"And I think it's gonna be a long, long time...."

Reading the daily headlines is a tentative adventure now days.  It has been for some time.  But with optimism I check the news to see how our fine country is doing.  How are we moving forward, together, as a nation?

I expect to see a little political diviseness, but along the lines of the usual suspects: Healthcare; Economic Stimulus; Anchor Babies.   So I was surprised to see the NYTimes headline today that the GOP was blocking efforts to ratify the New Start Treaty with the Russians.  What do the Republicans have against nuclear disarmament?  Didn't we all agree that this was a good idea like 20 years ago when communism collapsed?  Isn't this what Nixon, Reagan and Bush (senior), stalwarts of détente worked so hard for?  SALT, SALT II, Reykjavik????   How could these modern Republican repudiate such a legacy?

Seems that they don't feel there is enough time in the lame duck congress to get this ratified.   "This is complex stuff" they say.  You don't want to rush this.  The Russians don't have a problem rushing it.  They fear that once the Republican majority takes over, they won't want to place nice with the Russians.  Are we really at risk of going backwards here?

I remember the day I read that George Bush (junior) had pissed off the Russians.  It was one of those moments where I thought...."on top of everything else, you're going to upset the fragile balance we have with our old Cold War enemy??"  Like we need this??  I guess having grown up during the cold war, when a sneeze in Tripoli threatened all out Thermo-nuclear disaster, has left me a little scarred.  "Want -to-play-a game-?"

So I was relieved that relations with Russia has eased somewhat.  Those good vibes have allowed us to provide better logistical support for our troops in Afghanistan.  They have also allow us to apply a little more pressure on Iran and their dalliance with nuclear arms...I mean creating weapons grade plutonium for fuel ("1.21 Gigawatts!!!!").

Russian and the US were seriously considering the resumption of inspections (the whole Reagan, "Trust but Verify" thing).   Inspections lapsed last year for the first time since the Cold war ended.  Man...I miss the cold war.

But now that is in jeopardy: the republicans need more time.  Forget that the White House has fostered 29 meetings on the topic, and given the ranking Republican, Senator John Kyl...seriously?...that's his name?  (Ian Fleming couldn't make that up)....and even given Senator Kyl all the data he asked for.  Kyl announced on Tuesday, that there wasn't enough time with the lame duck congress.

The Republicans major concern seems to be shoring up our current Nuclear Weapons complex.  I mean before we put these guns down, we want to make sure they are the most sophisticated modernized guns possible.  Plus it puts a lot of Americans to work (one would hope) to modernize the Nukes, as it were.  So far the administration has responded with commitments of $84 billion over the next 10 years.  So they get it.

But Senator Kyl has thrown up a procedural vote to block ratification in this congress. I just cannot see where the Republican opposition is coming from.  I get that there isn't a lot of time left in the year.  But does that mean we all knock off early?  I'd like to say: "Well I've done all I can this year at my job,. not enough time left,  so I am going to sail for the next month while the year winds down."   Sounds great.  Not sure the people depending on me would share in that plan.

And I cannot imagine they are doing this to just make President Obama look bad.  That seems so juvenile.  Granted this is one of the president top foreign policy goals.  But that alone cannot be the motivator to frustrate a core treaty with the Russians.  Could it? 

Maybe the Russians are more of a threat than we think, and the Republicans want to fully review that when they come to power.  Or perhaps the complexities of our Nuclear Arsenal require more than $84 billion and the months of review extended so far.  I mean sure, when the Republicans were in charge of a lame duck congress they had time to impeach a philandering president.  But that was justified.  You cannot rush international peace...it has to percolate.

So in the meantime, the Kremlin might get a little worried.  Iran might get a little bolder.  And the world will have to consider whether 1, 550 strategic warheads should be deployed.

"Where gonna fuel the fire and stoke it up, we're drink this wine...and pass the cup.."

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
 

Shakespeare wrote that.  Of course the great bard also invented words at will, and was convinced that dogs could not look up.  

