The other day I was engaged in the useful task of driving through Arkansas, taking full advantage of the neatness of the road (to get out of Arkansas as fast as possible) when it occurred to me that there must be
some more middle ground than is currently believed.
For example, while Republicans have found themselves in the position of being against spending in a very holistic way of late, I suspect most of us can agree that we do want the government to pay for our roads. We want there to be signs on these roads and lights above them for night driving. We probably wish to mail mail, and be protected by police and fireman and have a legal system.
I don't know how much all that costs. Probably less than (insert crazy Obama spending idea here) but also less than the Iraq war, so two points for everybody.
I think, then, we all need to get better at differentiating.
Part of that is a return to reasonable obstructionism for the party out of power, rather than carte blanche obstructionism—which shift I think is now in the works, with a whole host of people coming out to say "Guys. Guys. If we CHOOSE the things we get mad about, rather than just everything, people outside of our tight constituency MAY occasionally listen to us." A fact I applaud without reservation.
(Two points: One, even though I'm a stinking liberal, does that make me wrong? Two, if one of you little buggers dares to post "BUT YOU GUYS DID THAT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH," I will march you DIRECTLY to detention, where you will be forced to write an essay entitled "How a person who once got the highest gallup approval rating EVER recorded, and then kept it over 60%for the next TWO YEARS was still mercilessly picked on his entire time in office—and how unfair and distorted that was even though 3/4ths of the country
ended up agreeing with those sentiments by the end.
OR, alternately: I can explain how President Bush had 90% approval rating, over 70% for a year, and over 60% for at least three of his eight years WITHOUT resorting to admitting that the majority of liberals gave Bush a fair shake AND that no loyal republicans ever shared the general liberal sentiment about Bush. Begin with this sentence "The Republican Party was 90% of the country in 2001 and 27% of the country in 2008, and no one ever changed their minds, ever."
I'll do it.)
(Reasonable good will towards, followed by disappointment in, President Bush IS middle-ground, you contentious bastards. Drop the pride, and fight about something real).
I think Obama's plan to close corporate tax loopholes on multinational corporations and crack down on overseas tax havens is a perfect example of this.
Look, we can do this. We can be reasonable about an issue. This issue has much to offer both sides and is dangerous to both sides. The same people who adamantly oppose any bars on businesses also lament businesses going overseas. On the other side, the same people who are willing to suspend fear of the consequences of considerable change still have as much reason as any to fear increasing government involvement in private affairs. I don't think anybody out there has consistently managed to be COMPLETELY unworried about the amount of spending going on.
Yes, I'm a liberal. Yes, I think that, while it is everyone's fault that the liberals and conservatives have so far failed to come to the table together in congress, it is more the conservatives' fault. It is of course an established fact that the party in power is not going to do things the other party's way when they completely disagree. That won't happen no matter who is in power and refusing to play ball because of that fact is unreasonable no matter who's doing it. Compromise, however, is not only good politics but pragmatically efficacious as the downsides of each philosophy are counterbalanced by the other. And I'm sorry, but the onus to accept compromise is on the guys with 40 seats in Congress and anyone who wants to maintain that the Republican Senate has made a sincere effort in that direction will have to explain why nearly every Republican governor was for the bailout while exactly three Republican senators managed to support it. Were the populations of the states replaced between Senatorial and Gubernatorial races? Was there really that BIG of a disconnect between how states ended up being represented on the state and national level? It had nothing to do with the fact that Republicans knew they didn't have the votes to stop it anyway?
I'm not saying Republicans shouldn't be against the bailout, nor that they might not eventually be right—we'll give it a massive incomplete, right now—I'm saying that that particular disparity doesn't speak strongly for the sincerity of the Republican effort to derail it. Partisan does not equal false. When liberals end up with the short end of the stick as, in the fullness of time, they inevitably will, I hope that they will behave. It's a people thing.
And it's not too late for this thing to work out. You say further attempts to curb the pioneering spirit of the American entrepreneur, I say bold attempt to bring American jobs back to American shores. But the fact is, we're still afraid of the same things. If I'm willing to wait and see whether the government will give the economy back to free enterprise, that doesn't mean I'm not afraid they won't. Just because I think more spending is necessary NOW and that smaller government is not the answer NOW doesn't mean I'm not afraid of crushing debt. I've always been afraid of crushing debt. Don't rubber stamp that no on a plan to bring America domestic jobs, or any of the other well-intentioned but probably flawed proposals in the works—make them better. If they're totally against your ethos, hey, no one's asking you not to fight ‘em. But if it's just Obama you can't stand, and Obama's potential success if you stop fighting him every inch of the way—grow the hell up, this isn't kindergarten.
