I started using the Internet when I was a freshman in college back in the fall of 1995. Admittedly, I've been quite active in various message boards and/or other forums of political expression ever since. Indeed, that's even when/where I came up with the moniker, "Perplexio" which I've been using ever since. I logged into Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and wanted to come up with a screen name that reflected my personality. I really liked "Perplexion", unfortunately it was 1 character too long. The "n" dropped off. But I liked the sound of it and thus "Perplexio" was born.
That's neither here nor there though. Over the years in the various outlets of the expression of opinion-- listservs, email mailing lists, web based message boards, etc. etc. I've noticed that discussion has become increasingly more rancorous-- especially political discussion.
The anonymity of the Internet does tend to cause people to shed the shackles of restraint and say what's on their mind-- no holds barred, full speed ahead. Unfortunately, the less restraint people have the less tactful they become in the expression of their opinions. Expressing those same opinions face to face would likely cause many of us to be more tactful and careful with our choice of words; with the delivery of our message if you will.
Not bearing witness to the fruits of our words, the reactions of those who are reading them and hiding either intentionally or unintentionally behind a computer monitor can have dire results. It can cause what would normally be polite and civil discussion to turn into a venomous war of words with the bile of hatred being spewed back and forth.
As the usage of the Internet has grown substantially since it first started coming into vogue polite and civil discourse has become increasingly more rare. The level of rancor has grown and spread. It's heard on talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage), seen on TV (FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc.), and it permeates the Internet like a malignant tumor (MoveOn.org, Politico, townhall.com, the websites of the aforementioned Cable news networks, etc.).
And because it's become so omnipresent it's begun seeping into interpersonal relations. It's led to a de-conditioning of people's preference of intelligent, polite, and tactful discourse. In its place appears to be an overwhelming desire to not only make one's point at the expense of all other opinions but to do so in as underhanded and below the belt manner as possible. I'm not saying we're all like that, we're not. However, I do believe that this approach is becoming more and more the rule and not the exception.
There also seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to resort to over-the-top hyperbole. Whether it's Sarah Palin's reference to "death panels" in the ongoing health care debate or Nancy Pelosi referring to Americans who disagree with the Democratic majority's stance on health care as "Nazis" or "Brownshirts"-- these remarks are over the top and serve no one and inevitably weaken the credibility of the speakers (which is quite a feat considering how little credibility was there to begin with). It's fostered a very pervasive "us vs. them" or "red vs. blue" mentality as neither side is willing to discuss so much as they're willing to out-do the opposition.
Could it be that both sides have legitimate concerns and reasons for those concerns? No, because conceding any points to the opposition in this era is seen as weakness. Our founding fathers knew when to stand their ground and when to compromise (although, admittedly many of the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were likely just as rancorous, if not moreso, than the current health care debate). The difference is that those debates bore fruit! There was at least some semblance of a willingness to compromise. It doesn't appear that we even have that any longer.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Parallels between V and The Obama Administration
The upcoming "re-imagining" of the eighties sci-fi miniseries classic,V has me quite intrigued. Between the ads for the show and the premise of the show on wikipedia I'm seeing several parallels between the current presidential administration and the re-imagined V.
- The word "hope" is used quite prominently in one of the ads for the show. This was a word that was the perpetual theme of Obama's Presidential campaign.
- There's a clip of the leader of the aliens telling a TV journalist that he can ask her any question he likes as long as it does not portray the aliens in a negative way. The Obama administration is actively going after FoxNews as they are the one media outlet that is most outspoken in their criticism of his presidency.
- The aliens have won favor among the people of Earth by curing a variety of diseases, and have recruited Earth's youth to serve them unknowingly as spies (as posted on Wikipedia). Obama's pet project is health care reform (curing diseases), he overwhelming won the 18-25 year old demographic to get elected and whitehouse.gov has asked Americans to report "disinformation" to them (unknowingly spying).
The original miniseries and show did have political overtones as well so I wouldn't be surprised if this re-imagined version has similar political overtones. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Your thoughts-- Agree? Disagree?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Daddy's Girl
I can count on one hand the number of singers whose voices give me chills. The first singer to have that effect on me was former Chicago lead vocalist, Peter Cetera.
