"Isn't it great to live in a society where the penalty for lying to a congressman can be up to 30 years in jail, but the penalty for a congressman lying to you is another two years in office[?]"
Peter Schmuck
Baltimore Sun
In 1981, after Republicans had taken control of the White House and the Senate and Democrats retained only a modest control of the House, Democrats were feeling somewhat put upon.
Many folks who were sympathetic to Democrat positions on the issues of the day — and resisted the growing political influence of the religious right, the Moral Majority and Jerry Falwell — were drawn to a new organization, People for the American Way, which was founded by TV producer Norman Lear.
We've been hearing about the "American way" practically since the day that independence was declared. It isn't a new thing, especially in a midterm election. But, after one party suffers through a disastrous election and loses control of one or both of the chambers of Congress, the members of that party align themselves with the traditional values embodied in the "American way" — a phrase, incidentally, that is almost always manipulated to suit the needs of whoever may be using it at a particular point.
It has been a significant part of the "American way" for voters to send people to Congress in midterm elections who will exercise some restraint on the power of the president who was just elected two years earlier. Go ahead. Look it up.
The party that is in power never likes this, of course, and usually tries to find some way to excuse it. Some supporters of this president stubbornly stick to the excuse of racism — which may be legitimate in some cases, but, really, doesn't that ignore the fact that many white Americans voted for Barack Obama two years ago?
I think it is odd that neither party understands this "phenomenon" — as often as it has played out in American history. And it is strange how every president seems to be caught by surprise by it.
Mind you, midterm shifts aren't always as extreme as the one this year seems all but sure to be. It's the "equal and opposite reaction" your physics teacher told you about. The farther the pendulum goes in one direction, the farther it will — inevitably — swing back.
There must be something deep in the American DNA that resists the dominance of a single party. I guess it provokes a pre–independence response, reminding us of the subjugation of King George and the valiant stories of the citizens who left their homes and their farms to fight for a new–fangled idea — self–government.
But, for all the posturing and preening by politicians in both parties, relatively few really seem to comprehend what is going on. Most of them, it seems to me, need to study up on their history — especially the ones who are supposed to be so knowledgeable about Americans and the "American way."
Recently, I read an interesting article — "The Education of President Obama" by Peter Baker in the New York Times Magazine.
And the thought that kept occurring to me is how the education of a president often seems to mean at least moderate and sometimes severe growing pains for the rest of us.
Even when what the president is learning should have been obvious — even to those presidents with the most rudimentary knowledge of American history (never mind a constitutional scholar).
I think that one of the most revealing aspects of Baker's article is Obama's admission that he neglected "marketing and P.R. and public opinion" after he took office, as if that was his presidency's only barrier to greatness.
He and his subordinates thought the hard part was over when the election had been won. But the hard part was just beginning. And the Obama White House thought it could achieve lasting change through the sheer force of its personality and the power of persuasion.
There was a regal sort of arrogance in this that we've seen all too often in modern American presidents. True, some revive their political fortunes, but it requires them to make the kind of compromises that I'm not sure Obama is capable of making.
"It took Clinton and Bush some time to really grow into the presidency," Baker writes, "until they wore it comfortably."
So perhaps there is hope for this president.
But, if he is to succeed in 2012, he needs to be aware of how many people have been losing their hope in the last couple of years.
And how quickly they will turn against him if he fails to deliver what they want.
As bad as things may seem today, this is only a warning shot across Obama's bow. The next two years will be the true test of his leadership — and his responsiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment