A New Era of Politics.
Ken Burns, the noted documentarian and historian, said Barack Obama’s inaugural speech today marks the beginning of America’s Third Act, with him describing the First Act extending from our founding to Lincoln and the end of slavery, and the Second Act extending from there to now, overseeing the fulfilling of America’s promise to all its citizens, regardless of race. And now the Third Act begins.
Indeed, President Obama’s speech did, to me, seem to mark an end to the politics of the last 30 years. When he said that the question was not of whether the government was too big or too small, it is a question of whether the government works, I let out a cheer. This has been my view for years. I never bought into the false choice presented us, that of a choice between a bloated welfare state and that of a libertarian minimalist federal government that only provided for our national defense. I believe our federal government can serve the people and be efficient, and the President has now echoed that belief, and ended, in my view, the dominant frame of the Conservative Era over the last 30 years. In ending that frame, he ended their era. It is now the Obama Era. The Era of the Practical. The Era of Pragmatism.
In the Conservative Era from 1980 until 2008, Republicans railed against big government and for small government. In the Obama Era that begins tonight, Progressives and liberals will rail against inefficient government that does not provide for the people. This is a devastating frame for the opposition. How do oppose efficiency? You can’t. It forces the opposition to oppose the efficient programs being funded on their merits. And that is just fine. It long past time that we have an honest debate about providing healthcare and social security to our citizens based on the idea of it alone. And if you oppose that idea, good. Let’s debate it, finally, and honestly.
Before, Republicans could hide their opposition to social programs by railing against spending. They would say “Gee, it sounds like a good idea but we can’t afford it.” Well, if spending is being cut elsewhere through the elimination of programs and departments unneeded or that have failed in their original task, that excuse loses water. Republicans will be forced to oppose the merits of the program. Or they can argue they have a more efficient way.
Efficiency is the new frame. Efficient government is the new goal. Not a smaller government. Not a bigger government. A government that provides for our common defense, and our common health, and our common security.
The Obama Era begins. At long last.
Obama’s biggest problem may turn out to be Harry and Nancy along with some Repub’s.
If that happends he has to get that crowd on the mall today to start marching.
Senator Long once told the senate” there’s a crowd marching on the senate wanting to hang us all.” ” I don’t know weather to stay here with you or to go out and join them in their cause” Let’s all wake up and not put up with any petty bullshit from this congress weather Repub or Dem
I’ll believe it when I see it. For all the talk, there is still the relatively same old Capitol Hill there, and their ways aren’t gonna break because the new guys says so.
Well said.You nailed it.peace
TT & Brian,
Have you two been asleep for 8 years.? Congress is full of preening weaklings who will do what the President tells them to do.
And now we have President with vision and moral purpose that has mobilized a movement. Congress will be fighting to out-Obama each other.
As for the 20% who represent a dead political philosophy, I’d expect carry on with their usual flibble-flabble because that is these snake oil salesmen get paid by getting mindless cows to moo.
They will never amount to more than a mere distraction though.
Obama is very popular right now so I doubt that Harry and Nancy want to expend a lot of their energy opposing him.
I’m ready for our new era. I know that some of the adjustments will be painful, but I think we’ll have something better at the end.
Jason wrote: “Congress is full of preening weaklings who will do what the President tells them to do.”
He’s right. The Barney Franks and Henry Waxmans are few and far between.
Substitute the word “Governor” for President, and the phrase “General Assembly” for Congress, and you’ve got Delaware.
The Kowalkos, Petersons and Schooleys (can you really name anyone else who belongs?) are few and far between.
Markell should be able to accomplish whatever he wants, limited only by his team’s own vision and execution.
Tom Carper brings Republican talking points on Inauguration Day:
“Carper says among the new President’s toughest problems will be fixing Social Security and Medicare, both of which he says are running out of money. “
I heard that Carper quote. WTF Tom? Just change your party affiliation already.
As part of that 20%, I’d like to see some people try to hold their breaths while programs get cut and spending decreases. Never has happened and certainly won’t happen now.
Congress is full of preening weaklings who will do what the President tells them to do.
Sad, but true.
From what i hear, instead of playing one card at a time, and try one piece of legislation at a time, the Obama administration wants to hit it all at once. My first thought was that it was a silly exercise, then i thought a little deeper about dealing with Congress.
One by one those with some semblance of a spine will ask for something to change for their vote, in a DC version of Mob blackmail. Playing their whole hand at once instead of one bill at a time gives more concessions available to sway votes.
It’s a good play.
Well written, DD. I’d sign on for efficiency.
The problem is this. If you hang your hat on efficiency, you have to provide efficiency.
My party railed against bigger government, the whole time making government bigger. That’s why we’re in the position we are in right now.
You can’t afford to be seen as failing to deliver, or you’ll suffer the same fate.
see comment directly above
Was that an apology? 😉
Funny. The 20%ers who cling to a dead political ideology will try to say that their policies were never tried.
However, we all know that the wingnut agenda was fully enacted by Bush and was as less successful as the Hindenburg.
Bush enacted pretty much anything he wanted. I don’t know how Republicans can argue that conservatism was never tried.
Then you must disagree with this statement:
“My party railed against bigger government, the whole time making government bigger.”
You know you’re wrong, but you’ll never admit it.
UI — Because NCLB and Part D were not conservative pieces of legislation.
“Conservative” means preserving the original intent of the Constitution to provide for a limited government. The founders took specific care to define where the government should be limited.
At least to me that’s what it means. And that does not define the last 8 years.
“My party railed against bigger government, the whole time making government bigger.”
Was that an apology? 😉
If someone breaks your arms, punches you in the nose, and kicks your shins, and then apologizes for kicking you in the shins – I guess that was an apology.
List the programs that were eliminated in the last 8 years and show me the spending decreases.
It didn’t happen, Conservatism was fought for in social matters and homeland security, but (save for taxes) not in economic/budgetary policy. As much as I have supported the (ex-)President’s foreign policy, it can be debated–to put it lightly–how it applied Conservative values.
FSP-I’d add Campaign Finance Reform, with a host of others, to NCLB andPart D.
iCarly says,
You know you’re wrong, but you’ll never admit it.
To whom?
Conservative homeland security = 9/11 + Iraq + Gitmo + Torture + Spying on citizens + 100’s of thousands dead
Conservative social matters = stop teh gays + control women’s bodies + regulate sex + give tax dollars to churches.
Pretty much sums it up.
….and do so while shoving tax money in your pockets and blabbering about small government.
Conservatism has failed. I say good riddance.
Today you are Delaware Gem! Great piece, DD, I knew you had it in you!
And I agree on so many levels–with “efficiency”, being the operative here. I don’t argue the merits of any well-intended program, but we all must agree the execution and delivery has to be more exacting than we have seen in the last 25+ years. Without assigning parties of blame, some chose to “throw the baby out with the bath water”, and others chose to “drown the baby in an overfilled tub”. We all say we are ready to work, but how many of us are willing to sacrifice–and yes that may translate to being a part of government efficiency that erradicates your job. There may well lie the real welfare bloat. And there may be some real answers, but are we ready for it? I sure hope so, for all of us.
Again, great piece DelGem!
I’d say Medicare Part D was conservative all the way. It contained giveaways to big drug companies, which means it won’t give the best deal to consumers. It was confusing and poorly implemented. It contained budget tricks (“donut hole”). Sounds like a conservative program to me!
Same with NCLB, completely underfunded without thousands of ways to fail but only one way to succeed.
jason330, did you just quote iCarly? I don’t know which is sadder the fact that you quote iCarly or that I know what iCarly is.
Damn you, damn you to hell.