The American people, as a collective whole, are stupid.
As we’re gearing up to next year’s silly season, we’re all focusing on particular presidential candidates stand on some particular issue or another. Obama is trying to change his brand from “change”, attempting to argue he’s made tough decisions that will pay off. The Republicans are arguing that Obama has done nothing. They are arguing for all the things they will do, if only you put them in charge. Meanwhile, we focus our attention on whether Sarah Palin paid attention in history class or is just making it up as she goes along. Although that may be fun, it doesn’t make a difference. We’ve had stupid presidents before, and we’ll likely have them again.
We’re missing exploring how to resolve the most pressing issue facing this country. It’s not the debt limit. It’s not jobs. It’s not the economy. It’s congressional gridlock.
The President can have all the wonderful ideas he or she wants, but if they can’t get them through Congress, they’re out of luck. If Congress changes the President’s proposal from what the President thinks is right, he or she has no recourse other than the veto. Obama was barely effective when he had all of Congress from the party (thanks to the filibuster rule in the Senate, which gave the minority party far too much power). Nowadays, he’s completely ineffective because Congress is refusing to do anything.
Don’t believe me? Read this article from the LA Times on how Congressional gridlock may scuttle any effective action on the debt ceiling. Republicans, by not compromising on taxes, can continue to campaign on the no-new-taxes stance that is a cornerstone of their political strategy, while attacking Democrats and President Obama for their proposed tax increases on the wealthy. Democrats, whose political prospects have brightened since House Republicans proposed deep cuts in Medicare, have all but ruled out any deal that would relinquish the issue as a political weapon. Taking advantage of a pivotal moment to join together on landmark fiscal reforms would require both parties to yield on issues central to their ideology and reelection strategies. Translation: It ain’t gonna happen.
Now, I happen to be pro-Obama. But would it be any better under any of the Republican candidates? No. It is unlikely the Republicans would take control over both houses, given the love people have for congress. With Congress divided, nothing will get through. Even if the Republicans gain a majority in the Senate, they’ll be in the same position that the Democrats were in 2009: tied up by the filibuster rule giving the minority power.
We need to be asking our candidates how they are going to break this gridlock. We need to ask them how they are going to get Congress to move past their party ideology and work for the best of the country. This requires a politician with the political skill to work deals and create convincing arguments; it requires a politician with believable charisma and a strong control of the facts. It short, it requires attributes that none of our current or likely candidates have in abundance. The last candidates we had with this skill were LBJ, Reagan, and Clinton: they knew how to get people to put aside party and work together. I don’t believe Obama has this skill—he knows the facts, he knows what he wants, he even has the charisma, but he doesn’t appear to have the ability to convince people. Perhaps he would gain this in a second term; it’s amazing what being in your second and last term can do for blind alligience to party. As for the Republican candidates, most are too ideological rigid to be able to succeed at this. Most are lacking in charisma and persuasiveness; the only candidate with charisma is generally acknowledged to have only a passing familiarity with the facts. It might be interesting to see what happens if we have a repeat of Obama vs. McCain, with respect to this.
So, as we start silly season, keep this issue in mind. Does the candidate that you support have any viable abilities to get beyond the gridlock in Congress? Do they have the capability to convince the other party that at least a goodly portion of their position is correct?