Among the reasons for Peter's 1985 departure from Chicago was a desire to tour less so he could spend more time with his wife and his daughter-- eighteen years of touring can wear thin after awhile. On each of Peter's albums since his daughter, Claire's, birth he's included a song for her.
And while I'm not necessarily a fan of all of the music Peter has chosen to perform since his departure from Chicago, I'm still a tremendous fan of his voice and have a deep respect for the choices he's made in his life and career.
Now that I'm a father of a little girl myself, his father/daughter songs strike a particular nerve with me. I've taken to singing Peter's lullaby for his daughter, One More Story to Samantha before bed:
For all intents and purposes, Sammie is definitely showing signs of being a Daddy's girl. She enjoys watching hockey and football with me (in all fairness this is probably more due to the bright colorful uniforms against the white and green backgrounds respectively). She's also a bit of a night owl, much like I was growing up. She's perpetually happy and rather easy-going like me too.
I'm loving every day of fatherhood. I love watching Sammie grow and develop. I look forward to seeing the woman she'll grow up to be, but at the same time I'm in no hurry for that to happen. I treasure watching all of her firsts and making her smile and laugh. She makes leaving for work in the morning that much harder and returning home afterwards to be that much sweeter. It's bittersweet, as she achieves each first knowing that she'll never have that "first" again.
Among the reasons for Peter's 1985 departure from Chicago was a desire to tour less so he could spend more time with his wife and his daughter-- eighteen years of touring can wear thin after awhile. On each of Peter's albums since his daughter, Claire's, birth he's included a song for her.
And while I'm not necessarily a fan of all of the music Peter has chosen to perform since his departure from Chicago, I'm still a tremendous fan of his voice and have a deep respect for the choices he's made in his life and career.
Now that I'm a father of a little girl myself, his father/daughter songs strike a particular nerve with me. I've taken to singing Peter's lullaby for his daughter, One More Story to Samantha before bed:
One more story then its time for bed
One more fairy tale, then rest your weary head
One more kiss, I’ll turn out the light
Everything is gonna be alright
I’ll still be here when you wake up in the mornin’
Close your eyes say goodnight
Go to sleep now, you’ve had a busy day
Hold me in your dreams, I won’t be far away
One more kiss, I’ll turn out the lights
Everything is gonna be alright
I’ll still be here when you wake up in the morning
Close your eyes, say goodnight
I can’t believe just how fast you’re growin’
I’m gonna cry when you’re old enough to go
And be on your own
But until that very moment
Everything is gonna be alright
You’ll still be here when I wake up in the mornin’
Close your eyes, say goodnight
Everything is gonna be alright
For all intents and purposes, Sammie is definitely showing signs of being a Daddy's girl. She enjoys watching hockey and football with me (in all fairness this is probably more due to the bright colorful uniforms against the white and green backgrounds respectively). She's also a bit of a night owl, much like I was growing up. She's perpetually happy and rather easy-going like me too.
I'm loving every day of fatherhood. I love watching Sammie grow and develop. I look forward to seeing the woman she'll grow up to be, but at the same time I'm in no hurry for that to happen. I treasure watching all of her firsts and making her smile and laugh. She makes leaving for work in the morning that much harder and returning home afterwards to be that much sweeter. It's bittersweet, as she achieves each first knowing that she'll never have that "first" again.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Marrying Type
Once again I find myself inspired by one of Sam de Brito's blog postings. In his post on doubt he raised the very good point that the common thread in all of our relationships isn't the other people, it's US! And generally all the excuses and euphenisms we give for the failure of our relationships; "we drifted apart," "we fell out of love," "a clash of differences," etc. etc.; they all boil down to an "unwillingness to change."
de Brito argues that "commitment is a switch you flip on." There is certainly some truth to that. There just comes a point in your life where the wild oats are sown and you're ready to settle down. Heck, sometimes the difference between a break-up and a marriage proposal is just a simple matter of timing. It's when that switch clicks for both parties in the relationship at roughly the same time.