In President Obama's weekly radio address he raised the spectre of borrowing in context to the issue of the Bush tax cuts extension.  President Obama makes a case that if we extend the tax cuts for all we would have to borrow to make up for the deficit impact.  And we might oft lose both the loan and our dear friends the Chinese (notwithstanding a sketchy human rights record, but who are we to point fingers??).

Now if the Bush tax cuts are extended to all, including the 2% of the population considered millionaires/billionaires, it would add $4 trillion to the deficit.    And while the Republicans deplore the deficit, they feel that any tax raise in a recession is a bad idea.  It's a double edge sword, as the tax cut vitiates both deficit reduction and recovery theory.

If the cuts are extend to only people making $250k or less it would raise the deficit by $3 trillion.  $4 trillion everyone; $3 trillion everyone but the super-rich.    Put that way, it seems like in for measly $1 trillion we give the wealthy 2% a much deserved break.

Seriously at the end of the day, a trillion a schmillion, does it matter?? And if the enviable 2 percent is happy with the $160,396 (per household) tax break, aren't we all happy?  I mean it trickles down right?  Noblesse Oblige and all that?  Not exactly, you say?   But we still should believe in that right?   Up there with Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, a Peter Jackson production of the Hobbit???  
Truth is we've got a special place in our hearts for the rich...in America.  We all want to be rich, and our collective conscious might dictate that whatever is good for them, is eventually good for us.  The crumbs from their table might just fall to the 98% of the rest of us.

"Poor men wanna be rich, rich men wanna be kings.." That's what Bruce said.  But of course he is part of the 2% (Still writes songs like a blue-collar man though, God bless him).  And Bruce never wanted to be king... just the boss. 

Bottom line is to even indulge in class consciousness is so....well classless.    Our culture doesn't celebrate being poor, nor questioning the rich.  And while we tend to redistribute the well every 30 years (Great Society, New Deal, TR, etc)....suggest that now and you're a radical socialist.  Of course, left unchecked and you have Rome under Valentinian.  I digress.

I dare say our culture doesn't seem to celebrate being blue-collar or middle class anymore (not since King of Queens was cancelled).  If you're pulling yourself up by your boots now, they better be Jimmy Choo damnit, (or right out of the box Timberlands).  Granted, it is a good sign that Mtv (the cultural bellwether) no longer heavily promotes shows that place a high premium on conspicuous consumption.  Shows like Cribs, and Sweet Sixteen have been replaced with Teenage Mom and Jersey Shore.  Maybe that's not a good example.   But overall, American cultural cues still place a heavy emphasis on wealth and the trappings of the upper class.  And this gives us the impression that it is the life worth having, as opposed to the live we are living.  Hence the conflict.  

When presented with an opportunity we are preprogrammed to give deference to the rich.  We might feel on an unconscious level that they deserved the benefit, having worked hard for wealth, or been blessed in some neo-Calvinist sense.  Personally, I tend to find comfort in the paraphrased Balzac (giggidy) quote "Behind every great fortune, there is a crime.".   And so, as odd as it may seems in the next few weeks the country will be arguing about giving a large tax cut to the rich, despite it's negative effect on the deficit and corresponding effect on US borrowing.  A large number of people in the 98%, who are unhappy with the growth of the deficit, will be compelled to side with the republicans and favor extended all of the tax cuts.

Perhaps this all harkens back to high school, where in order to belong, we sided with the popular kids, in the hope that we'd get invited to the proverbial keg party of social acceptance.   It didn't matter that in the end we only got invited because we had a station wagon big enough to fit the keg.  We glad made our sacrifice in order to share in the rarified air of the entitled.  And to deny ourselves that fantasy and delusion is to come to terms with our economic limitations.  No one wants to come dare admit that we might be at best, the working class.  Even John Lennon didn't have nice things to say about working class heroes.  And until Mtv comes up with a show called "Bridge and Tunnel", we lack meaningful reinforcements on  the virtues of middle class.  
But we are good at borrowing and cling to the belief that dogs can look up.  So we can definitely help the government there.

