On the Contrary

In Mitch Daniels’ Response he began by saying, “The status of ‘loyal opposition’ imposes on those out of power some serious responsibilities: to show respect for the Presidency and its occupant, to express agreement where it exists.“  What a boldfaced lie.  There is no “loyal opposition”, just a group of people who want to see the President fail.  One only has to look at what has occurred over the last three years to draw that conclusion.  There are a record number of filibusters, holding the country hostage to their debt demands, and defeating any attempt at improving the unemployment picture.  We have an ideological divide that does not allow the taking of prisoners anymore.  I wish the President would have made that point far more emphatic in his remarks.  We all know nothing is going to happen and now the critical battle is whether we are going to allow the Republicans to eviscerate government and turn us into a two-class society.  It is as simple as that and there is no middle ground.

On Republican leadership, I think we saw it at its most naked form when Rick Santorum was confronted by a woman who again raised the outrageous nonsense about President Obama being a Nigerian Muslim and Santorum pandered to her beliefs (and the amazing crowd of know-nothings around him).  Mitt shows us his leadership when he panders to positions he has rejected in the past, but anything to get by the primaries.  Newt?  Well if lying, deceit, obfuscation, and generating hate is leadership, then bring on the rope and we can call ourselves the lynch mob country.  Ron Paul at least shows some backbone on his unpopular positions on drugs, wars, and sex, but his racist comments and his zany ideas about anarchy as a way of governing lead us to wonder if he thinks deeply about complex problems.  Some leadership when you lie and pander to mob instincts to lead the nation.

I listened to Eric Cantor (ever notice that most of these people are not very bright?) explain how the State of the Union speech (before he had heard it) was just more of the same failed policies.  Really?  Eric and company have never let the President have his policies without being watered down by booby traps that make them ineffective.  But what really ought to make Americans think is that the same old policies are more tax cuts and less regulation.  That is where we have been for the last 30 years and the result is for all of us to behold.  One of the best offensives is to project your weaknesses on your opponent.  This is one giant example of calling what we have not tried except after WWII when our economy was booming, old worn out policies, while calling more of the same that has brought us down and created a two class society change.  You got to love their chutzpah.  But if we listen and follow them, well kiss you kid’s future goodbye.

The President began to throw down the gauntlet, but he should have learned something from Newt’s rise in the polls.  The rabble like clear lines and firm opposition.  Let’s hope this speech was simply a stepping off point for beginning to draw clear lines, confronting failed ideology, and not the lines themselves.  They need to be much more clear and abrupt or the middle class and the appropriate role of government will be lost.

You will probably think I am nuts, but Wednesday presented a teaching moment for our President and the Democrats if they want to take note.  No I am not talking about the obvious lesson of trying to hide a misdeed and then watch it grow like a malignant cancer even though that is a lesson they never seem to learn.  What I am talking about is the crowd reaction to the question by Maria Bartiromo to Herb Cain about the sexual harassment claims (note that the settlements are not alleged, they are fact), and the crowd negative reaction to Joe Paterno’s sacking.

First let’s start with Herb Cain.  We now have five women, two who have legal settlements, claiming sexual harassment, so these are valid questions with a great deal of evidence to support this behavior.  So when Herb says it is a smear attack and they cheered, one wonders whether they are just a woman hating crowd, or what I think is so much more likely, in denial.  They need to believe in Herb Cain and they will deny reality and a great deal of evidence to hold on to that belief.  Is that because they are deluded conservatives?  Well, yeah, but the emotion they are expressing is not a conservative thing but a human thing, the need to believe and trust in a leader.  And Herb gives them something they crave, in your face confidence in himself and what he believes.

So when the crowd at Penn State was turning to some violence to protest the sacking of Joe Paterno and statements like he is being used as the scapegoat, and we need to wait for the investigation to complete, are they also in the same state of denial?  Yes, I think so.  And in this case they had a leader that many referred to as JoePa, someone they could depend on.  Someone they needed to depend on.  Even she who must not be mentioned in this blog said she was so deeply disappointed because she thought Joe was one of the few who held on to his integrity in sports.  Her response is really a microcosm of everyone’s response.  Is there no one we can believe in?  Are they all scum?