Before that commitment switch clicks many of us have a tendency to cut and run when the going gets tough. We see arguments and fighting as signs of cracks in the foundation. Rather than spackle the cracks and strengthen the foundation we put the house on the market and start checking the classifieds to figure out where to start laying a new foundation.
After that switch clicks there's more of a willingness to weather the storms together. We come to realize that arguments aren't signs of weakness, but opportunities to better understand one another; opportunities to grow closer together rather than drift further apart. Getting mad at one another from time to time is natural. Because the opposite of love isn't hate, it's apathy. It takes just as much passion and energy (if not more) to hate as it does to love. And if you still have the energy to hate, you still care enough to feel enough negative energy for that other person it means you still have the same capacity to love that person. Would you really expend the energy to argue with someone you didn't care about or care for or would you just walk away?
The old adage, "what doesn't tear us apart will only make us stronger" is true. And in realizing that arguments can strengthen relationships rather than tear them apart.
Inevitably, the question shouldn't be, "Does (insert name here) make me happy?" Happiness is fleeting it will come and go multiple times in any relationship. There are going to be bad times when you're not too keen on that special someone. And if you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself.
Instead, the question should be, "When the chips are down, if everything is going wrong in my life, is there anyone else I'd rather have my back than (insert name here)?" Because a relationship shouldn't be based on something as fleeting as happiness. The happy times are easy. A relationship should be based on dependability, knowing that person will be there for you not only when the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and all is well in the world but also on your darkest and dreariest days. It should be based on knowing that you're not always going to get along and that's okay. In the end it's not about getting along all of the time, it's about realizing that those times when that special someone is driving you up the wall it's only because you're emotionally invested in not just the other person but in the relationship itself.
I'll concede much of this is based much more on observation than personal experience. I have five siblings, all of which have been married over twenty years and my parents have been married over fifty years (not to mention they were high school sweethearts before getting married). Personally, I'm a tenderfoot. My wife & I have only been married four and a half years. We're still learning as we go. I'm just putting this out there as I've seen people I care about making the same mistakes over and over in their relationships. I may be wrong but I chalk up those mistakes to cocktail of two parts bad timing with a shot of unrealistic expectations of what a relationship is supposed to be like.
de Brito argues that "commitment is a switch you flip on." There is certainly some truth to that. There just comes a point in your life where the wild oats are sown and you're ready to settle down. Heck, sometimes the difference between a break-up and a marriage proposal is just a simple matter of timing. It's when that switch clicks for both parties in the relationship at roughly the same time.
Before that commitment switch clicks many of us have a tendency to cut and run when the going gets tough. We see arguments and fighting as signs of cracks in the foundation. Rather than spackle the cracks and strengthen the foundation we put the house on the market and start checking the classifieds to figure out where to start laying a new foundation.
After that switch clicks there's more of a willingness to weather the storms together. We come to realize that arguments aren't signs of weakness, but opportunities to better understand one another; opportunities to grow closer together rather than drift further apart. Getting mad at one another from time to time is natural. Because the opposite of love isn't hate, it's apathy. It takes just as much passion and energy (if not more) to hate as it does to love. And if you still have the energy to hate, you still care enough to feel enough negative energy for that other person it means you still have the same capacity to love that person. Would you really expend the energy to argue with someone you didn't care about or care for or would you just walk away?
The old adage, "what doesn't tear us apart will only make us stronger" is true. And in realizing that arguments can strengthen relationships rather than tear them apart.
Inevitably, the question shouldn't be, "Does (insert name here) make me happy?" Happiness is fleeting it will come and go multiple times in any relationship. There are going to be bad times when you're not too keen on that special someone. And if you think otherwise, you're lying to yourself.
Instead, the question should be, "When the chips are down, if everything is going wrong in my life, is there anyone else I'd rather have my back than (insert name here)?" Because a relationship shouldn't be based on something as fleeting as happiness. The happy times are easy. A relationship should be based on dependability, knowing that person will be there for you not only when the sun is shining, the birds are singing, and all is well in the world but also on your darkest and dreariest days. It should be based on knowing that you're not always going to get along and that's okay. In the end it's not about getting along all of the time, it's about realizing that those times when that special someone is driving you up the wall it's only because you're emotionally invested in not just the other person but in the relationship itself.
