Despite America's needing a government led by Democrats, and despite holding the stronger political and economic cards, Democrats could lose in November because they don't know how to play a good hand.
Trying to fight the Romney/Ryan plan with no plan is not a winner. Democrats must retain the presidency, reclaim majorities in the House and exceed a supermajority in the Senate. Doing all three will be difficult. Playing the cards right will involve compromise (not capitulation) in a comprehensive plan that acknowledges the dire nature and critical needs of nation's economy.
Reasonable discussions have already been had and rational conclusions have already been reached: Simpson-Bowles, the Senate's Gang of Six, Revlin-Domenici and Obama-Boehner, all are people-supported type compromises. Unfortunately, too many Democrats and Republicans envision a future for American politics that does not involve the other party. As a consequence, the November elections will set one of those visions in motion or continue an American governance of perpetual deadlock.
That brings us to the campaigns. If politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth as they campaign for political offices, how can they be expected to tell the truth when in office if it serves their financial interest and prospects for reelection to continue lying? And if politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth, how can they be trusted to seriously attempt to do what they promise to do? Can they be trusted in the kinds of things they will either do or permit others to do? Democrats and Republicans both have a right to present their cases to voters, but they should not have the right to lie either about what the other has done or about what they intend to do. It seems to have reached the point in the U.S. where we are deciding which people will represent us in government based on which one tells more and the best lies, not on careful consideration of what the truth is about each candidate. When only people who lie win, soon only liars seek public office.
But voters cannot know what and when lies are being told if they only get one-sided news, information, and opinions from one television channel, one radio station, single-view news columns, and the reporting of one newspaper. MSNBC and Fox repeat their evening talk shows. Look and listen to both. CNN has been a reasonably good referee.
Being able to properly valuate alternatives is necessary in a properly functioning democracy, even when proper evaluation does result in complete agreement. Having more than one perspective on issues is useful for decision-making, except of course, to those who benefit when people don't think, and don't have alternative to think about.
People who insist on thinking for others usually are mostly thinking about themselves. The potential problem with democracy, liberty and justice is that those terms have never meant the same to all Americans. Someone attributed to Abraham Lincoln the suggestion that liberty to many people means the freedom to take advantage of other people--and we might add to garner unto themselves as much of whatever is available and worth having. These people believe that only the strong and ruthless survive--or should survive. They don't say that while campaigning for office. They just slowly but surely put the pieces in place to make it happen.
And that day seems to have arrived. Those who perceive themselves to be--or are expecting themselves to become--members of the strong and possibly ruthless see a nation of "haves" with only a few "have nots" to work for them at minimum wages and with no rights to vote. People who have "me" and not "we" in their minds don't have Jesus in either their hearts, plans and treatment of others. Democrats must ask people how they will like to live on a few bucks an hour and no rights to vote.
But Democrats also must campaign by showing how House and Senate Republicans voted against Democrats attempts to address the problems stifling the American economy. Have ads that show Obama successes (called failures by Republicans) that Democrats have been able to squeeze through Congress. They should have voters relate to the governments not being able to pay bill with insufficient income to their own difficulty in pay bills because of unemployment or low employment. Like homes, government can't afford services which many Americans need without sufficient income from taxes.
During the November elections, many Americans are going to vote their present economic condition, without considering who and how they caused it. They will be hoping Republicans will treat them better next time. Many of these people also believe that their votes should not be bought by the highest bidder. But they will vote for the highest bidder anyway. Something is wrong with those decisions that neither reason nor criticism can cure.
A comprehensive, balanced and fully explained economic plan of the sort mentioned earlier would continue and accelerate the economic healing that has begun under President Obama, despite the obstructions of Republicans. Toward those ends, Republicans have nothing to offer except lies about the achievement of the President and questionable promises about what they would do or would have done. If, from the beginning of the Obama presidency, the number one goal of the Republican Party, has been to "make Obama a one-term president," how could they be expected to give him credit for any successes and to dare help him succeed? Their number one goal was not jobs, and it was not accelerating but decelerating where possible the recovery of the economy.
These should be jokers and wild cards for Democrats.
But Democrats must take the political risk to trust the better judgement of most Americans, those who are motivated more by prospects of better government and an accelerating economy than by party loyalties. They must remember that their card-playing partner is the American people. And all voters want from Democrats is some idea about how this winning hand is to be played.
No comments:
Post a Comment