Use wisdom—not dependent on whether your opponent does or not, but because it is the right service for your country in her time of need. There are good things being attempted in this country, even at the top (read J. Alexander Mitchell's column about making college cheaper!) and yes, you WILL profit if it all blows up in our faces and yes, you may personally benefit in the short run if you withhold your wisdom rather than work to find purchase for it—your country won't, and needs you.
Oh yeah... I feel the partisan arguments a'comin'! This'll be LOADS of fun...
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 02:16 PM
The difference in support between Governors and Congressmen is more driven by the difference in responsibilities between the offices. Governors are responsible for managing their state's individual fiscal policies, which as we all know are often constrained by balanced budget requirements within State constitutions. Therefore, regardless of party affiliation or ideological bent, not meeting their states spending demands was not political suicide for Congressmen. For Governors, it was.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 03:52 PM
I think it's the other way, Admiral. I think the governors, having the responsibility of dealing with how much their constituencies were suffering were forced to make a pragmatic choice--whatever the ramifications were and are of the money, I am certain there were many short term emergencies which it helped defuse--whereas the senators, who did not have to make sure anything kept running, could make the political choice of keeping their hands clean. Particularly as they knew they would not be needed to PASS the bailout. Just enough Senators drew the short straw to make sure it would still happen...
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on May 05, 2009 at 04:40 PM
So Andrew, how much is the Obama Administration paying for textual fellatio in blog posts these days?
The only thing that sticks out at me in your argument as blatantly against logic is the second to last paragraph. I defy you to find me a government that willing releases power after it is granted it. History is full of "temporary powers" turning into... I'll just say bad things - any other word I use will be taken as comparing the Obama Administration to Hitler or Stalin or some such nonsense.
That, and your definition of "middle ground" actually is the dictionary definition the opposite of a middle ground. "There's less of you, lie down and take it" is not a middle ground.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 04:58 PM
I put " " around the first sentence of my last post. Apparently fake HTML isn't allowed...
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 05:18 PM
You finally write a column last week I could not cut apart and then you follow with this nonsense.
If I had told you that Obama would completely take over the banks and the american car industry along with having his staff call american servicemen and right wingers terror threats would you have voted for him? Unfortunatly with you, the answer is yes.
By the way Bush is no longer in office so why are you obsessing over him still?Quit being a defense attourney for Mr. "awesome" and hold his feet to the fire for putting $100,000 worth of debt on our children.(that just on interest,not on principal from his first 100 days)Otherwise Andrew, you are just another Keith Olbermann.Thats not "awesome".
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 09:35 PM
By the way, if this is really a post about the "middle"go check out the "domestic extremists lexicon" report put out by the department of homeland security.It will offend pretty much..........everybody.Obama appointed Napalitano GOLD.
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 10:23 PM
I don't know why you bother writing here, Andrew. You're talking to a wall, basically. Personally, I'm perfectly content to let the right wing continue to spew venom. It worked so wonderfully for them in 2006 and 2008.
Please guys, nominate Palin in 2012.
Posted By: Zack (Guest) on May 05, 2009 at 11:33 PM
I'll give you credit for trying Twink...
I don't think that there will be a middle ground with Obama as President...
The population of a society will never, nor should it ever be slanted into nationalism in any degree...imagine an America where everyone is liberal or everyone is conservative...
The middle ground holds the same problems- it eliminates debate, and that eliminates democracy.
What we have failed to do as a country- and I am a prime example- is failed to listen to the other side of the argument...We do not have to agree, or compromise- but we should cooperate...
I see the problem like this- and this is simplified:
The Republicans were in charge, and Bush fucked it up. His presidency was completely reactive...9/11, criticism to Iraq, Katrina, etc.
His problem was he was a horrible communicator, he could never convince Americans why we did things the way we did- and as a result the Republicans lost everything.
The worst thing conservatives did was attack liberals who opposed Bush, because that built to all of this. We were wrong- I'll admit I am guilty, we refused to listen.
Obama is elected. A man with questionable character issues, a spotty past, and groomed in the most corrupt city in the country. But he is the other side of the coin- and the obvious choice for many Americans who hated Bush by the end of this term.
This all laid a foundation of mistrust for a large percentage of Americans- and that is growing with every questionable action that Obama conducts...even if it's legitimate. Not just distrust of Obama, but of the other side- conservative vs. liberal, American vs. American.
We all have a duty to do what is best for our country and that does mean supporting the President...but there is also a duty to protest the actions of the government. That is the right of every citizen, and it should be protected- not discouraged.