I'll concede much of this is based much more on observation than personal experience. I have five siblings, all of which have been married over twenty years and my parents have been married over fifty years (not to mention they were high school sweethearts before getting married). Personally, I'm a tenderfoot. My wife & I have only been married four and a half years. We're still learning as we go. I'm just putting this out there as I've seen people I care about making the same mistakes over and over in their relationships. I may be wrong but I chalk up those mistakes to cocktail of two parts bad timing with a shot of unrealistic expectations of what a relationship is supposed to be like.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Good enough for government work...
The expression "good enough for government work" was once considered to be a compliment. It recognized the high quality of products commissioned for the US military serving in World War II.
Over time the expression has taken on a considerably more negative connotation. These days it's a disparaging term that reflects shoddy, half-assed quality.
And yet we, as a country, continue to allow our government to have more and more power and increasingly more influence over/control of our lives.
Good enough for government work:
The USPS: Currently forecasting a $7 billion deficit. They are pondering cutting service from 6 days to 5 and closing over 400 post offices nationwide. Congress is also debating delaying $4 billion in payouts to retired postal employees as a stopgap measure to shrink the budget shortfall.
IRS: Do you understand the US Tax code? Neither do I. On the flip side they do keep thousands of accountants employed deciphering the tax code and doing our taxes for us so we don't have to decipher the tax code.
Department of Education: Despite a tremendous influx of cash with "No Child Left Behind" test scores are still falling. Incidentally I believe this is a failing of administration not of teaching. I have nothing but the utmost respect for most teachers as teaching is one of the most difficult and thankless jobs to have.
DMV: Take a number, get in line to take another number to get in a different line. Repeat ad infinitum.
Medicare: Congress is currently considering measures that would drastically reduce Medicare coverage. As it is some doctors have stopped accepting Medicare as the government is not known to pay doctors in the most timely fashion. If doctors aren't getting paid, chances are they'll start seeking employment elsewhere (either through career change or relocation).
Isn't it about time we started asking for BETTER than good enough for government work?
Over time the expression has taken on a considerably more negative connotation. These days it's a disparaging term that reflects shoddy, half-assed quality.
And yet we, as a country, continue to allow our government to have more and more power and increasingly more influence over/control of our lives.
Good enough for government work:
The USPS: Currently forecasting a $7 billion deficit. They are pondering cutting service from 6 days to 5 and closing over 400 post offices nationwide. Congress is also debating delaying $4 billion in payouts to retired postal employees as a stopgap measure to shrink the budget shortfall.
IRS: Do you understand the US Tax code? Neither do I. On the flip side they do keep thousands of accountants employed deciphering the tax code and doing our taxes for us so we don't have to decipher the tax code.
Department of Education: Despite a tremendous influx of cash with "No Child Left Behind" test scores are still falling. Incidentally I believe this is a failing of administration not of teaching. I have nothing but the utmost respect for most teachers as teaching is one of the most difficult and thankless jobs to have.
DMV: Take a number, get in line to take another number to get in a different line. Repeat ad infinitum.
Medicare: Congress is currently considering measures that would drastically reduce Medicare coverage. As it is some doctors have stopped accepting Medicare as the government is not known to pay doctors in the most timely fashion. If doctors aren't getting paid, chances are they'll start seeking employment elsewhere (either through career change or relocation).
Isn't it about time we started asking for BETTER than good enough for government work?
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Reading Meme
Do you snack while you read? If so, favorite reading snack?
No, I generally consider eating and reading to be mutually exclusive activities. I like to fully enjoy both eating and reading and trying to do them simultaneously diminishes the enjoyment of both activities.... Unless of course I'm reading a cookbook.
Do you tend to mark your books as you read, or does the idea of writing in books horrify you?
It depends on the book/author. Generally I keep a highlighter handy when reading books by Douglas Coupland and highlight my favorite passages. I do this with a few other authors as well but chances are this isn't a practice I'd do with books by John Grisham or Ken Follett.
How do you keep your place while reading a book? Bookmark? Dog-ears?
