America to Washington: “We Have a Problem”

6 T I K K U N W W W. T I K K U N . O R G N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0 America to Washington: “We Have a Problem” THE CONTRARIAN BY GEORGE VRADENBURG W ho can forget the low-key, understated report from Jim Lovell that something was amiss as Apollo 13 circled the moon— “Houston, we have a problem”? Lovell’s problem was serious, the likelihood of a solution remote, and the lives of the astronauts saved only through messy, jury-rigged solutionsandthepersonalbraveryofkeyplayers. Recent election cycles remind me of Jim Lovell’s report from Apollo13.Washingtonismiredinbitterpersonalpartisanbattles. Republicans are, by most estimates, likely to improve their position in both houses of Congress with a “repeal and replace” argumentthatWashingtonis“outofcontrol”andmustbestopped ameretwoyearsaftertheelectoratevotedfor“change.” The likelihood of a solution to this hyper-partisanship seems remote in the short term. Fueled by a national round-the-clock media/blogosphere and fluid “independent” campaign financing movingfromracetorace,RepublicanandDemocraticcandidates areforcedtofocusonfundraisingfromtheirrespectivebasevoters and getting them out to vote—even as more Americans selfidentify as independents. The two-party system seems itself to be lurching out of control and unable to respond thoughtfully to the pragmatic,problem-solvingcenterofthepoliticalspectrum. Progressives argue that the current partisan bitterness was the productofan“Obamaaspresident”whodidnotdeliverontheinspirational promise of “Obama as candidate.” Conservatives will argue that this bitterness is the product of Democratic leadership ramming an Obama agenda down their throat without adequate consultation. Both views are, in my opinion, incorrect. There is something more deeply wrong with our current political system. Obama has delivered exactly what he promised during the 2008 election campaign—a stimulus program and health care, education, and financial reform. What he did not deliver, and could not be expected to deliver, was a speedy economic recovery to the economy timed to the election cycle. The Republicans argue that the Democratic stimulus failed to keep the unemployment rate at a promised 8 percent and thus that the nearly $1 trillion stimulus was Democratic overspending that is adding to an already alarmingbudgetdeficit. AretheRepublicanscounteringwithamoresensibleeconomic plan? No. They have made a calculated political judgment that frustrated, out-of-work voters want to “stop” further ineffective, debt-creating meddling in the economy and that just saying no will advance their political position. And the Republican political strategyappearstobeworking. This strategy mirrors the strategy employed by the Democrats after the election in 2004 when then-President George W. Bush proposedtostabilizetheloominginsolvencyoftheSocialSecurity system by allowing beneficiaries to allocate a small percentage of theirSocialSecuritysavingsinpersonalaccountsthatcouldbeinvestedinthestockmarket .DemocratsarguedthatPresidentBush was “privatizing” Social Security and putting pensioners at risk of losing their life savings. So, while Bush’s proposal was a positive andrelativelymodestreform,theDemocraticstrategytorefuseto negotiate any Social Security reform was a calculated political judgment that voters wanted to “stop” any meddling with Social Security. The Democrats’ strategy worked: they took back the Congressin2006andextendedtheirmajorityin2008. Net,eachpartyhascalculatedthatitspoliticalinterestsarebest served by stopping the initiatives of the other party and then accusingthatpartyofincompetenceorineffectiveness . Is there no room in Washington for the pragmatic, problemsolving ,bipartisancentrists? Most sustained, progressive transformations in American policy have been bipartisan—the 1960s Civil Rights Acts were drafted in Republican Senator Everett Dirksen’s office and receivedsupportfrombothparties.TheWorldWarsandtheCold War of the twentieth century were waged in the environment of a bipartisan foreign policy. Health care reforms—Medicare, Medicaid, and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit—were adoptedbysignificantcongressionalmajorities. If the moderate middle of the political spectrum is dying or dead, and if each party gains by stopping or reversing the policies of the other party, this country is in for a revolving “repeal and replace ” mentality every four to six years. The Congress will simply become a game of who can best throw sand in the gears of the governingparty’swork. Maybe America will be better served by divided government thatputsbothpartiesincharge.Then,Americacanhopefullylook to the personal political bravery of centrists from both parties to work out the messy bipartisan compromise that will produce a sustainablepolicyonthecriticalissuesfacingthecountry.I George Vradenburg is co-publisher of Tikkun. He often disagrees with our editorialopinions. editorial_1:Editorials+Columns 10/12/10 2:39 PM Page 6 ...