The Democratic Dilemma

As much as I try to defend President Obama, I would be lying if I said I didn't expect more from him. Not so much in terms of results, but in terms of his approach to the presidency. The DC status quo seems to have lumbered on and Obama either can't or won't seriously confront it. The worse things get, the safer he plays it. This is a common and destructive (both for the country and the party) theme among Democrats when they are in control of things.

The Democratic party is heterogeneous and diverse. This is great, but it also causes problems. Democrats in office today represent a scattered cacophony of voices and as such require a strong (and popular) executive presence in their corner, filtering all the different voices into a singular message. This is necessary, politically speaking, when Democrats are in power. It also helps keep the country stable, if not strong. President Obama is not filling this role as well as he could.

Obama came into office swinging. First, he pushed for and got the stimulus package (which, while huge, history will record should have been much larger, at least large enough to be effective for more than one year and produce sustainable, job-creating results). Then came health care. While he did try to garner bipartisan support at first, once it became clear that wasn't happening he rammed it through, for better or worse.

But then came the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans cleaned house because they had a consistent, resonating message (as they usually do) and Democrats, backs to the wall, fled in different directions (as they usually do.) Since then, Obama has found it necessary to either compromise or capitulate on numerous domestic and economic issues, depending on how you look at it. Instead of standing up to the Tea Party bullies formed by his election and first two years in office, he is appearing to cave to their demands. (He may not think he's caved, and who knows what really happens behind closed doors, but I think it's safe to say this is the public perception.)

I can't solely blame Obama, though. He probably had scores of advisers telling him after the midterms that the only path to reelection was to appease the other side, or "a shift to the center." They were wrong.

In times of crisis Americans want their president to be firm and decisive, not unsure and quick to compromise. Moderate voters (the ones that matter) are more likely to overlook your questionable political views if you come off as a decisive leader than they are to overlook your indecisiveness (perceived as weakness) even if you agree with them ideologically. In short, what America seems to want right now is a commander-in-chief, not a negotiator-in-chief. 

When Obama needed to be strong, clear and decisive (Bush tax cuts, debt ceiling, financial reform, etc.) he ceded ground to the other side and got nothing in return. This severely hurt his image, especially with moderates and those of us who agree with his agenda. The public perception of the president's leadership and handling of the economy will be the only thing that matters in 2012. Obama's attempt to pacify the Right has only emboldened it and now he risks losing the credibility of authority heading into an election year. This, coupled with a still-struggling economy, could prove fatal for his reelection chances.

Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook. Obama needs to speak from the heart, defend his policies, explain himself and his decisions more clearly and reconnect with everyday Americans. The GOP is quite adept at churning out candidates who meet this description (See: Rick Perry.) Americans need to know that the president is in control and he is looking out for us. Obama has it in him to deliver this message before November 2012, but he needs to avoid the classic Democratic pitfalls of the past and stop doing what his handlers tell him is safe.

Style vs. Substance

I've been sensing a disturbing trend in American politics today, one that I am not the first to notice or discuss. That trend is the rapid disappearance of bipartisanship, cooperation and rationality in our political system. I know, I've said this before. And I'm aware that the same slimy tactics being used today- smear campaigns, harsh rhetoric, stubborn grandstanding, claims of illegitimacy- have been used for centuries. But they seem, at least in the modern era, to have become so much the norm that they have replaced common sense and now threaten the long-term stability of our country.

Maybe it's our 24-hour news cycle that requires every story be a huge one or the economic mess bringing all the freaks out. Maybe it's a changing political climate that rewards sound bites and craziness or conservative fervor colliding with a left-leaning president. No matter how you slice it, the American political environment has seen better days.

The fact that a routine increase in our nation's debt ceiling has become a controversial, explosive issue with undertones of global economic collapse should be evidence enough that things aren't working right in Washington. This is a motion that usually carries with little debate, and literally could not be further from the top of the list of America's immediate priorities. Opposing it vehemently, or requring it be tied to spending cuts, is dangerous and nothing more than a symbolic gesture to voters who don't follow the boring minutia of Washington business- which, up until this year, included raising the debt ceiling. But that's what it takes to make it in American politics these days. All style and no substance.

For all their dysfunction and communicative maladies, Democrats are coming off as much more reasonable and willing to compromise than Republicans these days. (Remember- it was only AFTER Republicans refused any and all tax increases that Democrats began to get stubborn with Medicare and Social Security.) Democrats "caved" on extending the Bush tax cuts, the 2012 budget and now it looks like the debt ceiling. But they don't really have a choice when dealing with hostage-takers.

I have to agree with President Obama- right now the only thing holding back any sort of agreement on raising the debt ceiling, let alone a medium-to-long-term budget deal, is obstructionist Republican posturing.

I guess that's what happens when over 200 members of your incoming congressional delegation ink short-sighted pledges opposing tax increases of ANY kind. (Can't wait to see what this country looks like after ten years of nothing but spending cuts!!) Or when your House Speaker and Majority Leader are basically the heads of two waring factions of your party, one having to constantly appease the other. Or when the stated goal of your party during one of the worst economic collapses in American history isn't creating jobs or stimulating growth but ensuring the defeat of the current president next year by any means necessary. This is not the kind of environment in which nation-saving decisions should or will be made.