The teaching moment is that the American people have a deep seated need to believe in a leader who knows what he is doing.  Someone they can trust to hold true and be firm in their convictions.  I could make the religious argument here, but I am not going to go there.  Just think about this:  The world we live in is really scary and changing every day.  We, as a people, need someone we can trust to worry about it for us, to have faith that they will lead us through (God anyone? Oh, sorry, I was not going there).  It is a deep seated human need and more and more, the leaders we choose are being thwarted and debunked.

For the Democrats, here is the lesson from yesterday that they should have learned from George Bush.  The country yearns for a leader who is sure of where we are going and they can trust to hold firm to get us there.  George had some amazingly stupid ideas, but his bravado inspired many Americans.  They knew what he stood for and where he was taking us and that breed confidence in him.  Herb Cain is in the same league, crazy, but inspiringly self confident about his nutty ideas.  JoePa was a rock, who won football games and held student athletes to a higher standard or at lest that is the mythology.  You could depend on Joe’s steady hand.

The lesson is that Americans crave focused, steadfast leadership.  A leader who is looking for compromise seems to be missing the critical element of a moral compass that Americans crave from their leaders.  I don’t mean just living a moral life, but the certainty of the direction we need to go in.  The Democrats, Obama included, have compromised or folded on many important issues.  They fail to understand that this is perceived weakness and leave the American public confused about who is in charge and what they really believe in with any conviction.  Their number one need is for a leader that they can depend on who has the confidence of his beliefs.  Can Democrats look around at the carnage from yesterday and figure that out?  You want to win the middle?  it is not about hewing to the middle, it is about standing for something and holding firm so we can believe in you and in your confidence of your ideas.  That is what will change the direction of our country.

I see where others in the Progressive cause have recognized what I have about the proposal for jobs (Opportunity Knocks for the Democrats).  Firedoglake.com ran this story which is my favorite: Obama Unsure on Whether to propose Jobs Ideas that Can’t pass or a Jobs Ideas that Can’t Pass.  Meanwhile E.J. Dionne was on Hardball recommending basically the same thing.  He could not see why the President wouldn’t lay out a plan that would actually create jobs because no matter what he does the Republicans are going to shoot it down.  Meanwhile I heard the Washington Media questioning Richard Trumka, head of AFL-CIO when he said the they would not support politicians who proposed half measures.  Their stock question is, but what’s the point if it can’t get by the Republican Congress.  The point was standing up for things we really believe in instead of what won’t work and won’t get by Congress anyway and giving voters a real choice in 2012.  Finally there is a ray of sunshine in political circles.  We can only hope Obama stumbles upon it.

Meanwhile on the N.J. front, there was another lesson for Obama if he is not buried in his I am the man of compromise bubble.  There was Governor Christie, who I rarely agree with or like, taking on the press on his handling of the Irene threat, showing who was in charge and being very, oh should I say it, Presidential.  It was clear who was in charge and what he believed when reporters asked him if he (government) over reacted, he took them on. He knows what he believes and is unafraid to stand for it.  It is everything Obama isn’t and needs to be if he is ever going to be an effective leader (Daily Beast).

The papers today indicated that Irene is going to be one of the top 10 costliest disasters ever.  Meanwhile more of the Republican morons are jumping on the band wagon of only paying for the repairs by stealing money from other programs instead of borrowing.  Think about it.  What is really happening is a disaster hits and it simply takes more money out of the economy and further depresses our recovery (both economic and from Irene).  Paul Krugman addressed this in purely economics terms to demonstrate how this is just basic bad economics in his blog (Disaster Relief Economics).  As he pointed out, where were they when we decided to go to war and wanted to pay for it with borrowing instead of cuts to other programs.

Dick Cheney, in the form of Darth Vader, is out there again reinventing history.  This is a very good thing for Democrats because he reminds a very fickle voting population about the mistakes that were made.  I found it interesting that he wears it as a badge of honor that he is a war criminal.  “He did what had to be done.”  Meanwhile Col Lawrence Wilkerson (Collin Powell’s Deputy) explained how “what had to be done” (torture) got them bad intelligence.  This remind anyone beside me of  Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”?  When questioned by one interviewer on whether what they did in Iraq lowered the world’s esteem of the United States, he simply replied he did not believe that.  Like the rest of his brethren in the Republican party, facts are purely subjective.  He is truly an evil man who has little use for the law or democracy.

