A friend presents two articles in which he finds "subdued towel-tossing" on the left. I suggest that he continues to see only what you wants to see.
I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.
Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general
I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.
Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general
And while Friedman acknowledges the validity of the President's proposals for "jobs," Brooks tearfully finds it "a campaign marker, not a jobs bill." Again, my friend, you see what you want in reading this as "subdued towel-tossing." Brooks decries the tactics or "governing style," as he puts it , and not the substance of the President's policies. "The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too.... So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach....The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?src=me&ref=general
He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.
But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.
The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.
He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.
But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.
The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.
No comments:
Post a Comment