“No, we can’t”?
December 27, 2009, 8:18 pm
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
This brief letter to the editor appeared in today’s local newspaper:
Do you remember Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes, we can”? Well, it has changed to “No, I can’t.” How very sad and disappointing.
Is this premature?
yes.
Yes!
The problem isn’t Obama’s “no, we can’t”, it’s the Republican , “No, we won’t”.
On a TV panel this week-end even Newt Gingrich was saying that if the GOP doesn’t stop being obstructionists and doesn’t enter into dialogue with the Democrats and at least propose alternative policies and programs, then the GOP is dead.
The last Time Magazine says Pelosi is no longer underestimated, and that she is actually the most efffective house Speaker “in modern times” (!), emphasizing she knows she has to compromise. Now if only the Senate Democrats would shape up.
Premature yes.
However, as for the so called obstructionist Republicans, they would do well politically to do precisely what opposition parties do best – oppose.
Democrats do (and should do) the same thing when they are in the wilderness.
You do not score any political points with your opposition or the public by compromise. Power is the name of the game. Its exercise is governance.
The best and only way to get meaningful be-partisan governance is by having a divided executive and congress (or in the case of parliamentary systems a minority government. Then you have opposing parties creating legislation (Republican pres, Dem congress or vice versa).
But for now Obama and the Dems have all the cards and they will get the credit or the blame (at least from Independents). Party people will still vote the party line no matter what.
First of all, we are only on year into President Obama’s first term. To be fair (and I did not vote for the man), Obama started his term with a plate full of problems. He had swooning economy (not all that unusual, but problematic all the same), and two wars that most Americans are very tired of, and a host of international problems, some small and some large; most of them self-induced by our decades-old (i.e. both R & D) meddling foreign policy.
That having been said, Mr. Obama has made his fair share of errors. Intenrationally he has had some comic, and some more serious diplomatic flubs and snubs, etc.. Some of that is normal for a new president.
On the domestic policy side of things, he has tried to ignite enthusiasm for an aggressive social program agenda e.g. the national health care proposal, with notably mixed results. I do not see much rejoicing so far anyway.
As for Republicans; they can offer no more that token opposition and frankly that is their job. Democrats have all the votes they need in both houses of congress to ram through whatever legislation they like. That apparently, is what the majority of voters wanted.
However the minority of Americans who want a more go-slow attitude are not shut out of the process and accordingly, are calling their Republican congress folks urging them to offer stiff minority opposition. Frankly many conservatives on the right have been surprised that so many of our fellow citizens were so upset with how America is structured that they feel the need for this prescription of such a heavy dose of socialism.
Nonetheless, we conservatives feel that a more carefully thought out, go-slow approach is best, and we will, as best we can, continue to promote exactly that.
None of this means that President Obama is a spent force or that he is lost in the wilderness. It is more of less routine political back-and-forth; the majority and the minority and all the glad-handing, deal making and political gamesmanship that involves.
President Obama may have hit a bump or two recently, but people generally like him as a man, and with three years remaining in his term, he has plenty of time to recover.
I thought today’s NPR nalysis was on target – Obama at the beginning hoping to inspire -Obama after a year, saying how hard it is as a pragmatist, and doing what’s possible.
To “put aside petty bickering” seems a long way off – look at Ken’s post about “the heavy dose pf socialism,”
My impression of 2009 was year of the growing divide and collapsing center – including not only our politics but our Church here and our society in general – a division nourished by spin meisters, pundits, politicans and so called clever lawyers and think tankers.
We talk about patriotism a lot but we’re not very good at uniting the US. There’s too much puious talk about hope and not enough action of uniting and compromisin gand working together!
“The best and only way to get meaningful be-partisan governance is by having a divided executive and congress ”
An outstanding goal for 2012 – or earlier!
Does anyone reallyl think that bipartisanship with The Party of No, No, No would be any more effective than the current situation?
When both parties agree – now that’s when I get really worried.
When R & D agree, you know something is up and they are in cahoots; that’s when we should start guarding our wallets!
;-)
Interesting recent article showed how the Senate has moved from roughly 15% use of the filibuster around the times of Reagan, etc. to almost 70% today. There is a need to address the 60 vote vs. simple majority given the realities in the Senate and the change to such a degree of partisanship.
The other significant change that needs to be made is the method currently used to draw districting in states – basically, we have moved to all but guaranteeing districts that are safely Republican and/or Democrat effectively allowing small concentrated groups of either party to dictate and ensure re-election which may have nothing to do with current issues, common good, etc. but more about party loyalty.