Finally, there is an editorial on controlling feral pigs where they have become a problem (Hawaii, Texas, California) (High above the Hog).  I could not help myself.  All I could think of was is this about feral pigs or piggy Republicans who are doing great damage to our country as they swill from the trough and make sure none flows over to the rest of us.  We need a national control program so that the damage they cause is greatly reduced (feral pigs and Republicans).  One suggestion from this article on feral pigs that we might want to listen to for Republicans is this:  “Most important, we must deal with the hunters who are helping pigs spread. Laws on the transportation and release of hogs should be toughened so that the penalties reflect the damage done.”  I read that as the corporations and monied interests who are controlling our politics today, creating the Tea Party (and then turning them loose), and owning the lobbyists.  You know we could learn a lot from nature if we would just pay attention.

I have been highly critical of the President and the Senate on their failure to lead.  It is really not that they haven’t led, but that their leadership style is simply unsuited to the task and environment they are in.  If you want to argue that point, see where we were after the election in 2008 and where we are today, and you have to ask, is this effective leadership?

I got a real lesson in leadership style from our U.S. military.  Back in the day when they still had hope for me as a young captain in the Air Force, they sent me to Squadron Officers School in Huntsville Alabama.  It was kind of the first polishing school for potential leaders for junior officers.  So I spent 3 months immersed in leadership training.  In one unit they had us watch the movie, Twelve O’clock High, the 1949 war movie with Gregory Peck.  At the time, I thought it was an entertaining movie, but I had no idea what a lesson it was in leadership styles until this unit focused us on it.

In the movie, a bomber squadron in England is suffering severe losses from daylight bombing of Germany, and the morale has hit rock bottom.  The squadron commander is a wonderful man who befriends and works with his crews.  His feels their pain. But the squadron is sinking deeper and deeper into their depression and failures.  Enter Gregory Peck to replace his friend and turn the squadron around.  He portrays to his men just the opposite, establishing discipline and a sense of the mission (well it was a long process).

I remember one scene where he tells his assembled men something to the effect of, “You are already dead, so get out there and do your job and quit worrying about it.”  You really need to watch the movie to understand how this style of leadership in this environment was so effective and what the cost was on character played by Gregory Peck.  The Air Force was trying to teach us “kids” that one size does not fit all when it comes to leadership.

The point of the learning exercise was that there are various leadership styles and they have to be tailored to the situation and the environment.  President Obama and Harry Reid are men who deeply care about their government and their country.  They are leading the best way they know how.  But that leadership is less than ineffective, it has enabled and empowered the other side.  The style of leadership that we elected and brought to the table was the wrong choice.  Accommodation in the environment we are in, is capitulation.  The Republicans know that, and the Democrats simply fail to adjust to it.

It is clear that President Obama and Harry Reid  are simply not capable of changing their leadership styles.  President Obama’s speech on Monday night was a prime example.  He is in a fight for the very essence of what America is, and we got Mr. Accommodation with an offer to capitulate.  Even if it was just a political ploy, it sent the message that just cuts without revenue are okay.  Like the situation in Twelve O’clock High, it is time to change the players before we lose all our marbles.  How we do that I am not sure.

One keeps hoping the progressives in Congress would show some strength and courage and take control, but they have not.  Maybe as the organization ActBlue is trying to do, we need to run more Democrats who will challenge the ones who have failed us.  Or maybe as Dr. Sachs suggested, we need a third party to put pressure on the Democrats for just taking their base for granted.  It certainly worked for the Tea Party.

I simply don’t know what the right answer is, but I do know that we can’t continue doing what we have been doing and expect a different result.  Who was that that defined that course of action as the prime example of stupidity?  Our ship of state is sinking in it.

Who knew that when we elected President Obama with all our hope for turning away from the anti-intellectualism and government hating Republicans, we would be empowering them, putting them in charge of the agenda for the country, and watching the greatest dismantling of our government in our history?  And like Elizabeth Drew wrote in her piece for the New York Review of Books,”What were they thinking?”

