Partisanship, circa 1933

I wrote a post the other day about the lack of partisan aggressiveness on the part of Congressional Democrats. So I decided to take a look back at the period in history to which 2009 is so often compared. During the 72nd Congress of the United States, which met from 1931-1933, the first elected since the 1929 stock market crash and the last before the election of FDR, Congress was as evenly divided along partisan lines as possible. The Senate had 48 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Farmer-Laborer, placing control with the Republicans by 1 vote. In the House, the breakdown was an even 217-217 for Democrats and Republicans and 1 Farmer-Laborer, with the Democrats narrowly in control as a result of some strange deaths and special elections. Does this sound familiar, the country and the Congress being so evenly divided?

Jump forward to 1933. Franklin D. Roosevelt has been elected president, marking a sweeping change from the Hoover administration and 8 years of Republicans in the White House. The 73rd Congress is widely considered to be one of the most productive in our nation's history, rapidly enacting broad-reaching New Deal legislation. With the new Democratic president in office, was the Congress still evenly divided? Far from it. Democrats held 59 seats in the Senate (sound familiar?) and a whopping 317 seats in the House of Representatives. With the exception of a few Congresses, the Democrats would have a tight grip on Congress for nearly the remainder of the 20th Century. When the New Deal was launched, the Democrats aggressively pushed for what they and Roosevelt wanted - and got it, without question. That was good for the country and good for the party. One difference between the 73rd and the 111th Congresses that must be noted was the level of support that the Republican minority gave to the New Deal programs. Senate Minority Leader Charles McNary was criticized from some Republican leaders for never scolding GOP senators who voted for New Deal legislation. That is a far cry from today's Republican party.

My point, once again, is that the Democrats are overwhelming in charge, and it's time to start showing it, to start exercising that legislative muscle. If we truly believe that our progressive ideas will be good for the country, there is no reason we should not push forward with them and enact them into law, with or without Republican support. The country doesn't give a damn about the partisan bickering of the recent past, they are looking for action. The Democrats can do themselves some good by doing what they want, because right now, that happens to also be what is right. It's a win-win.

Elections Have Consequences

I need to vent for a moment. This has been lingering since the transition began. I am a Democrat. I am proud to be a Democrat and proud to represent the 130,000 Democrats in York County, Pennsylvania. I am also both particularly pleased and proud that my party won a commanding victory in the 2008 elections. A solid mandate for a very popular president, sizable gains in the House, and a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

So why is it that, of late, having a "D" next to one's name seems to be a negative? I'm not saying that it's become a scarlet letter; it's not like having an "R" next to your name in the past two election cycles, but our leadership seems to be forgetting that while bipartisanship is a nice thing to talk about during the State of the Union, Americans actually like partisanship; they just dislike the partisan bickering.

There is no reason that John Boehner or Eric Cantor should be having as large a role and presence in the recent debates as they have. Why should what Boehner thinks even matter? They lead the party that Americans threw out four months ago, under the impression that by electing Democrats to run the country, oh I don't know, maybe the country would be run by the Democrats.

Asserting too much power and completely shutting the other side out, to be sure, is dangerous. But we don't have to pretend like this is a 50-50 country at the moment. We, the Democrats, won. We are in charge. We are supposed to be getting what we want. And that's not partisanship for the sake of being partisan, that's doing what the voters asked for when they went to the polls on November 4th.

The GOP is responsible for the terrible mess that we're in; the American people won't mind if the opinion of GOP leaders matters substantially less. After all, elections have consequences.

Castro has a blog?

On Sunday, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro wrote a column in the national newspaper, part of a recurring segment called "Reflections of Fidel" in which he goes on a deranged stream-of-consciousness rant about the name "Rahm Emanuel." Yes, as in the White House Chief of Staff. And it's not a political attack on the second most powerful man in Washington, it's just a crazy analysis of Rahm's name.

Reflections of Fidel: Rahm Emanuel

Where does it come from? I wondered. Over and over, the name came to mind of the brilliant German thinker, Immanuel Kant, who together with Aristotle and Plato, formed a trio of philosophers that have most influenced human thinking. Doubtless he was not very far, as I discovered later, from the philosophy of the man closest to the current president of the United States, Barack Obama.