Usually an improvised bookmark-- sometimes a sheet of 2-ply, sometimes a receipt, and sometimes the library is nice enough to include them in books (or previous readers have left them behind.
Laying the book flat open?
No, usually held in my hands.
Fiction, Non-fiction, or both?
both. Although with non-fiction I tend to stick with travel (Bill Bryson in particular), history and survival books (Into the Wild and books like that).
Hard copy or audiobooks?
Generally hard copy. Although there are a couple authors I wouldn't mind getting audiobooks of (Bill Bryson & David Sedaris) because they read their own books and the audiobooks come recommended even higher than the hard copies.
Are you a person who tends to read to the end of chapters, or are you able to put a book down at any point?
It depends on the author. Some authors, if I want to stop reading I have to stop mid-chapter. The authors leave each chapter with a cliff-hanger that keeps me reading the next one (usually suspense novelists like John Grisham, Ken Follett, and Daniel Silva).
If you come across an unfamiliar word, do you stop to look it up right away?
No I try to figure it out from the context in which it's used.
What are you currently reading?
Thirtynothing by Lisa Jewell
A Friend of the Family by Lisa Jewell
What is the last book you bought?
Flow My Tears the Policeman Said by Philip K. Dick
Are you the type of person that only reads one book at a time or can you read more than one at a time?
I can read more than one at a time although I prefer not to. I feel like I'm cheating on whichever book I started reading first.
Do you have a favorite time of day and/or place to read?
Right before bed. It clears my head of the day's stresses and relaxes me so I fall asleep considerably faster and easier when the lights do go out.
Do you prefer series books or stand alone books?
With Sci-Fi books I prefer series. For any/every other genre I prefer stand alone books.
Is there a specific book or author that you find yourself recommending over and over?
Books -
Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts; Bright Lights, Big City by Jay McInerney; American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis; Life After God by Douglas Coupland; An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser; Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser; The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemmingway; This Side of Paradise by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Authors -
Christopher Moore, Ken Follett, Douglas Coupland, Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov
How do you organize your books? (By genre, title, author’s last name, etc.?)
By author, although beyond that my wife shelves the books by size by how they look best on the shelf. She's got an eye for that. I only ever ask her to keep books by the same author together and just let her do her thing.
No, I generally consider eating and reading to be mutually exclusive activities. I like to fully enjoy both eating and reading and trying to do them simultaneously diminishes the enjoyment of both activities.... Unless of course I'm reading a cookbook.
Do you tend to mark your books as you read, or does the idea of writing in books horrify you?
It depends on the book/author. Generally I keep a highlighter handy when reading books by Douglas Coupland and highlight my favorite passages. I do this with a few other authors as well but chances are this isn't a practice I'd do with books by John Grisham or Ken Follett.
How do you keep your place while reading a book? Bookmark? Dog-ears?
Usually an improvised bookmark-- sometimes a sheet of 2-ply, sometimes a receipt, and sometimes the library is nice enough to include them in books (or previous readers have left them behind.
Laying the book flat open?
No, usually held in my hands.
Fiction, Non-fiction, or both?
both. Although with non-fiction I tend to stick with travel (Bill Bryson in particular), history and survival books (Into the Wild and books like that).
Hard copy or audiobooks?
Generally hard copy. Although there are a couple authors I wouldn't mind getting audiobooks of (Bill Bryson & David Sedaris) because they read their own books and the audiobooks come recommended even higher than the hard copies.
Are you a person who tends to read to the end of chapters, or are you able to put a book down at any point?
It depends on the author. Some authors, if I want to stop reading I have to stop mid-chapter. The authors leave each chapter with a cliff-hanger that keeps me reading the next one (usually suspense novelists like John Grisham, Ken Follett, and Daniel Silva).
If you come across an unfamiliar word, do you stop to look it up right away?
No I try to figure it out from the context in which it's used.
What are you currently reading?
Thirtynothing by Lisa Jewell
A Friend of the Family by Lisa Jewell
What is the last book you bought?
Flow My Tears the Policeman Said by Philip K. Dick
Are you the type of person that only reads one book at a time or can you read more than one at a time?
