I was there. Something no doubt we will all here 20 years from now, but I WAS THERE. Without a ticket, I trekked to the Mall with a friend, and we witnessed (via Jumbotron) Obama's inauguration. Living in Alexandria, I had no excuse to not go, and as the friend who accompanied me put it best - this is our "Woodstock."
And it was. The feeling was incredible. The entire "witnessing history" is a mix of hyperbole and cliche, but this was really something. And I like to think I have seen quite a few "somethings" in my life. The mass of humanity, the 28 degree weather (16 with wind chill), the random strangers with whom we talked, the guy who looked remarkably like Ben Stiller who had come from Colorado... the 6 ft tall guy in the goofy fur hat who blocked my view, but helped (as a landmark) my friend make it back from the porta-potty. It was an experience. The sense of community. It made me proud to be an American again. There are a lot of things we have done in the past 8 years that do not make me proud, but my faith in my country was redeemed on Jan 20 - NO WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD would a man like Barack Obama be elected to the highest post in his nation. NO WHERE ELSE.
But I sensed something else as well - a desire for retribution. I jokingly cheered when Dick Cheney finally made it to the dais... and was immediately the center of all local attention. For the record, I voted for Obama, and have no affection for Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Feith, or any of that crowd. But the response - while not altogether unexpected - still alarmed me.
I was alarmed because of what it presaged for our country. The Republican party ran the country into the ground through a populist orgy of spending and tax cuts while railroading their partisan "foes." Tom DeLay's (remember him?) justification? He "won" the election. The same phrase uttered by Nancy Pelosi this week. After Obama attempted to build bipartisan support, the stimulus package was rammed through with few changes on a nearly straight-partisan vote (some Dems joined the GOP in voting no). And thus Pelosi passed a $800+ Billion package through the House. (by way of context, $800 Billion is FAR more than has been spent on both the Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" combined since 2001). Listening to the radio this morning, I heard the GOP referred to as the "Grand Obstructionist Party" and worse. While I do not believe the GOP should be dictating the terms of the bill - they did come out below the Dems (though it was Obama who really "won" the election)- their ideas should be given consideration. The constant mutual vilification serves no one, and because Tom DeLay did it does not make it right. Are the Democrats in power no better than Tom DeLay? Because we all saw where he led the Republican party.
I believe Obama is making concerted efforts to be post-partisan - as do most Republican lawmakers, interestingly. It is his fellow Democrats in Congress who are more interested in investigations of Bush & Co. and excoriating the past than in building the future. Rather than the Republicans' special interest groups running the show, now it is the Democrats' special interest groups calling shots. One group is no better than the other. The Republicans' deserve no special treatment based on their operation of the levers of government, but Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be wise to remember no single group holds a monopoly on truth. President Obama said the very same thing. Unless the Democratic leadership recognizes this fact, they will be doomed to the same fate to which their GOP brethren currently find themselves subjected.
Obama won the election, not Pelosi or Reid. His lead should be followed - not theirs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I suppose I must be labeled a vengeful partisan, then(?), because I am of the opinion that Bush&Co should be held responsible for their abuses of power.
A quick list off the top of my head: 1) warrantless wiretapping in contravention of FISA, which was existing law, 2) torture, in violation of constitutional law and international treaties on human rights, 3) misrepresentation of intelligence information so as influence Congressional votes and start a war, 4) reprisals against US attorneys who refused to violate codes of legal ethics that constitute grounds for disbarment (ie filing frivolous corruption charges against Dems so as to influence elections), 5) awards of government contracts to financially benefit friends and business associates of administration insiders, 6) industry-written regulations governing environmental and consumer protections, and 7) I am sure I am forgetting something that would make me blush to remember.
The worst aspect of all these issues is that the full extent of abuse is unknown. For example, the wiretapping is probably far more extensive than anyone realizes, since the technology to record ALL (I do mean ALL) our phone conversations, and data-mine them at leisure, is now here. So much money was lost without any accounting in Iraq that surely more investigation is due. Etc. Hence I don't think that Dems should drop it. even if dropping it is the politically expedient thing to do (which it probably is).