An hour well spent

In my post from last night, I commented on how President Obama's press conference last night was long. Really long. And shortly after I posted it, I got thinking about how it's both appropriate and important that it lasted as long as it did. The country is in a very serious crisis and the American people need to be engaged and aware in a way unlike anything most of us are accustomed to. We can take an hour out of our lives to sit and carefully listen to the president of the United States explain the situation and answer questions about it.

It's in many ways symbolic of what got us into this mess. For example, last night at 8 pm eastern, millions of Americans were missing out on favorite television shows, such as The Bachelor, because the President was speaking. During the '90s and much of the current decade, our self-involvement and our mutual carelessness said it was more important to spend an hour watching reality television than taking the time to get a grip on our reality by way of a national leader.

And why shouldn't it have been? During the Clinton administration, Americans were doing very well economically, the government was balancing its budget and American troops were out of harms way...what could the president have to say that is so important? And then during the Bush administration, when things were suddenly serious again, with wars raging and corruption rampant, we had a president who hated the idea of a press conference almost as much as the American people hate Bernie Madoff. We got nothing important out of his press conferences or speeches, so why listen? Well, those days are over, and it's time to start listening - really listening - to what our leaders have to say.

The American people may not always like or agree with what President Obama has to say, but you have got to give the man one thing - no answer last night was intentionally misleading. The Bush years (and yes, also the Clinton years) were a game of avoiding giving a straight answer to a reporter's question. President Obama last night actually answered the questions. And answered, and answered, and answered. But we needed answers, and we needed really long ones, because this crisis will be longer if we insist on the evasive, short answers.

The Hour Long Press Conference

The President just concluded his first prime-time press conference since taking office, and it's a startling contrast to the pressers of the past 8 years. It was clear, thoughtful, honest, articulate...just great overall. It was also very, very long. He spent 57 minutes on the air, during prime time. I bet the networks were thrilled. But it was as close to a home run of a sales pitch as one could hope for. If any American watching tonight was undecided about the stimulus or confused about the economic situation, the Professor-President went to great lengths to change that.

His answer below is the argument that the filter of the news media has prevented from being fully articulated, and it's a compelling argument for not just the stimulus, but other crucial goals of this administration:

This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that what a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient -- why would that be a waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package. So that right there creates economic stimulus, and we are saving taxpayers, when it comes to federal buildings, potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?

The same applies when it comes to information technologies and health care. We know that health care is crippling businesses and making us less competitive, as well as breaking the banks of families all across America. And part of the reason is we've got the most inefficient health care system imaginable. We're still using paper. We're -- we're still filing things in triplicate. Nurses can't read the prescriptions that doctors -- that doctors have written out. Why wouldn't we want to put that on an -- put that on an electronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our long-term cost of health care, and create jobs right now?

Education, yet another example. The suggestion is, why should the federal government be involved in school construction? Well, I visited a school down in South Carolina that was built in the 1850s. Kids are still learning in that school -- as best they can. When the -- when the railroad -- when the -- it's right next to a railroad, and when the train runs by the whole building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching for a while. The -- the auditorium is completely broken down and they can't use it. So why wouldn't we want to build state-of-the-art schools with science labs that are teaching our kids the skills they need for the 21st century, that will enhance our economy and, by the way, right now will create jobs?

And this answer was possibly the clearest explanation I have heard from anyone as to how we ended up in the financial mess we're in today. I imagine a lot of Americans watching tonight had an "a-ha!" moment as this particular professor - the President - just had a breakthrough with his students:

Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies, based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.

That led to a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy.

So people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investments, initiating layoffs, which in turn made things worse.

More tomorrow...

How Washington Changes People

As a disclaimer (and I think it should go without saying) I like Tom Daschle, I respect Tom Daschle, I'm proud to know Tom Daschle. This ad, however, which recently resurfaced from Senator Daschle's 1986 re-election campaign, in which he boasts of driving a beat up car to the Capitol. Of course, Senator Daschle saw his nomination for HHS Secretary slip away as a result of unpaid taxes on a car and driver here in Washington. It's not a dig at Tom Daschle, but just a great piece of irony and an evidence of how Washington truly does change people. (This was aired on the global edition of the Daily Show, which airs on CNN - it may have also aired in the U.S.)

"The writer is president of the United States"

The President published the following op-ed in this morning's Washington Post


What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR