US Elections

There's been a number of pieces this week about Emanuel, and whether he's good or bad for the Obama administration, whether he is an effective enforcer or a sell-out who has achieves nothing legislatively.  But what I learnt during my internship, more than anything, was the difference between advocacy and governing, and about the time for each, and when it's appropriate for someone who holds an elected office to do either. Emanuel's job is to get stuff done, not push for the most liberal option regardless of outcome. And the Democrats would do well to remember, at this point, that there is a time and place for both advocacy and pragmatic governing.

I think one of the big problems in the way the US Congress works is the conflation of the two. Certainly, in the Republicans' case, it makes political sense to be obstructionist. If the Democrats pass health care reform, in the long run it will be a good thing for the Dems, and it may even stop the 2010 election from being TOTAL bloodshed.  

But left wing Dems, who are voting against health care because it's not progressive enough, make no sense. There is a time for advocating a certain policy position. That is not now. Because the votes aren't there for a public option, and killing a good bill because it's not a great bill achieves nothing. And doing it to make a point achieves nothing.

And that's the thing. Government needs people in different roles in order to function. It needs advocates and lobbyists to push certain points of view. It needs people to brief and to inform and to pressure. But it also needs people to govern. It needs people to make a decision that is both in the interest of their constituents and politically feasible. Sure, what is politically feasible changes with the briefing and the informing and the pressure. But at a certain point, it becomes necessary to face reality.

So liberals need to give up on the Public Option. It's not going to happen right now. It might happen in the future, but it's not going to happen right now. And they need to remember that August, during the break, was when the educating and the convincing needed to happen. It's too late now. Effective government is about knowing when is the time to try to convince, and when is the time to examine the situation and act according to the reality of the electorate.

Governing can only be partially ideological. Pragmatism must have a place. The Democrats need every vote they can get on Health Care reform, and ideologues like Dennis Kucinich are showing a remarkable lack of responsibility by acting as though voting no is a way to change minds. The time for advocacy is over - it's now time to govern.

Hide

Wilkinson writes:

A lot of people are saying government is broken. They’re mainly saying it because the Democratic health care bill isn’t going to pass in a form that gives most Democrats what they wanted. The argument, in its general form, goes like this: There is this huge problem! My team’s favored solution to the problem is politically infeasible. So, politics is broken! When you put it like that, it’s evidently a pretty silly argument.

I'm not entirely sure that is right.  Certainly, over the past few years, the way Congress has operated has changed.  Parties are acting far more like their parliamentary counterparts- voting in unison with the party, sometimes rather than with the will of their electorate.  One of the noticeable things before the 2006 election was that many of those who lost their seats were actively voting against the will of their electorate.  You could certainly make the case that some are doing the same thing now.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of party unity, and it certainly works in the parliamentary system, but can it work in the United States?  The system is designed to have so many veto points that unified obstructionism is almost certain to be successful.  With supermajorities and hold and filibusters, the US system is designed to require compromise.

So what, then, when a party identifies that its best chance of electoral success if to do anything but compromise?   How can a system designed to facilitate compromise survive when a party- either party- determines it is in its own best interest not to compromise?

Maybe the pendulum will swing back... candidates will become more closely connected to the districts they represent again, and once more there will be more ideological diversity in the parties.  Or perhaps, if the Republicans sweep the 2010 election as is being predicted, the party will find it is needing to protect more centrist seats in coming elections and finds a need to compromise.

The system may not be broken, but the system doesn't work the way it once did- necessarily, as the country and times and technology have changed.  So it's well worth considering how the system works well, and whether, perhaps, it can work better.

Hide

There’s a fascinating article in the Jan/Feb edition of Washington Monthly that looks at the process by which school text books are approved in Texas.  Along with this NPR piece on the influence of the bail bondsman lobby, it’s an excellent reminder of what many consider the overstretch of democracy. The consequences of the Texas School Board election will be felt nation-wide.  These fifteen individuals elected by Texas will effectively set the standard for most school text books, nationwide, for the next decade.

In Texas, as in many US states, a board of education is directly elected.  This board has direct control over educational practises at a state level (some decisions, of course, remain at the school board level).  One of the decisions the Texas board gets to make, once every ten years, is to set standards to which textbook manufacturers must adhere in order to be used in the state.

This year, though, Texas' new standards are having nation-wide effects. The new Texan standards are likely to shape books sold across the country for at least the next four years.

A strange combination of factors has lead to the situation which has given this board so much power.  First of all, California went broke.  Suddenly, the nation's largest text book purchaser- and a liberal one at that- would not be able to buy books until at least 2014. So suddenly the second-largest market had more power than ever- without its liberal counterpart as a mediating force. 

A conservative block were elected, and now hold the balance of power, in the Texas school board.  They have overseen the process by which the standards are set, and have ensured they are largely quite conservative.  Included in the standards are a defense of Joseph McCarthy, and a requirement that Climate Change be taught as a theory.

It's a reminder of the limitations of democracy: though the Texas school board was elected only by the people of Texas, it effectively sets national standards.  This board, elected by a comparatively small percentage of the Texan people, has made decisions that will be felt throughout the United States.  Small elections are easy to influence via donation, and Get Out the Vote efforts have a noticeable effect, thus allowing this kind of takeover by certain factions...

Hide

But rather than being serious and somber, the President was jovial and positive. He reiterated the success of much they had done in the previous year. In front of Congress and the American people, Obama took his chance to remind them of why he was elected.

It was a long speech, as most State of the Unions are, and naturally there are many things to talk about, but what struck me most of all the Obama has said was his willingness to take the blame. It was his willingness to stand up and say “much of this was my fault.”

One of the most refreshing and interesting parts of the Obama campaign was the way he’d speak to his audience. He’d take the time to explain issues and lay out his logic. Just last weekend, we went to the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, from which Obama gave his speech on race during the primary campaign. Reading some of the text of that speech again reminded me of just how good Obama had been at making things understandable, and taking the time to take people through his reasoning.

At some point, in the last year, that stopped happening so often. Others grabbed hold of the narrative, and told their own stories until their voices were a cacophony of lines and slogans. Death Panels! Single payer! Public option! Socialized medicine! Bank bailout! Wall Street! Main Street!

So rather than celebrating the achievements of the last year, President Obama used the opportunity of the State of the Union to get the messaging back on track. He reminded the country of how much there is left to do, but also explained why it needed to be done. Why health care was still a priority. Why the bailout had been a necessary evil. Why any way forward requires compromise.

Obama remembered to explain, and apologized for forgetting. And while polls have showed he didn’t change many minds, he at least more closely resembled the candidate voters had elected more than a year before.

And while the State of the Union was only somewhat effective, his Question and Answer session at the Republican issues conference was far more so…

Hide

And so new television stations were making new programs for new, or at least more specialized, audiences.  The Sopranos was probably the first of these new shows.  Debuting on HBO in 1999, it told the story of a mobster and his family.  It was often both profane and violent.  After building a significant audience, developing a notable place in pop culture, and finding critical acclaim.  It also managed to tell a new kind of American story: the story of a certain place, a certain time, a certain culture and a certain man.  The fragmentation of audiences meant stories could similarly be fragmented.  Instead of telling stories of the many, television stations were newly empowered to tell stories of the few.

The Sopranos may have been the first, but many other such shows followed.  The Wire, considered by many to be the greatest television program ever made, told stories of Baltimore, of police and drug dealers and communities.  Mad Men reconsidered the 60s in the United States, walking a fine line between fetishization and condemnation of a culture that was racist, sexist and classist.  Through the lives of the Mad Men characters, audiences could look at significant events in American history in a new context, culminating in a remarkable portrayal of the experience of JFK's death through the eyes of the characters.

Television producers became emboldened to tell different stories, stories of communities, of individuals, of moments, of experiences.  Options for repeat viewing, utilizing various digital technologies, enabled storytellers to arch storylines over longer periods and produce a kind of serialized television that fell largely out of favour in previous decades.

While some may think of the first decade of the 21^st century as one defined, as relates to television, by reality TV, the rise of premium cable television and digital technologies ensured that the last 10 years have produced some of the most amazing, and amazingly American, television programs.  It has been an era of remarkable storytelling, and the golden age of television thus far.

Hide