Forget the debt debate, because once again it is not the real debate, just a means to an end.  The real debate is about whether we believe in government or not, whether we believe we should act as one to protect our weak and vulnerable, whether government has a role in our future.  Republicans want to dismantle Medicare and Social Security (except Social Security is not part of the deficit).  I can’t figure out who they think is going to invest in infrastructure, lead in basic research, protect our vulnerable and fragile, help level the playing field for those with less resources?  Maybe that is the point, they don’t want it level.

The linking of the debt and jobs, which if you believe Republican mythology are intricately linked, is just that, mythology.  Somehow if the debt is under control, businesses would have the confidence to start spending the money they have, expanding and hiring.  Except there is no demand which is the real problem.  As I have pointed out before, if there were people demanding I sell them more widgets if I had them, I would not be worrying about the debt.  I would be making more widgets and taking my profit while it lasts.

Once again I listened to a Republican say that if we lowered the tax rates jobs would appear.  We have the lowest rates in 60 years and there are no jobs.  When George Bush passed his massive tax cuts that got us in the fix we are in, the GDP went up because of the housing bubble and the insane profits being made in the financial markets, but there were no new jobs.  We were not making widgets, we were packaging and selling debt.  This is all verifiable, yet we continue to get this claim that there will be more jobs if we just further gut government.

Every time we have passed a tax cut, that is exactly what we have done, we have further gutted our government.  Voodoo economics (lower tax rates stimulate the economy and increase tax revenues) has been proven to be voodoo.  If it worked we would be rolling in the dough right now.  What all these cuts have accomplished is to take money from investing in our future, in education, infrastructure, energy research, mass transit, and health care, and gave it to the wealthy who have banked it.  Flow down (the belief that these are “job creators” and the money they get they reinvest in America) is also provenly a myth.  Look around you.  The rich are filthy rich and we have the highest unemployment in decades.

So none of it works.  The idea that government is the problem is a failed concept.  In the 21st century what we are learning is that government has an important role to play in our economy.  See China and Europe for examples.  Yet government is the problem is at the heart of the debt debate.  If we follow the Republican solution for the debt, we will reduce government to being meaningless.  That is what this is really all about.  Sadly what President Obama seems to be willing to compromise to to get a debt deal will do just that.  He will tie his hands for years in his inability to use government to do anything but run at idle.  The Republicans have won the larger argument.

So back in 2008 we rejoiced in a new day.  Then we watched as failed leadership, mostly in the Senate and of course the President, brought these people back and empowered them.  Now we are watching the dismantling of what we have built and hoped for.  We have gone from dreaming the big dreams to hunkering down.  This is a colossal failure of leadership and it is beyond me why people still make excuses for it.  You either fight for what is right, or turn over the reins to someone else.  It should be fairly obvious at this point, that the Republicans have the reins.  Who knew?

In this morning’s New York Times (NYT) Paul Krugman expressed what I have been trying to elucidate about President Obama’s failed Presidency (Obama Missing):

“More broadly, Mr. Obama is conspicuously failing to mount any kind of challenge to the philosophy now dominating Washington discussion — a philosophy that says the poor must accept big cuts in Medicaid and food stamps; the middle class must accept big cuts in Medicare (actually a dismantling of the whole program); and corporations and the rich must accept big cuts in the taxes they have to pay. Shared sacrifice! …”

“What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing.”

We certainly need a leader, but it is now more than ever before clear he is not the man.  I wonder if there is a Progressive out there that can rise up and take the reigns from this modern day Nevile Chamberlain.  I will never vote for him again and I expect that most of his original base will just stay away from the polls in disgust.

“Obama Embraces His Opponents” was a story in the NYT yesterday. “Rather than emphasize his differences with potential Oval Office rivals or Republican adversaries on Capitol Hill, the president is taking every opportunity he can to embrace members of the other party as co-conspirators in his efforts to confront the country’s challenges.”  The article surmises that this strategy “appears to be rooted in the belief that voters — and especially independents — are looking for evidence that politicians in Washington are working together on problems rather than content to live with an unending stalemate.” But in order to “work” with them, what they are talking about is where to cut.  There is no discussion about where to raise revenues to pay for things we need.

