Super Bowl Update

President Barack Obama waves as he arrives in Hawaii for his holiday vacation.(Lum/Pool NYDailyNews.com)

The New York Daily News began the article accompanying the above picture by saying,

President Obama didn't have much to be thankful for last month, but it looks like he'll have a Merry Christmas after all.

The Commander in Chief can bask in the glow of big legislative wins as he spends the holidays in Hawaii, and a new poll shows 56% of the country approves of the job the President has done this month working with the lame-duck Congress.

Only 41% disapproved of how Obama worked with Congress, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll published Wednesday.

This, just a month after his administration's self-styled thumping.

Jonathan Capehart began a "PostPartisan" column today in The Washington Post this way:

"I am persistent," President Obama said in his "How ya like me now?!" press conference. "If I believe in something strongly, I stay with it." And he has enough legislative victories in this lame-duck session to prove it. The deal on tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." A new START treaty with the Russians. The passage of the first changes in food safety laws in more than 70 years. And a law to provide for the health care of those who put duty first in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11.

 Today's New York Times lead editorial proclaiming that "The Senate Surmounts Politics," begins by saying,

Wednesday was not a good day for Senator Mitch McConnell’s single-minded project to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Over the minority leader’s objections, 13 Republicans joined every Democratic senator to ratify the New Start nuclear arms treaty with Russia, reducing the size of the countries’ nuclear stockpiles and making the world a safer place. The 71-to-26 vote was the capstone to what now shapes up to be a remarkably successful legislative agenda for President Obama’s first two years.

I have always loved Gloria Steinem's retort to the reporter who, 30 years ago now, on the occasion of her 40th birthday told her that she didn't look forty. Ms. Steinem famously (and accurately) replied, “This is what 40 looks like -- we’ve been lying for so long, who would know?” 


Haven't we for years been clamoring for our elected officials to forget politics and actually accomplish something for the public good?  So, is this what's finally happened in the last month?


Or has government been dysfunctionally political for so long, who would know?

Yesterday I wrote about how our public school classrooms' curricula is becoming more and more politicized. Which I, personally, find terribly worrisome. To me, democracy needs the participation of curious, well-informed minds in order to function effectively. Democracies run on emotion, again in my opinion, generally run into trouble.

Last night, on the WMRA Facebook page, I posted a notice of an upcoming conversation between ATC host Michele Norris and Politico reporter Andy Barr about a leaked memo letting us know about a PowerPoint presentation of the Republican National Committee's fundraising strategy.

From within the trenches of our current ultra-partisan American politics, it's tempting to respond to this memo emotionally. Republicans and Democrats who, in their hearts, only want to defeat the Other Side, can find reason to cheer both the RNC's PowerPoint presentation, and the fact that it's been leaked to the general public. Democrats can enjoy their outrage; Republicans can enjoy the fact that even though they may publicly distance themselves from the sentiments this presentation represents, at least some of their Leadership embrace such tactics enthusiastically.


The page with  the ugly caricatures of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid is the one that seems to be generating the most cross-party-line clucking. But it has nothing on it that I have not seen in the political arena before, generating either snickers or outrage along strict party lines, keeping the simplistic flame of partisan politics burning bright.



The one that truly alarms me, however, is the slide that suggests that Republican fundraisers should encourage what they term "visceral giving" through marketing fear, extreme negativity, and "reactionary;" meaning, I guess, that donors will donate in reaction to feeling all that "fear" and "extreme" negativity.

This, in my opinion, is truly ugly, self-destructive stuff. Not so much for Republicans, as for what it reveals about what actually motivates us, the voting public, to participate in our American political system. You see, I do not for one moment think that Republican political strategists are the only ones who think in such gutter terms. They're just the ones who got caught. This time.

This morning, the papers, if they are covering this at all, are reporting Republican efforts at "damage control." The story has already slid down to the small print headlines of washingtonpost.com. I would submit that the story has lost its legs because it offers us, the public, a rare, unstinting picture of how gullible we are to speak, spin, mendacity, manipulation. And we are colossally uncomfortable with what we see.

As Pogo put it, "We have met the enemy and he is us." These gutter tactics were in this leaked RNC PowerPoint only because, time and again, a lot of us voters have parked our reason, our education, and our common sense while we voted on emotion. Politicians of all stripes want votes and will use whatever works best to garner them.

In my usual morning perusal of newspapers online, I came across this tiny article in the L.A. Times that interested me as both a blogger and a sports-fan. It seems that now that he's expressed an interested in buying the Saint Louis Rams, Rush Limbaugh's oft-voiced racist comments are rankling big-time with some African American players in the NFL.

Hmmm. This set me to thinking, not so much about Limbaugh himself, as  about what the existence of a Limbaugh means. What does it say about us that we, as a culture, give print and airwaves room to someone who makes a living out of being nasty and argumentative and, well, lying. A few people actually believe what he says, I suppose; but many more people claim to find Rush Limbaugh's verbal spewings entertaining.

Abuse and mendacity as entertainment? Now that I find flat-out depressing.

We get what we wish for, as individuals and as a culture. And what we, as Americans, seem most comfortable with is a culture of incivility. We like big verbal sticks--extreme, argumentative opinions that are designed to polarize us, not to make us think. In Sunday's Washington Post, staff writer Ann Gerhart mused about this at length in her fine article "In Today's Viral World, Who Keeps a Civil Tongue."

I had hoped our romance with polarization had ended on election day, but it appears that it hasn't--if, that is, Rush Limbaugh's ratings are any way to take the national pulse. And I don't mean to pick on Limbaugh. He's just such a clear-cut example of the kind of figurehead ranters we Americans spend our time listening to.