"We could steal time, just for one day. We can be heroes, for ever and ever. What d'you say"

"We could be heroes."  So who is willing to step up and be first.  Because people are hurting, and we need action, not gridlock.
Which leader of this free nation, is willing to  put aside political ambitions and  dare to solve?   Who will recognze that a country in crisis and it's solutions should rise above partisan upsmanship (or upwomanship)?  Who is willing to put their re-election chances on the line, and do what is right?   And while job security is important to most American, I am pretty sure that if a sacrifice for the country leads to the loss of a job, most elected leaders will land on their feet.  If they need inspiration, perhaps they can look to our service men and woman.

As citizens we are poised, dare said in dire need of historic collaborations in Washington.  Given the stakes, and early indicators it is not enough to hope that our leaders will accomplish this by osmosis.  We, the relevant chorus, must encourage our leaders, whether we lean left or right, or horizontal.  Like a patient boss, we must encourage them when they perform well.  Praise early and often.  And we must remind them if they screw up the narrative.    If the Sunday political tak-show results mean anything, they are screwing up the narrative.   The top priority from the exit poll was not "stalemate policy developments in Washington."  It was fix the economy.  This requires collaborations.  The need for compromise, collaboration and solutions have been a unmet priority of our political process for the last 10 years.  Something has got to change.

We had a great opportunity with the Bush years, when the symbollic Prince Hal (typecast down to his reputation for drinking, cocaine, and watching baseball) could have become the veritable Henry V.   If you recall, when he campaign he promised to reach across the aisle, as he did in the Texas legistlature.  We thought perhaps the rightful heir would exemplify leadership and courage.   Our national and economic well being could have been his Agincourt.   Instead, we do lament the scars from the witless band of morons, from this day to the next.

But perhaps this could be a sixth act.  Or new play altogether.  It cannot be the same tragedy, or at t's best a tragic comedy.  Titus Andronicus meets The Hangover.  "Brother, for in that name doth nature plead,—has anyone seen Carlos?"

Our heroic role could be to vociferously hold our elected officials to the legislative priorities as we seem, and we experience them.  Separate in apart from their own "beltway" ambitions.

The economic stimulus is the primary goal.  Let us move away from partisan acrimony and pyrrhric victories.  The staggering losses are the unemployed, the uninsured, the overtaxed and the underheard.   Does it do any good for both parties to declare from the start that they will not work together?   Where is the value if one party says it will work with the adminstration, but only on their own terms?  Doesn't sound hopeful.

The President and the Congress need to encourage corporate American to spend the 2 Trillion in capital, to make investments in jobs and technologies (domestically).  They need to reach accord on a healthcare crisis.  This doesn't meant they should keep it as it, or destroy it altogether.  Compromise, that is what we pay them for.    And if they cannot force everyone to pay for health insurance figure out a way to curb abuses (like people only buying health insurance when they are sick- I guess that would be again to dropping my car insurance, and then trying to purchase some right after a fender bender.....it does seems a little scetchy).

They need to figure a way to fundamentally change the discourse in Washington.  Sending Republicans and Democrats to the capital should not be a zero-sum enterprise.    It's not all left, or or right?  We need to move away from the concept of "I'm right and you suck."   We need to embrace the concept of "We have good ideas individually and will come up with the best ideas collectively.".

But we haven't seen a lot of that in politics for a long time.   And the news from "Meet the Press", Fox News, etc is not that encouraging today.  It is scary but we have to step up, be heroic and move into they great unknown of collaboration.   We have to force our representatives to do this.

Here is an opportunity to act on principal and the overall betterment of the country, not just the blue, red or orange amongst us.

"The next voice you hear, might be your own."

36% of Republicans think that top priority should be the repealing of the healthcare act.  Of that 36%, 22% indicate that goverment should stay out of the business of healthcare and leave their Medicare alone (okay I made that up). 

Conversely 63% of Democrats prioritize the passing of a new economic stimulus bill.  Of that 63%, 60% don't have a savings account.

Overall adults polled (Gallup) indicate  Congressional priorities as follows:

38% new economic stimulus
24% cut federal spending
23% repeal healthcare
8% extend all tax cuts.