Last Sunday Mr. Obama opined (finally) in the Arizona Daily Star about reforming some gun laws.  As the NYT indicated, “It was a promising start toward a sensible discussion of gun violence, even though the president stopped short of offering a specific legislative proposal or endorsing one already in the Congressional hopper.” Interesting.  Guns are a problem, but no concrete way forward.  Let’s see, those guys you so want to work with think the answer to gun violence is more guns.  Where is the leadership in all this?  What is the right path forward and what are you proposing other than things you think are like apple pie, crafted to appeal to everyone and get us nowhere.

It is so frustrating to read this stuff and remember that I cast my vote for this man to bring us change.  It is clear at this point that he has no idea where this country ought to be headed and his idea of change was less resistance as we let the the Republicans make us a banana republic nation.  The agenda for this nation is being set by the people who brought us to our knees, not a President with a vision on how to jump start our future.  We are all about discussing the deficit and how broke we are, when as E. J. Dionne eloquently demonstrated it Sunday in a Washington Post op-ed (What if We are not Broke), we are anything but broke.  But the Republicans have used these scare tactics to set the agenda, and that is dismantling government, and the Democrats, and sadly their leader are following right along.

These are the policies that have bankrupt our government, shifting most of our wealth to the top 2% of our population, and put the government in the hands of those that control this 2%.  There is no room for any compromise with this agenda.  Republicans tell us they want to cut waste, but if that waste is supported by these interests (e.g. farm subsidies, oil and gas tax breaks, military spending) they are off limits and they attack the poor.  What we need is a clear agenda for our future as was laid out in Fareed Zakaria’s GPS special, Restoring America, Getting Back to Number 1.  Instead what we are getting is accommodation with failed ideas to look Presidential for 2012.

Maybe President Obama could learn a lesson from the latest Washington Post/ABC News Poll:  “The Post/ABC News poll found a majority disapproving of Obama’s handling of the economy, but those surveyed still said they trusted him more to do a better job in dealing with the issue than the Republicans.”  But then he continues to cave into them.  No wonder a majority of Americans disapprove of his leadership.  There hasn’t been any.  We have waited patiently for three years for him to seize the reins of power and set the agenda and by now we should learn he will never do it.  He and his advisers are focused on rocking the least boats to cruise to election in 2012.  My thought is he might win that way, but it is like being selected to be on the bridge of the Titanic when it hit the iceberg.  Certainly many people like myself will simply not vote for a lack of direction.

I see where President Clinton has now taken President Obama’s side on the extension of all tax cuts.  Let’s not forget that had he kept his pants on, Al Gore probably would have been President.  Okay, low blow, but true.  So lets look at the reality.  President Clinton, after the Congress changed hands, turned more conservative, courting the finance guys and helping dismantle many of the laws that set up the debacle in 2007-2008.

Many pundits are saying that maybe President Obama should take a page from President Clinton’s presidency and turn right in order to be able to work with the Congress.  I would say that the lesson that should have been learned from President Clinton’s presidency is that this was a mistake.  Continuing to take the nation to the right and empower corporations over the people is the way we got here and doing more of it is a disastrous mistake.

The other thing we need to focus on is that these are not Clinton’s time.  The Chinese are nipping at our heels as are much of the rest of the world.  Our middle class is in such a state that their buying power is not enough to sustain a recovery or normal operation of our economy (remember those structural problems I keep talking about?).  Continuing to empower Republicans to transfer more and more wealth to the wealthy and to corporations simply replaces government power with corporate power.  And corporate power is going to be a lot more intrusive for those who “hate govment”.

Now their best interests are not in hiring Americans, because if they make things, to be competitive in our present market system (more structural flaws), these things have to be made overseas.  That wonderful buying spree we went on prior to 2007 was financed by loans from the housing bubble, not a growing and prosperous economy.  So do we want another bubble?  That would be the flawed financial services industry’s hope.

My point is simply this.  It is a new day and old solutions (like Bill Clinton) won’t work.  Bill Clinton knows how to rally the base, but does not understand yet our new path.  President Obama has fallen into a classic trap with the Republicans by kicking the can down the road, a la California, and in two years the problems will just be worse.  These reasoned compromises to get the best deal we can simply changes the rate of descent from catastrophic to disastrous.  It doesn’t change the final outcome, which is a two-class society with the very rich, and the rest of us very poor.

