No evidence of a thought
Last night I found myself turning on the television about seven pm our time and ratcheting the channels around to C-Span. While I am unabashedly political, I am not patient and so watching the slow grind of the American political process rarely seems like a good choice to me. But last night in the House was different. The primary vote on the table was adoption or not of the Senate's version of an American health plan followed by a vote on the House's amendments.
The country has been deafened by the uproar favoring or opposing any health care plan for months. Last night was a rare opportunity to see American political mechanics move up the gears to "hardball" over an issue as sweeping and revolutionary as the New Deal or the Contract with America. This was a chance to see if our idealistic, intellectual, articulate president could get down and roll with the big boys of history. Could he bring a loopy, divided, democratic majority into line enough to get a piece of legislation in place to chew on?
The answer was yes. By a hair. With not many votes to spare, the House voted to approve the Senate's health care proposal and then voted to amend it to meet House member concerns. And now the circus marches over to the Senate which must itself affirm the House amendments. The actions of our democracy do not get much more edgy than this.
I found myself struck by several things apart from the outcome. One was that it took fifteen minutes for the votes to finally come in. I imagined that last Democrat in a broom closet somewhere with Nancy Pelosi threatening to spray him with Windex if he didn't vote her way----and bolting for his electronic button at the last minute. No. That's a cheesy scenario. But it was odd that some folks took so long about the people's business. They could have been home forty five minutes earlier if they'd just stepped up and stopped whatever it was they were doing. Perhaps just having a great conversation with colleagues.
More seriously, I was amazed that the Republicans did not break ranks on either bill. The idea that not one of those nearly two hundred leaders could stomach or free themselves to vote 'yes' astonished me. I described the Democrats as loopy. It is clear that there are many stripes of Democrat, not just Blue Dogs, and the party teeters forward notwithstanding. Some thirty voted, despite all the armtwisting, to kill this bill on which so much turns. Peter De Fazio, our southern rebel, threatened to vote 'no' unless docs in Oregon got better reimbursements from Medicare. And good for him. They should.
But back to the Republicans. Two things are possible. One is that the representatives of the Republican Party are so united in their thinking and convictions that nary a one believes in voting a different way. One is that representatives of the Republican Party are so afraid of being turned out by their own kind if they break ranks that they vote 'party line' and not conviction. Do I think that the former is true? I hope not. And if the latter is true then how sad. Because that's not democracy; that's more like totalitarianism. It was the 'commies' who always voted yes for everything because otherwise they might shoot your grandmother. And what is memorable about last night, other than the scoreboard where no "Rs" stood out, was the hectoring cry of "baby killer" from one member and the attempt to take moral high ground from the House Minority Leader ignoring the fact that his own party has muscled its agendas through in the past using the same tools that the Democrats employed.
Lest anyone think that my party, the Democrats, deserved that high ground, however, I would refer them to the scene after the passage of the first bill. When the "Ds" treated their narrow victory as if it were the final of the college basketball tourney and their team had just won. Some ancient sage urged that wise victors were generous in their winning. The Democrats don't get it. And so the ugliness of future battles in this constant war of cultural monopoliticism is splattered on the walls.
Winning is important if principle is involved. Winning isn't all.
The country has been deafened by the uproar favoring or opposing any health care plan for months. Last night was a rare opportunity to see American political mechanics move up the gears to "hardball" over an issue as sweeping and revolutionary as the New Deal or the Contract with America. This was a chance to see if our idealistic, intellectual, articulate president could get down and roll with the big boys of history. Could he bring a loopy, divided, democratic majority into line enough to get a piece of legislation in place to chew on?
The answer was yes. By a hair. With not many votes to spare, the House voted to approve the Senate's health care proposal and then voted to amend it to meet House member concerns. And now the circus marches over to the Senate which must itself affirm the House amendments. The actions of our democracy do not get much more edgy than this.
I found myself struck by several things apart from the outcome. One was that it took fifteen minutes for the votes to finally come in. I imagined that last Democrat in a broom closet somewhere with Nancy Pelosi threatening to spray him with Windex if he didn't vote her way----and bolting for his electronic button at the last minute. No. That's a cheesy scenario. But it was odd that some folks took so long about the people's business. They could have been home forty five minutes earlier if they'd just stepped up and stopped whatever it was they were doing. Perhaps just having a great conversation with colleagues.
More seriously, I was amazed that the Republicans did not break ranks on either bill. The idea that not one of those nearly two hundred leaders could stomach or free themselves to vote 'yes' astonished me. I described the Democrats as loopy. It is clear that there are many stripes of Democrat, not just Blue Dogs, and the party teeters forward notwithstanding. Some thirty voted, despite all the armtwisting, to kill this bill on which so much turns. Peter De Fazio, our southern rebel, threatened to vote 'no' unless docs in Oregon got better reimbursements from Medicare. And good for him. They should.
But back to the Republicans. Two things are possible. One is that the representatives of the Republican Party are so united in their thinking and convictions that nary a one believes in voting a different way. One is that representatives of the Republican Party are so afraid of being turned out by their own kind if they break ranks that they vote 'party line' and not conviction. Do I think that the former is true? I hope not. And if the latter is true then how sad. Because that's not democracy; that's more like totalitarianism. It was the 'commies' who always voted yes for everything because otherwise they might shoot your grandmother. And what is memorable about last night, other than the scoreboard where no "Rs" stood out, was the hectoring cry of "baby killer" from one member and the attempt to take moral high ground from the House Minority Leader ignoring the fact that his own party has muscled its agendas through in the past using the same tools that the Democrats employed.
Lest anyone think that my party, the Democrats, deserved that high ground, however, I would refer them to the scene after the passage of the first bill. When the "Ds" treated their narrow victory as if it were the final of the college basketball tourney and their team had just won. Some ancient sage urged that wise victors were generous in their winning. The Democrats don't get it. And so the ugliness of future battles in this constant war of cultural monopoliticism is splattered on the walls.
Winning is important if principle is involved. Winning isn't all.
Comments