And I think that Liberals will defend Obama now, regardless of his actions - equal to those of us to protected Bush due to political bias. And that has proven to be a disservice, it was wrong.
As that happens we lose the ability to cooperate...we lose Democracy, because we lose the ability to debate civilly for the best interest of this country. Most of all we lose objectivity- clarity in the situation…
It’s not what Obama stands for today that is scary- it’s what he will stand for tomorrow- because he continues to take, and when the country finally refuses to give they will turn to someone else- some directly opposite and just as radical, a Conservative who will refuse to take- but also refuse to give.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 12:23 AM
It’s not what Obama stands for today that is scary- it’s what he will stand for tomorrow- because he continues to take, and when the country finally refuses to give they will turn to someone else- some directly opposite and just as radical, a Conservative who will refuse to take- but also refuse to give.
Finally at some point the people will turn to some person who they will ask to protect their rights- and the person will…and when we give our rights to one person to protect, when both conservatism and liberalism have failed…we have destroyed Democracy and entered into Tyranny.
I only hope that Liberals will not make the same mistakes that Conservatives made, and don’t blindly defend one man due to political bias…
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 12:24 AM
Interesting read. Interesting ideas. And I agree with you to some extent. Where I might differ I'll get to maybe later. Too much bourbon and I work too early in the morning to think.
But even moreso...Spook, you absolutely blew me away with your response. Lets face it, sometimes you come across as a jack ass (and probably do so purposely). But this time, No venom. No blind/mindless rhetoric. Just eloquent honesty. Good job.
Posted By: Elliot (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Spook, truly inspirational post.Well done.Sometimes I think I just need to clear out and let you take the ball one on everybody.Thank you again for your service and thanks for your wise words from the conservative side of the argument.
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 01:05 AM
Why is it 'compromise' and 'reasonableness' always means conservatives agreeing with liberal positions? It's never the other way around. No thanks. I'll be intractable and principled.
Posted By: Atlas's Shrug (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 09:03 AM
My point was pretty clear. Conservatives should work to add their concerns to what's THERE, largely because I think most people would agree that Conservative concerns are legitimate. if you want to spend 4-8 years not affecting the government, that's entirely your business but don't expect a round of applause. If the idea that the reality of the situation needs occasionally to be accepted and worked with is offensive to you, I wonder how you keep your jobs and deal with your families.
This is not a liberal rant. When the conservatives gain power again, and they will, I will hope and write about how the liberals should grit THEIR teeth and work on trying to protect the country from what they see as dangerous---by smartly working to introduce their concerns in a REASONABLE and ACCEPTABLE fashion because, at that point, that's the only way they'll be able to help the country.
If you're planning on blaming whatever negative changes happen because of an Obama presidency entirely on liberals, I encourage you now to look in the mirror and wonder "did I let some of this happen by having a nice four to eight year sulk? Could I have helped my country by not being a giant wailing baby?"
Don't get me wrong, I know it sucks real hard to have to work with people you detest for the simple reason of their current ascendancy. And you get to keep all your lovely pride if you refuse to bend at all to the plain, obvious, facts of the situation. Grow the hell up and be an adult.
The issue quoted above is one in which conservative influence could result in making a good but dangerous idea into, potentially, a good and safe one. Since the democrats have enough strength to get it done with republicans, they don't have to do anything the republicans want them to do AT ALL. But I think that they would if Republicans are willing to make concessions too.
As everyone should make concessions to everyone, in a power sharing system, for the purpose of finding something that comes closer to working for everybody. This is how mature people deal with situations.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on May 06, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Andrew,
Fist off, I want to thank you again for trying to take on a tough issue - namely that of people who don't like a politician or his policies still giving him credit where credit is due.
However, the example you give, for instance of closing the coorporate loop-holes, isn't a very good example at all.
Because, it is part of an overall taxation policy that runs against what Obama stated he was for in his campaign.
For instance, Obama talked about giving 95 percent of Americans a tax break, however, he didn't speak of how he is going to attempt to raise taxes on coorporations and business, there by passing the costs on to the American people. It is a tax on the American people through businesses.
Or the "Cap-and-Trade" garbage. Upping how much we as the citizen pays for the energy we use, to pay for co2 emissions or other such things - and the money goes where? Directly to the government.
And then, by using the Federal Reserve to create money out of nothing to pay for his deficit spending, he is devaluing every dollar in existence, making the American people's savings worht less so that the government can continue to operate it's deficit spending policies - a hidden tax so that government can do what it wants to do.
You see, as part of an overall picture, Obama's actions are contrary to what he claims he wanted to do.
As a byproduct, I want to ask this question. Why should the government - ANY GOVERNMENT - continue ita rampant spending policies when the people it supposedly serves are having to tighten their belts and cut their spending policies? Why should we give even MORE money to our govenement?
Overall, either Obama understands this and is lying to us, or Obama doesn't understand this.
Either option is scary.
Posted By: Stephen (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Speaking of productive conversations, I read somewhere recently that calling the other side of a debate 'sulking immature babies' who need to 'grow the hell up' is an excellent tactic for not having one.
I get what you're getting at, tobo, and I appreciate that often you're willing to engage the comments made on your work. Regardless of how correct or incorrect your positions may be, however, compromise (or any small degree of consensus) will be hard to achieve with such belittlement.
And John, as much as I love reading your posts, I think it's time to retire the "awesome" thing. It hasn't made sense to me from day one.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Thanks, Scotty. I get your criticism. It is difficult to be a political columnist without getting fed up. I respect everybody's right not to be HAPPY about the government as it is now, but politics still has to be conducted, we all have to be alive for the next four years. I'll be either nearly 30 or past it by the time Obama's done with this country, depending on the term things and I think we need conservatives to take the hit and participate just as I hope liberals will do when the worm inevitably turns.
I do my best to respond to whatever REASONABLE arguments are put my way, regardless of what perspective they come from. I try to play the liberal who's willing to listen. Like every person on Earth, sometimes I fail.
I appreciate what the Spook is saying. Actually, I usually do. Because in the middle of the kind of invective we're all familiar with he usually tries surprisingly hard to make cogent arguments.
Because it's an excellent point: how much of this is about persons, and how much about policies. Did we vote for this, or against that? Can we find ways to let good things happen without dooming ourselves by allowing policies which negatively affect American citizens to be put into place, with concrete poured on top.
Will we make votes on social issues when we should be worrying about political issues? How do we get back to talking about important things?
Big questions.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on May 06, 2009 at 01:32 PM
WOW!!! The Spoke, you suprised me yet again; great post, man. I agree with EVERYTHING you mentioned in your post.
Posted By: Independent4Obama (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 03:22 PM
So Andrew,I guess I would be more mature if I said the president is"awesome"like you did?Great aguement.......agree with me or your a baby.Truly lame.
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 04:05 PM
I really wish that the measure of any individual Congressmen's success was how much they accomplished. Right now, we let them get away with, "I opposed this on my principles". That's all well and good for some things, but you can't make a career of obstruction, and that is what they have been doing for the last 20 or so years. When one party has power, the other opposes nearly everything and makes the process much more difficult. I'd much prefer it if we looked at our representatives and said, "What has this person done while in office?" That way, they are forced to compromise and make tough choices, or they would be gone.
Still, it leaves the problem of long term goals. We reward elected officials that accomplish things, but offen the reforms that we really need won't be felt for a long time. What is the best way to design a society that appreciates long term planning?
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 04:24 PM
When a liberal talks about 'middle ground' it translates to 'my pov is the only one acceptable'. For instance:
1> Abortion - middle ground would seemingly be availability but restrictions on how late it can happen, and whether those who use it frivolously should be charged full price for the procedure. Liberal 'middle ground' is complete access with no restrictions no matter how frivolous the reason is.
2> Homosexuality - middle ground dictates that although you might not accept their choices, a free society allows them to choose as they do (the true meaning of tolerance). The liberal 'middle ground' is you have to accept it as normal and if you don't, we want to charge you with a hate crime.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 04:54 PM
By the way Andrew,was Arkansas one of the 57 states Obama visited last year?Happy cinco de cuatro
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 05:42 PM
Scotty,the awesome tag line came from Andrew using it twice in a week.First 2-15"John McCain thinks hes awesome" title of his post. The second, 2-20"he didn't win the presidency by being black, he won it by being awesome"
AWESOME
Its a word my 8 year old uses.Its a word cheerleaders use.And Andrew.Happy cinco de cuatro.
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 06:01 PM
C'mon man, you've never misspoke? I've said like six ridiculous things since supper this evening. And it's quatro.
On second thought, do as you like with the "awesome" (I would expect nothing less). It's starting to be humourous to me.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Sorry John, I've learned that both 'cuatro' is in fact the proper spelling. I shouldn't have tried to correct someone on a subject I clearly have no knowledge about. Funny how easy that can happen on the Internet.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on May 06, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Scotty, some people think I misspeak every time I leave a comment on here.Late
Posted By: John (Guest) on May 07, 2009 at 12:30 AM
STAY CURRENT