President Obama was elected to put us on a new path, but he has remained completely locked in old ideas and solutions that don’t work.  Instead of “stepping outside the box”, he has consistently stayed in the box with old failed ideas.  Health care is the prime example.  Sadly he will watch as the flawed system he put in place will be dismantled by the Republicans.  And with his constant compromises, he looks to most voters who don’t really study issues, as just the same as all the rest.

What the nation screams out for is a leader.  Someone who will look us in the eye and say:

“The tax cuts for the rich are just too heavy a burden for the country.  In order to get back on our feet, that money needs to be invested in A, B, C, etc.  Therefore any bill that crosses my desk that gives the people’s money to the wealthy I will veto because it does more harm than good.  I know this is going to put a heavy burden on many out there if we can’t get the Republicans to allow us to cut taxes on those that really need it and will stimulate the economy, but giving away your money to people who don’t need it, is wrong and we won’t do it.  We need to invest in our future, not in the wealthy.  We need to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow.”

Then he needs to come up with a coherent and integrated plan for investment and our future instead of this one-off approach which is drip, drip, drip.  He needs to convince Americans this is the way forward and is a bottom line for what we will do.  So where is he in stepping up the plate?  Drip, drip, drip.  We are going to have tax reform.  Think that is going anywhere meaningful?

Meanwhile back in Washington they are hanging all kinds of goodies on the bill to attract Democrats.  This is an integrated approach to restructuring our economy and restarting it?  It makes sure everyone knows there is no plan and spending really is out of control.

The central question that is running through my mind is should our government provide  what the voters want or should it provide what they need?  Our government is structured as a representative democracy so the voters don’t have a direct say, except at election time.  The rest of the time it is up to our representatives to represent us.   So do they take polls and go with the wind of public opinion or do they try to take a longer view of our welfare?  If history is any indication, when elections get close, it is poll time.

I see some disturbing trends here.  Leadership could be defined as seeing the proper course and then convincing your followers to follow.  Watching the Republicans pander to the Tea Partiers, I think they got this exactly backwards.  See where your followers want to go, then jump out in front of the mob.  But of course Republicans are not the only ones guilty.  Watching the Obama administration try to sweep the eight years of torture and torture memos under the rug is another form of the same thing.  They are making a political calculation (a bad one I think) that the people would be happier to just move on.

Probably the worst of this Democratic pandering is watching Eric Holder, our Attorney General, twist in the political winds.  First was the decision to try the accused 9/11 perpetrators in New York in our civilian courts.  Then “the people” spoke and he has become more sensitive to the politics of the issue and is considering some other form of trial.  Just last Friday, his Justice Department watered down the criticisms of the two lawyers most responsible for the obviously flawed memos authorizing torture (John Yoo and Jay Bybee).  Both of these actions were in response to putting political (read populist) considerations before what our laws and values demand, however inconvenient.

What I see in common with this pandering to populist whims is that in the short term it is good, if you measure good in terms of your political success, and in the long term could do immeasurable damage to our country and who we are as a people.  The Republicans are encouraging anti-intellectualism and violence which eventually will come back to haunt them as they become victims of the fickled masses.  The Democrats, by taking the easy way out now, will see the same Republican policies that should have been thoroughly discredited, rear their ugly heads again.  It does not resolve our problems to just ignore them because it is simpler.

Of course there is another side to this double-edged sword of the people’s will.  Republicans of late have been claiming that the people don’t a public option for health care and therefore they are the true representatives of the people.  However every single poll says they do so in this case the Republicans are just pretending to protect the populist interests as they cleverly try to mask their real masters, the health care insurance industry. Meanwhile we have Harry Reid and many of the Democrats in the Senate also oblivious to the peoples will.  So now am I arguing we should follow the people’s will?