According to Rasmussen

59%  favor repeal of the national health care bill
40% are opposed to repeal

According to CNN 58% of voters 65 and over voted Republican.
 49 % of women voted Democrat, while 48 % voted Republicans.  This reflects one of the lowest turnout for Democrats amongst women.

80% of pro-Pop 19th voters in California forgot to vote, and instead opted to go to7 Eleven for a Big Gulp and a bag of Funyons.

67% of mail-in ballots were not mailed, but dropped off in person at polling stations.

"At the moment of surrender Of vision over visibility I did not notice the passers-by ..."

So what could contribute to a fickle electorate?   Is it apathy?  Whim?  Perhaps people don't take American politics seriously enough.  Perhaps they feel so removed from what actually happens, that they use the only tool they have, in a manner that garners the most attention.  "Revolutionary voting" certainly feels more empowering, than voting along an allegiance to a donkey or elephant.  Certainly voter upheavals allow your average American their proverbial 15 minutes of fame, and having a placard and soundbytable philosophy helps.   But merely bleating a barbaric yawp is not the same as contributing a verse.

Or it could be fear.  I cannot help but think of the line; " A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it"    The fickle electorate could be afraid.  And would have right to be.   This is Fear and Loathing in Politics all over again.  It then is no suprise that this sober political reflection, absent of rancor is a difficult challenge for Americans.  Consider that most of our political discourse is force fed to us through agencies with a sole motivation to maintain viewership and keep us "infotained".   If all news commentary was like the McNeil Lehrer report sleep might be promoted, but not ratings.  So we are given a buffet of high sodium, highly inflamatory, factually challenge "infortainment".  What is sadder still is that a number of these media personalities are least qualified to speak on the issues.  While some of us were hard at work putting ourselves through school or building careers.  These people were spending their youth smoking pot, and trying to out do each other with "shock jock" journalism.   Basically they have made their success on seeing who could come up with the most outrageous claim, and amused the masses.  But eventually, it became more than just amusement.

Somewhere along the line, we slipped off track, and people began accepting their brand of entertainment as fact in and of itself.  It seeped into the political dialog of  America, like cholestoral into the blood.  Massive blood clots obstructed true fact from getting through.  Hyperbole, demagougery all taken at face value.  Qualifiable, quantifiable facts became irrellevant to the political process.  And in the end electorate has suffered, just as any individual would suffer from a  consistent diet of cheeseburgers and high fructose corn syrup..  What happens to 30 days straight of this political diet?  "Stupify Me". (I should call Morgan Sprulock).

Now I should disclose my personal bias in that I find it insulting  that Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck have the timerity to "educate" America on moral virtue and living, when none of them was able to complete college.   It's not just that I am an education elitist (I am), but they simply failed to set out what they intended to do.  They quit.  Gave up.  And decided to get behind a microphone.   Perhaps I am just upset that instead of washing dishing, and bagging groceries to pay for my education, I could have just gotten high and taken a job at some non-descript radio station, saying whatever gibberish came to mind.  Lord knows I am capable of gibberish.  And it seems all you have to do to be successful as a high ratings pundit is adbandon any responsibility in what you say, and how it affects people.   How is it Glenn Beck get's to play history professor and value sherpa without having had to do the hard work to obtain bonifides?     And why are people upset with an Ivy league president who uses those bonifides to lead the country.  Do we really want a celebrate leaders who take short cuts to their success?   While freedom of speech insures a person's right to say what they want, common sense dictates that we call someone on their bullshit.  Not vote on it. Not run a country on it.


So now, we have "authorities" on both side, flamming misinformation.  (Perhaps Keith Obberman is worse, because he did finish college and should somehow know better).  And the electorate now is subject to gross misinformation.  The  Democrats sit back and say "How could they not get this?". (coming off as Ivy School elitis)  Well sometime's it not enough to say "Hey morons....those dragons are just windmills."  You have to put logic aside and say "How can we make those dragons, back into windmills."

This could very well be that  time for the democracts.  And perhaps as a a nation we need to overcome the urge to be divisive and cynical, and focus our attention on salient and sustainable progress.   Right now the right is gloating a little.  They are castigating Obama for attempting to reach across the aisle  a measure too late.  Though none of us can afford it to be too late.  (And in fairness he did convene bipartisan meetings previous to the election to work out solutions on healthcare, but didn't get any warm and fuzzy reception from Republicans than either). 