Until these steps are debated, no president is going to be able to do any more than Obama has to date. In fact, you can probably make a case that he has done more in this environment than anyone else in the last 20 years.
Good post, Bill deH. Nothing like getting to root problems. But how do you get the public to do something about gerrymandering? People seem to like it — for themselves.
As an outsider the current debate over health care has revealed all of the weaknesses of the American system and few of its strengths. Don’t get me wrong, it has served the nation well but in this instance the discipline of a Parliamentary system would work to the advantage of the majority of electors.
Considering that something about health care is even still on the table is a tribute to 0bama.
And if the Republican’s have been a disgrace, the extremists including Catholic ones on the religious right have been downright sinful, and I used that word on purpose.
Ann – have no ready solution. Given all of the pending issues; this internal issue may get lost. It really needs both Senate and House sponsors – not sure if the executive branch could change this or not?
As a Candian citizen, Mark Steyn has an intersting take on the health care reform effort:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjU5OTJmODE4MGM5YmNiZDEyZDU5ZWU3NThhYjdmNGY=
“…Government can’t just annex “one-sixth of the U.S. economy” (i.e., the equivalent of annexing the entire British or French economy, or annexing the entire Indian economy twice over) and then just say: “Okay, what’s next? On to cap-and-trade . . . ” Nations that governmentalize health care soon find themselves talking about little else.
In Canada, once the wait times for MRIs and hip surgery start creeping up over two years, the government distracts the citizenry with a Royal Commission appointed to study possible “reforms” which reports back a couple of years later usually with recommendations to “strengthen” the government’s “commitment” to every Canadian’s “right” to health care by renaming the Department of Health the Department of Health Services and abolishing the Agency of Health Administration and replacing it with a new Agency of Administrative Health Operations which would report to a reformed Council of Health Policy Administrative Coordination to be supervised by a streamlined Public Health Operations & Administration Assessment Bureau. This package of “reforms” would cost a mere 12.3 gazillion dollars and usually keeps the lid on the pot until the wait times for MRIs start creeping up over three years.
The other alternative is what the British did earlier this year: They created an exciting new “Patient’s Bill of Rights,” promising every Briton the “right” to hospital treatment within 18 weeks. Believe it or not, that distant deadline shimmering woozily in the languid desert haze can be oddly reassuring if you’ve ever visited a Scottish emergency room on a holiday weekend. And, if the four-and-a-half months go by and you still haven’t been treated, do you get your (tax) money back? Ah, no. But there is a free helpline you can call which will give you continuously updated estimates on which month your operation has been rescheduled for. I mention these not as a preview of the horrors to come, but because I’ve come to the bleak conclusion that U.S.-style “health” “reform” is going to be far worse.
We were told we had to do it because of the however many millions of uninsured, yet this bill will leave some 25 million Americans uninsured. On the other hand, millions of young fit healthy Americans in their first jobs who currently take the entirely reasonable view that they do not require health insurance at this stage in their lives will be forced to pay for coverage they neither want nor need. On the other other hand, those Americans who’ve done the boring responsible grown-up thing and have health plans Harry Reid determines to be excessively “generous” will be subject to punitive taxes up to 40 percent. On the other, other, other hand, if you’re the member of a union which enjoys privileged relations with Commissar Reid you’ll be exempt from that 40 percent shakedown. On the other, other, other, other, hand, if you’re already enjoying government health care, well, you’re 83 years old and, let’s face it, it’s hardly worth us giving you that surgery for the minimal contribution you make to society, so in the cause of extending government health care to millions of people who don’t currently get it we’re going to ration it for those currently entitled to it….”
“… But, even before it’s up-and-running, Pelosi-Reid-Obamacare is an impenetrable thicket of contradictory boondoggles, shameless payoffs, and arbitrary shakedowns….”
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjU5OTJmODE4MGM5YmNiZDEyZDU5ZWU3NThhYjdmNGY=
From my Canadian friends, this doesn’t represent the Canadian view – maybe just one Ken agrees with
Bob, I’ll second that. Steyn’s views are so extreme, he has little creditability outside of a few pockets of the former Reform Party. Unfortunately, we have some newspapers and right wing websites that like to give him room to air his extremist views. Even the Conservatives under Harper haven’t had the nerve to touch our Universal Insurance system. Of course even though they form the government they are a minority and fear of the Steyns in their midst is likely to keep them that way.