I can read more than one at a time although I prefer not to. I feel like I'm cheating on whichever book I started reading first.
Do you have a favorite time of day and/or place to read?
Right before bed. It clears my head of the day's stresses and relaxes me so I fall asleep considerably faster and easier when the lights do go out.
Do you prefer series books or stand alone books?
With Sci-Fi books I prefer series. For any/every other genre I prefer stand alone books.
Is there a specific book or author that you find yourself recommending over and over?
Books -
Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts; Bright Lights, Big City by Jay McInerney; American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis; Life After God by Douglas Coupland; An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser; Sister Carrie by Theodore Dreiser; The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemmingway; This Side of Paradise by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Authors -
Christopher Moore, Ken Follett, Douglas Coupland, Philip K. Dick, Isaac Asimov
How do you organize your books? (By genre, title, author’s last name, etc.?)
By author, although beyond that my wife shelves the books by size by how they look best on the shelf. She's got an eye for that. I only ever ask her to keep books by the same author together and just let her do her thing.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Bankruptcy of Political Capital
Leaving my beliefs on the actual issue of health care reform aside... I'd like to dissect the strategy and PR disaster this issue has turned into for Obama...
I've been following the health care debate over the past several months. Today, out of curiousity I took a gander at the approval ratings for Obama and for Congress.
51% of the American public approve of the job President Obama is doing.
Compare that to Congress... 26.8% approve and 64% disapprove.
I believe this is largely and predominantly Congress's own doing (and I doubt I'll get much disagreement on that).
Whether you agree or disagree with Obama's plan how would you feel if you were told that because of your beliefs you're no better than the Nazis, your views were portrayed as being less valid or "astro-turf" because they were "organized" (despite tremendous evidence to the contrary), or that you're a racist because your views run counter to those that make up a majority of our senators and representatives in Congress?
Different members of the Democratic majority in Congress have said or made all those insinuations over the past few months. I believe they've largely unwoven the sense of unity that Obama established, or at least started to establish during his victory speech last November.
Obama had overwhelming popularity when he was elected, and that popularity gave him tremendous political capital. Unfortunately due to their name-calling and divisiveness many within his own party have squandered that political capital by alienating their constituencies.
Going into this health care debate and even now most Americans believed and agreed in a need for health care reform. But any criticism of the Democratic sponsored reform bills has been marginalized any attempts at bipartisanship have largely been ignored.
Now, I may be in the minority within my own party that I'm willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on his desire for bi-partisanship and unity within Congress. But if I were one of his supporters I would be livid at the Democratic leaders in Congress for alienating much of America.
There are plenty of Americans who never would have supported Obama or a Democratic Congress or anything they put out there and others who would support Obama and Congress no matter what he said or did. I realize these are segments of the population that see everything in black and white (or in this case red and blue). But I'd argue the political beliefs of most Americans fall somewhere in the middle. And it was this "middle" that Obama essentially entrusted Congress with "winning over."
Instead of listening to their constituents, instead of trying to work with one another Congress has taken on a rather hostile, "our way or the highway" mentality that has resulted in their already low approval ratings falling even lower and made what once seemed like an almost certain political victory for Obama increasingly more questionable.
To some extent I believe this is rooted in a Congressional conceit. Many of our senators and representatives feel they know better what is best for America than we Americans know what is best for ourselves. And some of the recent remarks of many members of the Congressional leadership have only served to confirm that perception that many Americans (at an ever increasing pace) have of Congress. And it's that very conceit that is further dividing the country as a whole.
While I'll concede my own beliefs are further on the conservative end of the political spectrum than the liberal I believe that not only the corruption but also the conceit of Congress is systemic. It's not limited to one party or the other. As the heavily publicized Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal in 2006 proved-- both parties are equally capable of being corrupt.
This is due largely to the growth of the federal government. The more power and influence the federal government has gained the more that power has corrupted our elected officials in BOTH parties. Ideologically the Republicans are supposed to be a government of LIMITED government but in practice the Congressional Republicans have shown their hunger and thirst for power is just as strong as their colleagues across the aisle.
