Two Parties of 'No' and a Silent Majority
"This is the most polarized I've ever seen it," has been the echo of scores of political observers. The visceral reaction towards the ideas of others is, if not the worst, high, as we approach 2010.
The fact that any development is up for criticism shows just how divisive the parties are. Winning the Nobel Peace Prize, for example, is not something Obama sought, but did receive. But it is not enough to think about whether he deserved the honor; opponents feel comfortable demanding he give it back. Not so peaceful.
It is not only Republicans throwing out toxic talk. Democrats and those who call themselves liberal seem to have a zero tolerance policy for other views as well.
How has the health care debate become so polarizing? Each side making the "public option" issue the line in the sand. What if Obama has determined health care has to be done incrementally? Last January, many Democrats thought that was the best strategy. Now, somehow, it must be all or none, furthering the tension, and in some ways, reducing the likelihood of passage of the bill, or even something akin to the public option as a stand-alone bill but perhaps with compromise measures and costs further addressed.
There are so many possible scenarios on health care: Senate Republicans vote en bloc against the Senate bill, Democrats in the House defeat a Senate bill, etc. In either case, they are defeating a bill already cleared by CBO as a step to insure Americans that actually lowers the deficit.
The silent majority now is the voice of the "independent", which, if you listen past the yelling to hear the voices, the ground of most Americans. When Obama and McCain became their parties respective nominees, it was a vote for the most "independent" candidate. Obama campaigned on the promise of change and offering a new kind of politics. So it is no surprise he will in turn anger partisans on every side. Obama won with unprecedented numbers of small donors, and less special interest money than his predecessors.
Parties: this effects you. You have less power than if he had been a pick for and by the establishment. He was not. He earned his "independence."
It is the job of a political party to adhere to its message and platform. It is the job of the President to lead the nation. Nine months in to his presidency, President Obama's leadership style is taking shape. So far, one thing seems clear: he knows who brought him there. He heard the voices of millions of Americans who thought politics as usual had to change. If that is your promise, and partisans on both sides are mad at you over specifics you did not lay out during the campaign, it may be that you still remember what you heard, the vision of America you see, and the promises you will attempt to deliver.
Richard (RJ) Eskow: Three Reasons You May Be Uneasy With Health Reform
If the end product is an imperfect health care reform bill, one that takes too much from the middle class in order to help those even less fortunate, that won't be what some people wanted. But it will be be an improvement.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS and the loss of our Libertarian Roots cover the history of the Democratic Party. America’s first major political Party changed from a libertarian party of Jefferson to Cleveland to a Rousseau to Marx-leaning liberal, left-wing party. The Democratic Party’s original ideals encouraged free markets, individual freedom, state’s rights and personal sovereignty. What happened? When and how did their policies begin to change? Why did a strongly patriotic party morph into one that blends communism, mercantilism and socialism? Whether you are Democrat or Republican, this narration is a study of history, fact, and the leadership that altered the Democratic Party. It shows that present day Democratic values do not reflect the true principles on which American society rests. www.claysa
Some of our founding fathers believed parties were antiamerican. Maybe they were right.
Was it Jefferson who didn't think much of a Senate in the first place?
After all, that is where the hold-ups are, especially where a strong public option is concerned. 65% of all Americans support it, we have 60% of the Senate yet they can't get out of park...
Right on the money. Stop the corporate communism and their instruments, paid off politicians. Take back our country. Support the strong Public realth care option with access to all, a strong consumer protection law, and a much more regulated banking induistry and stripping the ability of banks to do business iif they do not pay back the TARP funds plus interest..
A good place to start would be repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley and restore the Glass- Steagall Act of 1932 and 33 to it's full power!
Many of those independents are far more liberal than those 'republicans' in cheap democratic suits. Senator Baucus and my own Representative H. Shuler are prime examples of this. The Nation as a whole is far more liberal than Democrats want to admit. Certainly not those "bought and paid for" by certain special interests.
The talking heads in mass media continue to suggest that the US is a center right country. Not so! Last years election results and specifically the breakdown of by whom the votes were cast, support this. We are not represented in Congress, it is the many special interests who are represented. Of course as the nation's population gets poorer, the more powerful the special interests become.
It is time for independents and true progressives to get elected to Congress, but unfortunately the financial uphill battle continues. Mass media, the corporate owned and operated "propaganda" system has no interest in upsetting the apple cart, either. It is not the Independent, Green or other "third" party candidate who has the obscene advertising budget enjoyed by either D or R candidate.
As far as the President is concerned, he needs to try harder. The last occupier of "The People's House" had a much smaller majority than our current President. He got "more" done with less (majority in Congress) than this President was given by US "the People, yet he is stuck in "Park"!
Question: How many democratic presidents have been elected since Reagan?
Clinton and Obama. And one of those got impeached.
Question: How many Republican presidents have been elected since Reagan?
Bush and Bush. And one of those will go down in history as the worst president ever.
We can go all the way back to the founding of our Nation, fact remains that in the past couple of elections, Democrats gained a sizable - some might say vast - majority. It is the now and tomorrow that matter, not on who got elected 4,8,12 or more years ago, certainly the last two republican Presidents and their failed policies don't need repeating. As far as Clinton is concerned, yes he did get impeached, he was pronounced NOT guilty by the Senate, which is akin to being indicted and then have the case dismissed in court! Impeached is such an overused and misunderstood word.
"""The Senate concluded a twenty-one day trial on February 12, 1999, with the vote on both counts falling short of the Constitutional two-thirds majority requirement to convict and remove an office holder. The final vote was generally along party lines, with no Democrats voting guilty. Some Republicans voted not guilty for both charges. On the perjury charge, fifty-five senators voted to acquit, including ten Republicans, and forty-five voted to convict; on the obstruction charge the Senate voted 50-50.""" Wikipedia
More to the point, both Reagan and Dubya *should* have been impeached, the first for Iran-Contra and the second for a laundry list that begins with electoral fraud and ends with war crimes. To my mind, these are genuine assaults on American law several orders of magnitude worse than Clinton's admittedly unsavory sexual predation and his idiotic perjury.
I am one of the "silent independents," mainly because although my politics are unashamedly liberal, I do not care to lend my voter registration to a Democratic party that has proved again and again that it is more interested in political careerism and cronyism than in its avowed principles (especially, alas, in my home state of New York.)
That said, question: Is it possible to be intelligent, a Republican, and a decent person?
Answer: Yes, just not all three at the same time.
For eight years, the Bush government threw everyone under the bus, in order to pursue legislation and policies that would benefit the few wealthiest in our country. So, what is toxic that comes from the Democrats that is equated with what is toxic that comes from the Party of Corporate Welfare? Tell us, Donahue, why would you expect anyone to treat a member of the Party of Corporate Welfare with anything less than total derision and contempt?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