Let’s face it, the people’s will is lower taxes and more government spending and we all know that doesn’t work.  What I am saying, and I know this is against Tea Party wisdom (oxymoron), is that our leaders should be sensitive to the people’s will, but apply the test of rational thought.   Leadership and political courage come from seeing when the people’s will is destructive and to stand up for a different path.  That is why we have a representative democracy and not a pure one.  The Founder’s understood the destructive  gyrations of the popular winds.  In the case of health care, the people are smarter than our politicians because they are forcing a reconsideration of the public option because every analysis tells us it saves money.  In the case of taxes, the people can be their own worst enemy and someone has to be an adult.  In the case of not exposing our past failures, doing the expedient thing instead of the hard thing, our failures will just fester until we repeat them.

What we are looking for is leadership that is ready to lead instead of follow.  We are looking for leadership that instructs and convinces instead of panders.  We are looking for leadership that no longer is tying themselves in knots to play politics, but just looks for what would work best and fights for it.  There are signs of hope in both the White House and the Senate, but I am not holding my breath.

Let’s just face it; most of our political discourse is not rational.  Most of the discourse in Washington is on partisan grounds.  Our media further perpetuates this lunacy as they always interview a “Republican and Democratic strategist” as though this give and take will produce anything useful.  But here is what I want you to think about:  Scientists never have an ideological discussion.  They argue on the merits of the available data and real experimentation and outcomes.  Oh but would our politicians do the same thing.It

So we have this ideological discussion which gets us nowhere.  But what about all the money that flows into these Congressional coffers to support their myopic views?  That one is all about the money.  One would think that in a truly rational world, businesses would do the rational thing to enhance their long-term interests and therefore, all that money would be flowing to Congressional coffers with real ideas.  There was a story in the New York Times that dramatically demonstrates how this is not the case (Energy Firms Split on Bill to Battle Climate Change).  To make a long story short, the energy companies are aligning themselves with the bill/party that will return to them the most monetary benefit.  It is always about the money and short-term gain.  It is never about what is best for the country.  There will always be winners and losers as we move forward.  It’s called progress and the status quo will do anything to prevent it.

So the bottom line is that whether it is health care, energy policy, climate change, education, the economy, or Afghanistan, the arguments line up around partisan ideology fueled by monetary self-interest.  So just where does the long term interests of the United States and the people come into this equation?  It doesn’t.  Oh the combatants will tell you that they are fighting for just that, but note that most of these battles are not about rational discussion and that tells you all you need to know about their true interests.  The facts are out there.  What works is out there.  But since many of these solutions violate either partisan ideology or upset the status quo of wealth, they are rejected.  You would think that the media would be more proactive at identifying these solutions or the failure of the partisan arguments to address these issues, but they are all about the money too.  Shouting and lunacy like Limbaugh and Glen Beck are popular and make money, so the distractions are more lucrative than the reality.  Screw the country.  The media we have today is doing more damage than good (See Tis the Winter of My Discontent).  Did you see more balloon coverage on Monday?  It’s not about what’s important, it’s about what makes money.

So what is the solution to this problem?  It’s called leadership and to this juncture we have had a failure of leadership.  So far, our President has failed us in this most critical function of his Presidency.  This morning on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough was being interviewed and he stated probably the most important and insightful criticism about this President.  He said he is an accommodator and that he was the most accommodating President the nation has ever seen.  Whether it is his generals in Afghanistan, Bank Executives, conservative Democrats, Democrats from coal states, or Republicans, he wastes his leadership accommodating them.  Accommodation is not leadership.  It is a failure of leadership.  It is a failure to understand the root cause of our problems, rationally analyzing them, and picking the best way forward for the United States even when it is not the most popular way forward.  It is his accommodating of old failed ideas that leave us in limbo with the status quo firmly in place.

So are we ever going to get out of this trap of partisan politics and moneyed self-interests, to move this country forward?  Only if this President decides to finally step up to the plate.  The solutions are out there.  They are not going to be found in bipartisanship or in accommodating the status quo of moneyed interests.  They are going to be found and implemented when someone with courage will standup, draw a line in the sand, and make a rational case for them.  He can, if he chooses, restore us to a rational approach to our problems.  But so far he has refused to do this.  Either he knows what is right, but is a coward, or he simply doesn’t understand the problem.  I would prefer to think the latter, but either way, he has become part of the problem.