Ten-to-One

Over the last few weeks I’ve tried to write about political matters in a way that focuses more on the issues than the particular candidates in the upcoming elections. I’ve also tried to describe my thoughts about these issues in different ways than we normally hear around the water-cooler or in the hallway debates. The media and the campaigns not only tell us where to stand on the issues, they decide what the issues will be, and they give us a frame-work on defining the issues. Over the last month we’ve had a chance to see four debates (if you want to call them actual debates) for the Chief Executive jobs- President and Vice-President. Having watched all that, and keeping close track of the public reactions to each debate I’ll comment on the issues that have come to mind for me in the closing weeks of a campaign that seems to have gone on forever. I have no illusion that anything I say, or for that matter, anybody says will be persuasive to anyone or change minds at this point. After all, one third of the country has already voted, and I don’t know of a single “undecided” voter. I tend to agree with comedian and commentator Bill Maher when he says that if you’re an “undecided voter” at this stage, you’re an idiot. This has been going on so long and had so much coverage that anyone who can’t decide by now just hasn’t been paying attention, or is too addled to cast a coherent vote. I also believe we are so polarized that most Americans knew who they would vote for months or even years ago- regardless of what happened or what was said.

It’s no surprise I am among those who decided a long time ago that I would be voting Democrat in this race. But I hearken back to one of the opening events in this long, protracted campaign season that really stuck with me. The date was April 11, 2011-more than a year and a half before the election. Fox News was sponsoring a Republican Primary debate. All eight of the Republican contenders for the nomination were there trying to out-conservative the other. Near the end of the debate the moderators were getting frustrated as they tried to get any of the candidates to be specific about tax increases in the face of growing deficits. Finally the moderator asked for a show of hands if the candidates would reject a deal that provided one dollar of tax increases in exchange for ten dollars in reduced government spending. The candidates all looked at each other- then one-by-one each raised their hands. (You Tube this priceless moment)

Yes, it was a long time ago; and yes, it was during the primaries. For my money this was the seminal moment for the Republican Party. That one moment told me more (than any other single moment)what governance would be like, whether a Republican wins the Presidency or Obama is re-elected. That one gesture re-confirmed everything I had seen in the previous years as Republicans obstructed the President at every turn- and everything the Republican Party would do if they gained the White House. It told me that an intractable, radical, right-wing agenda had so captured the Republican Party that nothing can break through the ideology of this new wacko Party.

Our system of government requires compromise, and for many years the ability to compromise was actually considered to be the art of governing. Those who were willing to find compromise and still maintain their core values were called “statesmen”. Today, no one even uses the word “statesman” because the qualities of statesmanship are lost. Every new President in my memory has promised to change the culture of Washington, and every single one has failed. I don’t view that as a failure of the President who couldn’t pull it off, be it George W. Bush or Barack Obama. It is the failure of our political evolution as a people that values stubborn ideology more than governance. We tend to thrive on polarizing conflict- and turn everything into a blood-sport.  This is the FoxNews approach that says: everything we do-good; everything they do-bad. Even conservative icon Ronald Reagan compromised. His methods would be called treason by today’s Republican Party standards.   

The Republican Party has proven they had no intention of compromise or governance. They vowed that beating Obama was their prime objective and they proved it. They have stopped every economic initiative the President proposed by a record number of filibusters in the Senate, then they go on the campaign trail to say the President failed work with them-and failed in general. After all the crazy talk in the Republican Primaries, Mr. Romney is furiously trying to find a tenable moderate position on just about every issue. The debates with the President have really illustrated this. In order to curry the favor of the radical elements in his party, he had to raise his hand with those clowns to say "I wouldn’t even take a ten-to-one deal". Yet in recent weeks he’s talking a very different line on health care, taxes, and even abortion. He talked tough about the President’s “failed foreign policy” then turned around in the foreign policy debate and adopted the very policies the President is implementing. Mr. Romney has really boxed himself in- it’s just that we can’t figure out which box he’s in because he’s got a different position every time he speaks. Even going back to that fateful day in April of 2011 when he said he wouldn’t take a ten-to-one deal, we have ask how he plans to govern when he adopted an all-or-nothing position. I know he’s changed his position now (yet again!)- But which one is the truth? If elected, will he honor his pledge to Grover Norquist or his promise to work with the other party like he claims he did in Massachusetts? Should we believe that his “business experience” is his main qualification to be President, or be skeptical of a businessman who turns down a ten-to-one deal? What reasonable businessman does that? It’s all very confusing at best, and pandering nonsense at worst. But it seems to be working.

Perhaps Mr. Romney is the candidate we created. Perhaps his “say anything, do anything” approach to campaigning is the method we’ve wanted all along and he’s just the guy who perfected it. Perhaps he’s the candidate who is capitalizing on the culture we’ve fallen in to. It is a culture that likes immediate reward without much effort or thought, so we can just go along with the last thing we heard because it’s too damn hard to keep track of reality. Political and economic reality is hard and complicated.  I can’t think of a better explanation for a guy who changes his position constantly then even tries to tell you he never had the old position in the first place. (Never-mind that pesky video tape) President Obama is not the ideal President and his record isn’t perfect. There have been failures – but there have also been triumphs. And any reasonable person (and I emphasize REASONABLE) would say he probably did the best anyone could have done with the total mess he inherited. But at least he is not a chameleon changing his appearance depending on the surroundings. This is predicted to be a very close race, and I’m sure it will be. I believe the President will win re-election, but I’m coming to grips with the possibility Mr. Romney could narrowly pull it out- it’s that close. It’s been said that no matter who wins, the next President will have a difficult time governing because the members of the House and Senate will claim the winner does not have a clear mandate. I don't know how Mr. Romney could possibly have a clear mandate when he doesn’t have a clear position. But, like I said, maybe that’s what the people want-a malleable person who will just tell us what we want to hear.

The ten-to-one pledge that night also reminded me that this involves more than a President. Just like football quarterbacks, Presidents often get more credit than they deserve, and more blame than they’re responsible for. That debate in April told me that our Congress will hold the key to the future as much as the Chief Executive. In the last two years the Republican led House has been shameful in their inaction and their disregard for the welfare of the nation-all for the purpose of beating the President.  The Senate Minority has used the filibuster to stall any meaningful aid to the country. Just before the last recess the Senate even filibustered a jobs bill to put returning war veterans back to work. That’s how committed to creating chaos (based on ideology) the Republicans have become.

We can’t count on the next President to change the culture of Washington. The ten-to-one debate showed us the truth about today’s political climate. The solution comes from citizens who refuse to allow business as usual. It starts from the ground up- with us telling our Representatives and Senators we will vote them out unless they start heeding the will of the people, regardless of Party. This is where we can have the most impact as voters and constituents. The one thing almost all of us agree on is that we are sick of the dysfunction created by destructive adherence to an ideology instead of a commitment to governing.

Thanks for looking in.