The legislative, NOT the executive branch is the most powerful branch of the federal government. The executive branch is just more concentrated in that power than the legislative branch-- it's a lot easier to direct your enthusiasm (be it negative or positive) at ONE person than at an elected body of 535 people. Especially when an individual American can only claim any semblance of responsibility for electing 3 of those Congresspeople (2 senators, 1 representative).
As a result we have a government where most of the power exists in a vaccuum... A vaccuum where most of those elected officials believe that their constituents serve them... not that they are supposed to be serving us. We aren't servants of the government. The government is a servant of the people. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that from the attitude many in our government have displayed towards those who disagree with them.
I've been following the health care debate over the past several months. Today, out of curiousity I took a gander at the approval ratings for Obama and for Congress.
51% of the American public approve of the job President Obama is doing.
Compare that to Congress... 26.8% approve and 64% disapprove.
I believe this is largely and predominantly Congress's own doing (and I doubt I'll get much disagreement on that).
Whether you agree or disagree with Obama's plan how would you feel if you were told that because of your beliefs you're no better than the Nazis, your views were portrayed as being less valid or "astro-turf" because they were "organized" (despite tremendous evidence to the contrary), or that you're a racist because your views run counter to those that make up a majority of our senators and representatives in Congress?
Different members of the Democratic majority in Congress have said or made all those insinuations over the past few months. I believe they've largely unwoven the sense of unity that Obama established, or at least started to establish during his victory speech last November.
Obama had overwhelming popularity when he was elected, and that popularity gave him tremendous political capital. Unfortunately due to their name-calling and divisiveness many within his own party have squandered that political capital by alienating their constituencies.
Going into this health care debate and even now most Americans believed and agreed in a need for health care reform. But any criticism of the Democratic sponsored reform bills has been marginalized any attempts at bipartisanship have largely been ignored.
Now, I may be in the minority within my own party that I'm willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on his desire for bi-partisanship and unity within Congress. But if I were one of his supporters I would be livid at the Democratic leaders in Congress for alienating much of America.
There are plenty of Americans who never would have supported Obama or a Democratic Congress or anything they put out there and others who would support Obama and Congress no matter what he said or did. I realize these are segments of the population that see everything in black and white (or in this case red and blue). But I'd argue the political beliefs of most Americans fall somewhere in the middle. And it was this "middle" that Obama essentially entrusted Congress with "winning over."
Instead of listening to their constituents, instead of trying to work with one another Congress has taken on a rather hostile, "our way or the highway" mentality that has resulted in their already low approval ratings falling even lower and made what once seemed like an almost certain political victory for Obama increasingly more questionable.
To some extent I believe this is rooted in a Congressional conceit. Many of our senators and representatives feel they know better what is best for America than we Americans know what is best for ourselves. And some of the recent remarks of many members of the Congressional leadership have only served to confirm that perception that many Americans (at an ever increasing pace) have of Congress. And it's that very conceit that is further dividing the country as a whole.
While I'll concede my own beliefs are further on the conservative end of the political spectrum than the liberal I believe that not only the corruption but also the conceit of Congress is systemic. It's not limited to one party or the other. As the heavily publicized Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal in 2006 proved-- both parties are equally capable of being corrupt.
This is due largely to the growth of the federal government. The more power and influence the federal government has gained the more that power has corrupted our elected officials in BOTH parties. Ideologically the Republicans are supposed to be a government of LIMITED government but in practice the Congressional Republicans have shown their hunger and thirst for power is just as strong as their colleagues across the aisle.
The legislative, NOT the executive branch is the most powerful branch of the federal government. The executive branch is just more concentrated in that power than the legislative branch-- it's a lot easier to direct your enthusiasm (be it negative or positive) at ONE person than at an elected body of 535 people. Especially when an individual American can only claim any semblance of responsibility for electing 3 of those Congresspeople (2 senators, 1 representative).
As a result we have a government where most of the power exists in a vaccuum... A vaccuum where most of those elected officials believe that their constituents serve them... not that they are supposed to be serving us. We aren't servants of the government. The government is a servant of the people. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that from the attitude many in our government have displayed towards those who disagree with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