Hopefully as the nation soberly looks ahead at what needs to happen, we can put the divisive instincts aside.  The "I told you so".  Let's not elate in our difference, but find solutions in what is common between us: a need for a better economy, more jobs, a pro-business economic environment; and the foundation for a strong middle class.  These are ideas in unison toward a common goal.  It is only the lesser angles of our nature that dictate division over who does this, and who gets credit.  If we cannot get this right...now , when we need it.  Aren't we all then to blame?

"As the days fly past, will we lose our grasp or fuse it with the sun?"

While not at all surprising, based on your flavor of media, the Republican victories could be a revolutionary turning point in U.S. politics.  Which is really just a reversal of a revolutionary turning point 2 years ago, and 2 years before that, and so on...

So one is prompted to ask?  Just how fickle is the American electorate?

Perhaps this latest coup is not so much a "call for change", a rebuke of Obama's administration, and a stick in the eye of big government or big bureaucracy.  Perhaps, we are embracing the political age of attention deficit disorder.  Do you like Ice Cream?  I digress.

The electorate seems to have abandoned a sense of "dyed in the wool" party allegiance.  We are fair weather voters, with a need for speed.  We want our political solutions as quickly as we want our Venti latte.  Waiting on line will not be tolerated.  That is not what our Founding Fathers envision when they wrote the Constitution.  Why do you think they're signatures were so sloppy?  They had things to do, Federal agencies to Federalize, states to form, treaties to make, and then break, and then make again.  They didn't want to wait around for weeks in Philadelphia waiting for democratic solutions to percolate and then rise out of discussion like some phoenix.

And we don't want to wait either for substantive change to evolve and address substantive problems.  We have no issue letting a crisis form with the alacrity of a glacier.  But when it comes to solutions, we expect them immediately, still piping hot and portable.  And perhaps all of this speaks to a need to be heard.  The electorate must be heard.  But how we determine and measure acknowledgement and response is still under evolution. 

We're a people on the move.  We like fast internet, fast food and fast politics.    If we can download over favorite 80s single from iTunes in 30 seconds, we should be able to see the upside of a stimulus or jobs bill by lunchtime.  End of day at the latest.  Our political leaders must work harder to keep our focus and attention.  And if the channels we're watching stops looking like a "Worlds Must Dangerous Drivers on Crystal Meth" and more like a Front-line special on the disenfranchisement of South American Penguins...we change the channel.  We unite under something more flashy and tantalizing.  Substance is of no importance to us.  Substance is for intellectual, policy wonks.  Ultimate success is not important to us either.  We're not interested in the long term gains, like a savings account.  We want the quick return, the rush, the high that comes from "never worrying about paying or how much [one] owes."   That's American dam nit.  Or at least an American ad for a Ford F-150.

So now we get to watch something new.  Something excited.  Maybe it will be like the Jerseyshore meets Lie to Me.  Orange people, against a truculent intellectual, too smart to appeal to the masses.  But of course, we run the risk that in short order we might bored with that.   And require another sea-change.  Perhaps we need many, many political parties.  That seems to work for Italy.

 In the meantime, the Democrats will humbly reach across the aisle and wait for the Republicans to stop gloating.  If they want to make it interesting the Democrats should gloat and the Republican should come humble.   But alas, in all likelihood the he democratic fist bump of cooperation could be left hanging as the Republicans bask in the glory.  And they have much to crow about, having evolved from a critical minority who offered no substantive alternative, to the majority.  Of course now they've got to stop hiding behind rhetoric and actually lead.   Who knows, perhaps their reputations for humility and humanity will help inspire them to get something done.

 But let's hope that this is not another wasted exercise of parries, dodges and lack of substantive change.   Of all the entertainment we can be fickle about.  Politics as blood sport is not entertaining when the viewers are bleeding more than the participants.  And hopefully we've lost the appetite for that.


Now I've got to get on a conference call with Obama.