Mind you, I wasn't a great poker player when I played. But I did learn a few things — particularly about wagering and bluffing.
In the aftermath of Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, I've been seeing a lot of articles discussing the need for checks and balances — even articles by those who supported Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008.
Specter's defection seems to elicit mixed reactions. As I wrote earlier this week, Specter, along with Al Franken finally becoming the senator from Minnesota, should be welcome news for Democrats. Technically, it will give them a "filibuster–proof" 60–seat majority — assuming, of course, that they can keep all the members of their caucus in line.
Of course, that is the tricky part for Democrats. It wasn't too difficult for Republicans, when George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office and Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress.
But the tide has turned. And Democrats have always been — dare I use the word? — mavericks. They couldn't work together when Bill Clinton took office, and it cost them control of Congress for more than a decade. They couldn't work together when Jimmy Carter took office with his party holding that "filibuster–proof" majority in the Senate, and control of that chamber flipped to the Republicans four years later.
And with a membership that includes two senators who are independents and one who, until a few days ago, had been a Republican for more than 40 years, it doesn't seem likely to me the majority will demonstrate the kind of unity of purpose their Republican colleagues displayed when they controlled the chamber — but if they stick together, they probably can bring some items to a vote that might not otherwise reach that point.
Does that mean they will be able to pass whatever they wish? Hmmmm, that's another matter.
I think it's dawning on some people that Specter will not be a garden–variety Democrat. "In the four whole days he's been a Democrat," writes Steve Benen for the moderate–to–liberal Washington Monthly, "Specter has voted against the Democratic budget, rejected a Democratic measure to help prevent mortgage foreclosures and preserve home values, announced his opposition to the president's OLC nominee, and this morning rejected a key centerpiece of the Democratic health care plan."
Even when they are of the long–term variety, though, Democrats may have a certain kind of discipline, but their DNA simply does not seem to permit the brand of discipline that made the Republicans work together.
Considering the harvest the nation has reaped from that experience, perhaps that is a good thing. But Democrats who are dreaming of unlimited legislative possibilities need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Maureen Dowd writes, in the New York Times, about the corrosive effect of power on national character. That's a serious concern — even if, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, Dowd tsk–tsks about the Republicans' "quaint" interest in checks and balances.
I don't think it's quaint at all. I think it's a legitimate worry, no matter which party holds the balance of power.
The absence of any dissenting views among the Republicans during the years they controlled everything meant that virtually nothing was discussed as completely as it needed to be. As a result, legislation like the "Patriot Act" sailed through unquestioned, and policies permitting "waterboarding" were allowed to run rampant.
But I have my doubts about whether Democrats will have a blank check to enact all the items on their wish list. What's more, I wonder if it's a good idea for any political party to have this kind of unrestricted power.
Which sort of leads me into Frank Rich's column in the New York Times about last week's hoopla surrounding Obama's first 100 days in office.
Now, let me be clear about something. In spite of what some Democrats have said to me, I do not consider myself one of the "Limbaugh–Cheney deadenders who loathe Obama" to whom Rich refers.
Yes, I am a Democrat. I consider myself a centrist — always have. I tend to reject the labels of "left" and "right." I feel I am both and, at the same time, neither.
In fact, one of the few times I found myself agreeing with Ronald Reagan was on the occasion in 1984 when he gave his acceptance speech when he was nominated for a second term by the Republican National Convention:
"For some time now we've all fallen into a pattern of describing our choice as left or right. ... But is that really an accurate description of the choice before us? Go back a few years to the origin of the terms and see where left or right would take us if we continued far enough in either direction. Stalin. Hitler. One would take us to Communist totalitarianism; the other to the totalitarianism of Hitler. Isn't our choice really not one of left or right, but of up or down?"
Well, that was Reagan's spin on it.
My spin is a little different. I consider myself an American. No matter who is president, there are times when I agree with that person. And there are times when I disagree.
I disagreed with George W. Bush far more often than I agreed with him. But I don't automatically agree with Obama simply because we have the same party affiliation.
I give Obama credit for acknowledging the existence of people like me within his party. "I've got Democrats who don't agree with me on everything," he said. "And that's how it should be."
Indeed, it is. But that could mean a lot of things. On one hand, I'm glad the Democratic Party is represented by a diverse variety of thinkers and that Obama recognizes it. On the other hand, I wonder if Obama is, for his own reasons, attempting to achieve "bipartisanship" within his own party — or if he wants the rest of us to think that's what he's trying to do.
On still another hand (and, yes, I do feel like Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof"), I wonder if it comes as a genuine shock to Obama that not everyone in his party has fallen in love with him and will scarf down the Kool–Aid on command.
And I was troubled by the glowing marks being given to Obama for his first 100 days in office.
I'm not that extreme, but neither am I as extreme as the people to whom Rich refers when he writes about those who have a "very negative" opinion of the president. Nor am I among those who are "angry" with him.
But I am worried, and the "rah–rah" stuff made me uneasy. Even Rich admits that the high grades being given to Obama were "ludicrously provisional."
In my experience, government works best when one party controls the executive branch and the other party controls the legislative branch. When given complete control of both branches, both parties will overspend. They just overspend on different things.
When Sen. Jim Jeffords left the GOP early in 2001 and became an independent who caucused with the Democrats, he gave the Democrats control of that chamber until the Republicans won enough seats to reclaim it in the midterm elections. For those 1½ years, I felt Congress was more responsive and more efficient than it was until after the midterm elections of 2006, when Democrats seized control.
The Republicans did not reassure me that single–party control was a good thing. But the pendulum has swung to the other side instead of finding a happy medium.
So now it's the task of the Democrats to prove that they can govern more wisely and more efficiently than their Republican counterparts did. And history raises more than a few doubts that the Democrats will be able to get their act together often enough to govern effectively.
One hundred days simply was not enough time to prove that, even though it seemed to me that most people were eager to proclaim their reign a success, anyway.
After only three months, if the claim is going to be made that a president — any president — has exceeded expectations, I'm going to need some proof.
I don't think three months is long enough, especially in the middle of a recession. But, in this poker game, if the Democrats are going raise the wager, I'm going to call.
They might be bluffing.
No comments:
Post a Comment