in similar fashion and had I given to McCain I would be receiving similar messages from the RNC.

      So things were looking pretty bad, until President Obama met with Republican House Members two days later.  I watched the entire dialogue and found it to be terrific.  Some serious give and take.  Honest discourse and even admissions that went against party lines at times.

      Now he needs to do the same with the Democrats.  So far he’s lectured Congress like a parent lecturing two kids, one of whom is the obvious favorite.  If this keeps up, these actions will embolden the Democrats to the point their smugness will become a cancer. He needs to take on Congress as a whole.  This means Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid are the opposition.  He should chide them for not getting things accomplished.  He should be questioning why they couldn’t find a way to work with Republicans.  Lay it on the line for Congress…demand results, not excuses.

      To do this he would need to separate himself from the Democratic National Party.  But if he can, he has a shot to be a transformational leader. If he doesn’t, he will only reinforce the cycnicism of the country.

Supreme Court and Campaign Finance

           This week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could essentially give as much money as they wish to political campaigns.   There are a lot of people who think this is a bad idea, chief among them is President Obama.   On the other side of the fence, the Louisville Courier-Journal posted excerpts from a statement  by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He said, “With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.”

             The more I researched this, the more I discovered how complex it was. I found that is not your regular, everyday, Democrat vs. Republican issue.  There was not as much reflexive opinions as I had anticipated.  You know, the kind where an individual feels compelled to agree or disagree with an outside event based on their affiliation. (i.e. Harry Ried’s comments about Obama’s electability).  Instead, I found that the parties themselves were actually in a bit of agreement in disliking the opinion of the court, though admittedly not with the same fervor. 

          The Washington Post ran a small article in which they asked different individuals what they thought of the ruling, the results were interesting.

            Some, like Mark Elias, of the Democratic National Committee are concerned that this ability to run high priced ads will ultimately hurt the ability of the candidate and their party to define themselves.  This fear was echoed by those on the right as well. Ben Ginsburg who worked on the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004 stated that in his mind “the voice of the candidates and parties just got quieter.” He believes this imbalance must be fixed, and this means “letting the parties raise much more money to fund the campaigns”.

            I was beginning to see a pattern here.  Both party establishments are against this because they know this means less money going directly to them.  This is not exactly  a new trend.  It’s been happening for quite a while.  In December of 2007 The Wall Street Journal documented how the Campaign Finance laws that created special interest groups had siphoned money from the traditional parties.  Instead it’s the PAC’s that were getting all the cash now.  This ruling, it seems, is just another blow to the party bank account.

            Another group that doesn’t like this is the Service Employees International Union.  Their spokeswoman, Anna Burger,  in the previously mentioned Washington Post article said, “The court’s decision has said loud and clear that Mr. Smith has no business in Washington — that seat’s been sponsored by Wal-Mart.”  Great rhetoric until she added, “our 2.2 million members are not going to sit idly by and watch working people get sidelined. Unions like ours are here to give a voice to working people.”  So, according to her, the moral value of large campaign contributions are based on their origins.  She represents the little people, so hers are good.  Wal-Mart, evidently does not represent the common man (or at least isn’t unionized, hmmm) and therefore should not be allowed to contribute.

            Like the fear of the party establishment, the unions are interested in keeping out competing message traffic.  Not just if they happen to disagree with the message, but because, in effect, they are competing for the privilege of delivering the message.  Those organizations, parties and unions alike are used to getting the big bucks. They, of course, want to continue to get the big bucks.  Lose control of the money, lose control of the message.  Entrenched power continues to fortify it’s position.

            Ironically, much of our situation has been brought on by earlier attempts to regulate campaign finance.  The system is now so legally complicated that it has become a cottage industry.  You really do need a lawyer to get your message out.  Be on the wrong end of the tax code and face big penalties.  Just ask the Sierra Club.  They were fined $28,000 for distributing pamphlets during the 2004 election.

           It’s now to the point that instead of competing about message, we can just play “gotcha” politics with the law.  In September of 2008 Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe went after environmental groups because they supported Democratic Candidates.  While their conduct may have been technically illegal, does their support for Democratic candidates really surprise anyone?  I am more interested in hearing why Senator Inhofe’s ideas are good, or why the groups he opposes ideas are bad.

           In the end, I think we as a nation should embrace the reality of the situation.  Money will always find its way into politics.  Attempts at regulating it only make the process more difficult and complex, which leads to only those groups that can afford the lawyers having any real access.  Arguments should never be won on a technicality, especially those that affect an entire nation. 

         While this ruling will certainly be a positive for the corporations, I believe it can also be a positive for all those seeking to exercise their voice, as well as those seeking to understand the issues.  Certainly, there will be those who use this freedom to slander and defame those they disagree with, but any freedom by its nature can be used for ill purposes. It’s the risk we take. We must remember that truth is found in the vigorous competition of ideas. The more we attempt to regulate the field of play, the more we give advantage to those who seek to game the system.  This ruling is a step in the direction of openness and that is good. It will not cure all our problems, but my hope is that the second and third order effects will be a net positive for the political system.