Although I opposed Clinton's impeachment over lying in court about his affair with Lewinsky because of the immaterial (to the charges at issue) nature of the perjury, I nonetheless understood Republican demands to make the president accountable to law. When I consider the far more grievous abuses of law that the Bush administration collectively committed, I naturally feel anger that they might get away with it all b/c of the new political winds. (It's almost as if the country is numb over the vast extent of it all.)
To me it's a bit like the Truth and Reconciliation committees that countries often set up after ousting criminal dictators. They have to go through such a purging process in order to reestablish standards of law and confidence in institutions.
Although I tend to vote Democratic because of the radical Republican social agenda, I am idiosyncratic in my views on politics, the rule of law, and the economy, so I don't consider myself to be a partisan Dem. The patriotic pride I feel in our country stems in very large part from how our constitution, unique in the world, articulates a vision of freedom and rights for individuals and a limited, federalist, separated government. We are a country of individuals living bravely and freely each in our own way, and that really is what makes America different. When our political leaders concentrate power and seek to break checks and balances, and destroy individual human rights and freedoms, then I really don't think investigating and correcting these abuses is a partisan issue.
First, I tend to agree with "Ross"-- while it may not be the politically wisest course to take to hold hearings about the abuses of the previous administration, sometimes we must pour salt and use fire to cleanse a festering sore. I.e., to put it bluntly, just because the country is tired of partisan politics--due almost entirely to the actions and philosophy of the Bush Administration and the GOP while it was the party of power-- does not mean that prior abuses should not be investigated. They should, and those responsible for corruption, abuses of power, and acts in contravention of the Constitution should be held fully accountable, no matter who and no matter how high up the chain of command. I think Ross's reference to a country's catharsis and scourging after an abusive dictator is, sadly, apt.
Now, to the main point I wanted to write about. I thought it was actually sort of funny that you criticized the Dems for the doings in passing the stimulus bill, because I was going to post a blog about how the Republicans were making a terribly risky gamble for political expediency. Obama met with GOP Reps twice to discuss the stimulus package and to solicit their thoughts. (As an aside-- do you ever remember Bush doing something like that in 8 years of being president? Here's Obama in his first week demonstrating the maturity of a real leader... but I digress). Nevertheless, they voted UNANIMOUSLY against it. Unanimously? Additionally, in the midst of the debate, we hear things like "I hope he fails" come from people like Rush Limbaugh.
Here's what I think: GOP House Reps are convinced that the only way to win back some power in the House is to refuse whatsoever to cooperate-- to hope that the plan fails. They hope that by opposing economic policy set by the Dems and the Obama Administration will set them up nicely for election season 2010-- "hopefully" the country will still be suffering horrible economic recession.
It's a Machivellian position and one that seems unique to the House, as news has come out that GOP governors and senators (some senators, that is) actually support the stimulus package. It just demonstrates that the GOP is in a terrible ideological malaise. No new ideas. No efforts to work with the new administration (because that would be losing).
Also as a side note-- most main stream economists believe that the most successful stimulus package would include NO tax cuts but be entirely composed of governmental spending; yet, Obama's plan comprises about 35% tax cuts-- why did he do that? To develop a consensus, including Republicans. But the House GOPers would vote for no governmental spending (and did-- their plan was 100% tax cuts), again, demonstrating political posturing over sincere effort to do something constructive. So, yes, Grand Obstructionist Party it is.
(The risk for the House GOPers' plan, by the way, and what ultimately I think makes their position really foolish, is that the economy improves-- and it likely-- historically-- will. Boy, they'll look dumb then. Even if no one can prove that the improvement was due to the stimulus package, that position is easier to take than claiming that the economy improved on its own. I just really wonder about the House GOP leadership-- what is going on there?)
I'll probably post a blog entry on this later exploring these ideas more fully.
I appreciate the points made above, and would like to rebut/clarify.