There has always been fierce rhetoric in American politics and I suspect there always will be. But there must be reason behind the rhetoric, substance behind the style. Today's Washington is the most partisan and divided in recent memory (albeit mine is not very long), and although both sides fan the flames, one side clearly seems to actively support and benefit from the current climate more than the other. This new crop of Republicans does not view politics as a series of negotiations on behalf of the diverse interests of the American people for the good of the country. They see it as a battle, a struggle between good and evil in which lines must be drawn, principle always comes before prudence and compromise is a sign of weakness. Just what we need.

It's not yet clear whether this obstructionist effort is a party-wide calculation to set the stage for 2012 or the work of purist Republican elements beyond the control of party leadership. But one thing is clear- the current environment must not become the status quo of American politics. We already spend far too much time focusing on trivial issues (see: The Current State Of American Media.) Our elected officials should know better. Unfortunately, until common sense returns to Washington and party leadership finds a way to keep its fringes from driving the conversation, it looks like we're in for the long haul.

Ramblings On The Middle East

Told you. I am deeply conflicted about what is currently happening in the Middle East. From Tunisia to across the region and (hopefully) Libya, authoritarian regimes are dropping like flies under the weight of an irrepressible public rage decades in the making. But what is taking their place? In some countries, like Tunisia, it appears as if democracy might actually take hold. But in others, the future is not so clear. Egypt has been rife with continued demonstrations, attacks on women and Coptic Christians and police-on-civilian violence ever since President Mubarak stepped down in February. If elections ever do take place, something tells me the Egyptian military isn't going to happily hand over power to the country's new crop of elected leaders. I hope I'm wrong.

I am certainly overjoyed to see people across the world standing up for their basic rights and freedoms. To be reminded that the arc of history truly does bend toward justice, as Martin Luther King said. But the efforts to gain these rights and freedoms will be wasted if they fail to extend to each and every member of these newborn nations. To replace a dictatorship with a government that does not view all citizens as equals in the eyes of the law, or one that is based on an explicit reading of religious text, or one that allows military control of civilian or political matters, is not true freedom. The people of Egypt and other nations throwing off the shackles of oppression must be ready to accept the good, bad and ugly parts of democracy as the foundation of their new country or its construction is destined to be a shaky one.

It is impossible to think about the implications of the change sweeping across the Middle East without discussing Israel. I understand Israel's hesitation to welcome these movements in Arab countries with open arms, but they should be open to communication and not resort to isolation. To assume that each new government that arises will be hostile to Israel is presumptive, but then again so is assuming they will all be friendly. All that is certain is that times and relationships are changing. Israel must exercise patience and practicality going forward in order to ensure its safety and prosperity. Needless to say, going to Washington, snubbing the President and blasting his plan for reconciliation in front of Congress is not a good start.

I support the state of Israel and the Jewish people's right to live on their historical, ancestral homeland. But I also support the Palestinians' right to live on their historical, ancestral homeland. And in the cases where these two overlap, a realistic, reasonable 21st century compromise must be brokered. Both sides have their flaws- Israel is stubbornly holding on to and building on land it seized when attacked over 40 years ago, while Palestinian leaders actively support a globally recognized terrorist organization. But at the end of the day, I refuse to believe the people of either nation want anything other than lasting peace. Grudges may be harbored, but they should not be impediments to peace. Israel must understand that sometimes concessions are a sign of strength. Palestinians must join together in renouncing terrorism in order to earn full respect as a nation-state. Coexistence is most definitely possible, but not until both sides recognize it is in their mutual self-interest.

The Current State Of American Media

Ok so I've been really trying not to think or write about anything related to the Anthony Weiner Twitter scandal. But I am 25. So I'll try to keep this as mature as possible. It shouldn't be hard.

Seriously though, by now it should be universally known that this is the kind of stuff that passes as news these days. The fact is that the American media are more likely to cover with full force a story involving a politician's sex life than one detailing his or her policy credentials. Why? Because they think the American public is more interested in this kind of story. And for the most part, they're right.

The news wasn't always like this. There used to be an "understanding" between politicians and reporters of what constituted real news and what constituted gossip. No more. Some of my older readers may correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the Bill Clinton scandal finally shattered that understanding and opened the door to the modern era of ultra-personalization of public figures by the media. In other words, the country's utter mesmerization with the unfolding story of the blue dress gave the American media a green light to make these types of stories their main area of focus, and the people loved it. I'm not saying there were no political sex scandals before Clinton, but I think their use as fair game for primetime media fodder is a relatively new phenomenon in America.

My overall point is that as trivial as all these stories of tawdry sexual affairs may be, they fact that they are so prevalent is not necessarily a bad thing. We know infinitely more about how the world actually works than any generation before us. The average American of the 19th century knew next to nothing about his or her elected representative except what they were force fed; today we know more than we'd like to. In 21st century America, we are over-informed to the point of possible spontaneous human combustion. From Breitbart to Wikileaks, mainstream society has recognized and accepted the efforts of those who go after any person, institution or story no matter who they are or what it is. No one is safe from the prying eye of the public. Maybe this power isn't always used for good, but it exists and thrives and that in itself is remarkable.

There have always been crooked and creepy politicians, they just got away with it more in the past because they used to have more sway in crafting their public image than they do today. (Largely due to a culture of almost unquestioned reverence for elected office and a complicit and irresponsible media. Sounds familiar, non?) These men and women may have highly important jobs and extraordinary lives, but at the end of the day, they are simply human. And some have major flaws. While our society once suppressed this fact, we are now free to view public figures as people first and titles second. Because that's what they are. For better or worse, at least no one can say we aren't realistic.

My next post will be on the Middle East, I swear.