Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
What I just wrote could describe tomorrow's "first anniversary" Tea Party rallies. Or it could describe a late-1960s anti-war rally. About the only thing these two historical eras have in common is the age of the driving force behind the protests. In other words, don't look now, but the Baby Boomers are back in the streets.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already had a lot of things on his plate to get done in the Senate this year, even before last week's news broke. Now he's facing two more big issues in the midst of an election year (and in the midst of a fight for his own political life in Nevada) -- a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, and an upcoming confirmation battle over a Supreme Court nomination. Given that Harry Reid's Senate is not exactly known for moving with blinding speed (to be fair, few Senates are), one has to wonder whether Harry Reid can deliver on some of these big issues before the midterm elections or not.
Yesterday, President Obama signed a strategic arms reduction treaty (the "New START") with the president of Russia. This is the first nuclear warhead treaty with Russia in 20 years. It will reduce both countries' stockpiles of nuclear warheads by one-third. And, as far as the network news in America was concerned, it was a very ho-hum story.
Americans, in general, like to believe in the concept of "American Exceptionalism." This doctrine can be summed up as: "We're the best damn country on the planet, wouldn't the rest of you lesser countries agree?" But to me, what is telling is that whenever nascent democratic forms of government develop in other places in the world (born through the ravages of war, popular revolt, simple modernization, or any of a number of other reasons) and the people affected have the opportunity to select what form their new democracies shall take; they almost without exception (pun intended) choose some form of the British parliamentary system, rather than American-style representative democracy.
Some may not even know what I'm talking about, since Democrats certainly haven't had much success getting their message across on the issue. But since Democrats took over Congress, they have instituted new procedural rules -- which are absolutely unprecedented -- in terms of allowing the public to see how laws are made. This has meant the dealmaking that is "politics as usual" in Washington has been much more out in the open (or, more transparent) than the public is used to.
"Can you say 'Wall Street reform'? I knew you could!"
You can call it his groove, or you can call it his mojo, or (if you're less Austin Powers-minded), you can call it his political momentum. But whatever you choose to call it, Barack Obama has emerged, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the healthcare debate rancor and is now forging ahead on many fronts. This political rebirth is not guaranteed of success in any way, but it certainly is refreshing to see, I have to say.
A question which is causing no small degree of fear among Republican leaders in Washington right now is whether the Tea Parties are going to turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing for the Republican Party. Republican party wonks are torn between welcoming the enthusiasm the Tea Party folks bring into their "big tent," all the while worrying that this very vocal group is going to be dictating what is and what is not acceptable in Republicanism from this point on. Which, the seasoned politicians and party hacks know, may prove to provoke a backlash among independent voters, and lead to losing elections Republicans should have won.
No matter how you slice it, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have achieved a stunning legislative accomplishment -- one which had been pronounced dead over and over again for the past year by the punditocracy. Obama has now delivered upon one of his signature campaign issues, and (by doing so) dramatically improved his party's chances in the upcoming midterm elections.
No matter what healthcare bill passes, it is not going to remain static. It is going to be revisited again and again over the next few decades. Everyone may remember the initial passage years from now as the big historic "turning point," but there will still be a lot of work left to make it a truly historic change. That's the way of lawmaking. Rather than bitterly denouncing whatever emerges from Congress as being far short of what you expected, see it instead as merely the beginning of the long road towards making the system work the way you want it to. See it as a call to action, and not a defeat, if you really want to make it better. And don't get discouraged, because these things always take more time to get right than anyone expects.