Regarding investigations into possible abuses of power in the Bush administration - there is a place for such things, and it is not in "Congressional" investigations and hearings. Pulling former Bush Administration officials before a House or Senate Committee to castigate them in an "investigation" will do nothing but waste time and money while perhaps giving some members of Congress a pulpit to make long winded speeches so one will remember 6 months from now. Investigations of governmental abuse are why we have independent Special Prosecutors and the Court system. I should have been more clear in my point - it is not that Bush officials should be given a de facto pardon for their conduct over the past 8 years (and mostly during the first 4), but that it should not be the Democratically-controlled Congress doing the investigating. There is more important work to be done.
Second, regarding the passage of the stimulus bill in Congress: this is the largest spending package ever considered by Congress. Ever. Not only did every Republican vote against the bill, but so did 10 Democrats. My point was the tactics being used now by Pelosi are the same as those used by Tom DeLay. There was little real debate, and the bill was not crafted in Committee, but by staffers working solely for Democratic House members. The vote was a protest vote against those tactics. I would expect broader support from the GOP when the bill comes back to the house following passage in the Senate.
The protest was against two things - one is the bill is being loaded with pet projects that will have no effect on creating jobs (the Washington Post reported several Democratic Senators shared this concern). The second is the way in which it was passed - and was a signal to Obama that the GOP leadership feels the Democratic House leadership is not acting in good faith.
While I do not dispute there are those who hope for failure purely for partisan purposes, I do not think it describes the majority of GOP members - many of whom are in newly competitive districts - and it certainly does not describe the 10 Dems who crossed the aisle to vote against the package. As for Ann Couture and Rush Limbaugh - they are no more helpful than those calling the GOP the Grand Obstructionist Party. My largest concern is we will end up in the same situation we were in when the GOP controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. Granted, Obama is not Bush (thankfully), but I am concerned Pelosi and Reid - neither of which are great visionaries or leaders - will try to steal a mandate that belongs to Obama, and not them. It is worth remembering the only institution with a lower approval rating than Bush was the Congress as run by Pelosi and Reid.
Well, we could debate the efficacy of Congressional hearings and the functioning of government forever, I suppose. I agree generally with you that holding numberless hearings solely to rip the prior administration's functionaries is worthless. But there is some benefit to be had from Congressional investigations-- how are we to know whether a special prosecutor should be appointed if there is no evidence to justify appointing him? Where would the evidence come from? One way to accrue evidence is to subpoena witnesses to testify. The DOJ is not going to sua sponte convene a grand jury and start investigating Karl Rove and company. So, the only want to dig into things sometimes is via Congressional investigation.
I agree that it could get out of hand, and I really don't want to see that, even though, yes, that's what Newt Gingrich, Henry "Youthful Indiscretion" Hyde, and all the old school GOPers in the 90s did to the Clinton administration. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
Second, obviously there needs to be debate on the stimulus package, but as you may recall, Pelosi and Reid were pushing it through ASAP at Obama's request and direction. And in fact, the Bush administration was pushing for its passage before Obama took over originally. So, it may be a bit unfair to say that bully tactics are being used by the Democrats in the Congress.
Additionally, I don't think its obstructionist or wrong to vote against the bill because a member of Congress thinks tax breaks are better or because the program is just too big or whatever. I have no problem with probably the majority of the Republicans who don't want such a large governmental spending package and the few Dems who feel the same way. I do object to true partisan tactics as was displayed by the GOP in the House when they unanimously voted against the bill, apparently on symbolic grounds. That actually IS obstructionist, although they can't really obstruct effectively in the House, being a minority.
I also take issue with the description or idea of the Republicans in the House being in newly competitive districts. Actually, the remaining Republicans are in very conservative, safe districts. They lost almost all the moderate ones. So, they're actually sitting pretty, and I can see them thinking that they can sort of wait this out and lay all the blame on the Dems. As I said earlier, though, I think it is a fool's wager.
Post a Comment