Of Tea Parties and Mad Hatters

This country needs a Conservative and a Progressive Party. The dynamic between them, the conflict and the compromise, drive the system. One side tries to limit government, the other takes a more expansive view. The creative tension moves government forward in a world that is changing every day.

When one side pulls to hard, the system loses balance. It spins and wobbles and eventually crashes. We are now out of balance. Disaster beckons.

And in response, the Tea Party Right demands complete surrender. While John Boehner got 98% of what the Republicans demanded, and still the Right feels sold out. Michelle Bachmann makes voting against raising the debt limit a corner-stone of her presidential campaign, and she is one of the front-runners. And the others are rushing to out-stupid her. What would William Buckley, Jr. say?

The party of Limited Government has become the party of NO GOVERNMENT, while the party of Expansive Government has become the party of, well, maybe a little less government wouldn't hurt too badly. The center is moved to the right. Suddenly I, a Liberal Republican, become a Mainstream Democrat. But I'll not give up my party without a fight.

On the plus side, there still are a bunch of people to my Left, Mad as any Hatter.

State of the Union

Well, I watched the state of the union address. It was not inspiring.* There seemed a laundry list of this or that, but no vision. It's as though instead of leading us to the promised land, he is off at the rest stop deciding whether he wanted fries with his meal.

*Full disclosure: the painkillers kicked in about halfway in, so I may have been a bit fuzzy at times.

Perhaps that's a bit harsh. At the same time, I have often wished he was more involved in the crafting of the legislation. Also at the same time, he has had an awful lot on his plate - saving the country from financial meltdown (check), winding down Iraq (check) and addressing Afghanistan (check), taking a stand against torture (check) and closing Guantamano (working on it), dealing with the Middle East, Iran, Russia and China - high effort, no glory, a fool's errand (but unavoidable).

There were moments when the President Obama we need peaked through. But he mostly struck me as a bit uncomfortable, nervous, tense. I think the job is getting to him.

After the speech, I came online to look for comment. Christopher Buckley had previously offered this "early draft" of the President's State of the Union Address. Titled "The Audacity of Oops", it posits Obama giving the past year a 9.8 on a scale from 1 to 10. It's good fun, but not entirely enlightening. It may be that I simply have not fully appreciated it. Perhaps after I've read it a few more times and pondered a bit, enlightenment will find me. This is often the case with his columns.

Kathleen Parker, in an article titled "Fight Club", advises the President not to come out fighting. She says, "Americans didn't elect a fighter; they elected a visionary who promised a new spirit of cohesion, cooperation and community."

Perhaps this is what I missed in his speech, and have missed in the past year. President Obama may well be one of the most compelling speakers since JFK. At his inauguration he told us that we had to roll up our sleeves and get to work, that it would not be easy but that we would succeed. It was inspiring.

Tonight he told us that it was the bankers and the judges and the politicians who had failed, and they should all start behaving better. Oh and the rich. We have to stop the rich from getting away with all their money. And we needed health care. Again, there were moments when the old magic stirred, but only as a pale shadow of his best. There was no challenge to we, the people, to get up and be part of the solution. It's all being done inside the beltway.

What was missing from the stimulus package and the health care bill was the President engaging with the people. And with Congress. He is a master of communicating complicated issues without reducing them to sound bites. When push comes to shove, he is a leader that people will follow.

His instinct seems for consensus. Community organizing depends on building consensus, convincing people to work together, dividing the work among contributors. So does being a Senator. Commissions study issues, committees develop solutions, the community (or Senate) implements them. It is a compelling model.

But we need a leader. President Obama needs to spell out not just what he's going to do, but why we're doing it and how we'll know that its working. The opponents of Health Care reform drove the debate so that we're still arguing about whether or notthe death panels staffed by illegal immigrants paid out of the 120% cut in medicare spending should extract that extra 20% by harvesting your organs or by taking out a reverse mortgage on your house. Where was President Obama?

Ok, right. financial collapse, two wars, nukes, nukes and a cast of uglies. He was busy. It's hard to keep that in mind with the recession. And knowing that it could have been far worse is cold comfort for its many victims. We need to be exhorted to endure, we need to be praised for having endured, we need to be reminded of how great we can and should be. We need a leader.

Reagan and Clinton were masters of the art of appealing to the people over the heads of Congress. They moved their agendas through Congress, without a super majority (or, in Reagan's case, a simple majority) in the Senate, and without a simple majority in the House. President Obama, your lead.