We elected President Obama in what appears to have been a brief flirtation with the concept of consensus and civility. Yet how impatient we have become with his efforts at consensus-building, his incessant information-gathering, his unfailing politeness in response to rudeness.

Is consensus-building just too much work for us as a culture? Is arguing and fighting about getting what we want, when we want it, too ingrained in us  to allow serious consideration of reasonable compromise? Could it be that we are actually more comfortable, as a culture, wading through the wake of polarization left by The Decider et al? Can we change our political conversation to one of consensus-building without being willing to change our own conversational tastes?

Please, either comment below or, if that's not your thing, send me an e-mail and I'll post your comment for you.

Death's been in the news a lot lately; not just because of the people who have died (which people do all the time), but because of the questions the health care reform debate has raised raised about how we, the living, can best deal with fact that we, too, will someday cease being.

First of all, rest assured, it will happen. And in my opinion, as a lady of a certain age, death is not anything to get all hett up about. It's simply part of life. Although we cannot know for certain what happens after it, we can certainly understand what will happen during it, if we wish to. And one provision, long gone, of health care reform bills was to make such knowledge readily and affordably available to each of us.

I, for one, am baffled by what happened to the discussion of this provision--where did the term "death panels" come from, for Pete's sake? Did some political speechwriter come up with that just for its shock value; just to prey on the minds of people who are uninformed and wish to stay that way?

I have long held the best way to offer up your opinion in a contentious debate is to attach it to a personal story. It advocates without preaching; informs us and enlarges our experience, without advocating any particular conclusion. Today's essay on the Civic Soapbox about end-of-life decisions is a prime example of this.

In case you missed it, here's a link to it on our website.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wmra/news.newsmain/article/0/3507/1555775/Civic.Soapbox/My.Death.Panel.Interview

And here's to Tim Hulbert for his personal generosity in telling it to us.

Yesterday, while driving back from Charlottesville, I got behind a big, black SUV that sported this command on its bumper: OBSTRUCT CHANGE: SAVE AMERICA. This, just nine months after we'd inaugurated a president who was elected because America wanted change.

I do have to say it saddened me to see that bumper sticker. I had so hoped we'd moved out from under the tyranny of slogans; moved beyond an acceptance of "speak" over substance; moved away from the allure of knee-jerk opposition based on political allegiance. I had hoped, since we'd elected an obviously deeply thoughtful president, that we as citizens would be willing to think a little deeper ourselves.

Instead, it seems to me that although Karl Rove may be gone, he's left us bewitched, for I see his assault style of politics everywhere. Or maybe its just that knee-jerk oppositionists are just so loud that they drown out those who wish to engage at a softer level.

So, where has all our hope gone? I don't buy that we're such impatient people that we expected President Obama to straighten out the gargantuan mess his government inherited in only nine months? Why is a president who tackles health care reform, ethical issues in the age of terrorism, wall street regulation, and diplomatic relations with Iraq and Cuba, being talked of as non-confrontational. Is it because he didn't yell back at Joe Wilson?

An awful lot of people I talk to seem what? cowed? depressed? disheartened? by the new administration's performance. All that inaugural hope seems to have evaporated.

Why, exactly, is that? Anyone got any ideas?

I grew up in a neighborhood of all boys--except for one girl who lived across the street and liked to play dolls and dress-up and other girlie stuff. As a tomboy, I fought (sometimes, alas, literally) my way into various games of  football, baseball, and cowboys. Is that why I grew up grooving on competition? Who knows? Who cares? All I know for certain is that if give me a good sporting event to watch, or in which I can participate, and I am a happy woman.

Last night was sports fan nirvana. First Juan Martin del Potro upset  and unseated the reigning king of tennis, Roger Federer in five sets. Then pro-football quarterback Tom Brady, after being sidelined for an entire year by an injured (and subsequently infected) left knee, lead the New England Patriots to a one-point victory over the surprisingly tough Buffalo Bills. Scoring 14 points in the last 2-or-so-minutes, no less. Brady, evidently, is baaaaack!

I was for both of last night's winners, but that's incidental. The joy of sports for me is that I get to divide what's happening into good people and bad people. There are no nuanced feelings, no even-handedness demanded of me. So for  a few hours last night, I was a partisan. It was soooooo intellectually and psychologically restful.

This morning, rested and refreshed from an exercise in non-irresponsible partisanship, I turned on Morning Edition, and listened to  nuanced explorations of racism in politics, the water supply in Los Angeles, the war in Afghanistan and assorted international fiscal dis-ease with a clear head and a rested heart. I had gotten any need for partisan wallowing out of my system watching sports last night. Now, I'm ready to think again, to attempt to understand all sides, to listen. In short, I'm ready  to accept the inconvenient truth that citizenship is not a partisan experience. And that I'm an irresponsible citizen if I treat it as such.

I'm listening to Morning Edition as I post, to one of the Blue Dog Democrat's saying this: "The art of politics is compromise; what's possible."

Governance in this country is achieved through political maneuvering. To reform health care, President Obama must be a political animal. Last night, both columnists conservative David Brooks and liberal Mark Shields said on PBS "The News Hour" that Barrack Obama had not only made his case for health care reform well, but had made his best speech as president. High praise indeed from a couple of well-respected political pundits.

What President's up against  in the political arena, however, was demonstrated by the (mostly) sour looks on the faces of Republican members of Congress, the infamous outburst by South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's puzzling post-speech  statement, “There's a bipartisan agreement on the need for reform. (But) he set up a false choice between a massive government takeover or no reform at all. Frankly, that isn't the choice.”

So, my fellow WMRAers. What do you think? Not so much about health care reform, as about President Obama's political chops. Does he have the level of political skill and toughness necessary to get a bill achieving health care reform through Congress?