Beating the Bushes

Beating the Bushes: All Politics, All The Time January 05, 2007 The Future is Now As I write this piece, the new Pelosi/Reid-led 110th Congress is less than 24 hours old. And despite the fact that the baby has hardly drawn its first breath, the conservative Cassandras of the Fourth Estate are already doing what they do best: vilifying, characterizing and engaging in argumenta ad homines [and, to coin a neologism ad feminas] of the most egregious kind. Within a single news cycle, much sighing and gnashing of teeth has been heard -- and no doubt, the best [or worst] is yet to come. Already, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and their Democratic colleagues are being accused of shutting the Republicans out of any meaningful participation in the day-to-day functioning of Congress; that contrary to their campaign promises of openness and transparency, they are already engaging in ham- handed tactics that will no doubt bring about presidential vetoes at best, the utter downfall of democracy at worst. And who said Chicken Little was merely a child's fable? I tell you he [or she] is alive and well and residing deep within our public midst. We have already been reminded ad nauseum that: 1 Speaker Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal [whatever that means] That Majority Leader Reid is weak-kneed That Incoming House Ways-and-Means Chair Charlie Rangel sounds like a demonic frog That Incoming Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy is a baby-killer That Incoming House Judiciary Chair John Conyers is a hopeless impeachment addict That Incoming House Government Reform Committee Chair Henry Waxman suffers from terminally incurable "subpoena envy," and that Incoming House Intelligence Committee Chair Sylvester Reyes doesn't know whether the majority of Iraqis are Shia or Sunni. [They are Shia]. What is conveniently overlooked, of course, is that Mrs. Pelosi has scotched Mr. Conyers' desire to impeach; has directed Mr. Waxman to investigate Republican programs and policies, not people; and has set a political agenda that is more doably moderate than demoniacally murderous. And while it is true that the Democrats of the 110th Congress will likely push for stem cell research, ask hard questions about our endless, rudderless war in Iraq, attempt to ferret out just who is making financial killings out of all the mayhem, and seek to undo some of the Republican's most immoral high-end tax cuts, they clearly aren't about to 2 knock the wheels off of our glorious republic. Being a partisan optimist, I believe that the Democratically- controlled 110th Congress can and will make a difference. I've got to believe that they will raise the minimum wage, lower student loan repayment rates, take a long, hard look at the president's monstrous Medicare Drug Plan initiative, and go on record as believing that Global Warming is, as my daughter Nurit and her friends would say, "fer real." To those who fear the worst -- that the Democrats will make abortion freely available up until thirty-two seconds before birth, make same-sex marriage as common as hay fever in spring and pack Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld off to Leavenworth -- to these benighted folks I say simply, and in words of one syllable, "get a life." The Democrats are simply too savvy and pragmatic to engage in such illusive political chimeras. Permit me to be so bold as to suggest one issue to which, in my humble opinion, the Democrats -- and whatever Republicans they can muster -- can and must address themselves in this new Congress: America's addiction to oil. It seems to me that just as oil has been the linchpin of our political and economic past, it stands every chance of being the ultimate stumbling block to our political and economic future. To me, moving away from our gluttonous dependence on oil is as simple, as axiomatic as twice two is four. To others, the mere suggestion that America commit itself to energy independence -- of once and for ever turning off 3 the petroleum spigot -- is sheer heresy; like proclaiming that twice two is five. Perhaps it is heretical. But to those who think this way, I quote Dostoyevsky's Notes From the Underground: "Twice two makes four is a pert coxcomb who stands with arms akimbo barring your path and spitting. I admit that twice two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are to give everything its due, twice two makes five is sometimes a very charming thing." Let's face it: weaning America off oil -- a long-term generational goal -- far from being a "pert coxcomb stand[ing] with arms akimbo," is, in potentia, a golden path to the future. It requires fundamental changes in the way we consume and spend as individuals; radical modifications in the way we produce and view ourselves as a nation; intrinsic alternations in our very sense of time. If we can and do commit our country to traveling along the long path to energy independence, we can anticipate numberless challenges and innumerable benefits. Among the latter are: Taking America's destiny out of the hands of despots who gladly rake in our petro dollars and just as gladly underwrite those who seek our destruction. Lessening the inexorable harm we have done to planet earth through global warming. 4 Creating hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of new jobs in new industries. Restoring and revivifying America's place of leadership in the community of nations. Unleashing and harnessing America's technical genius for the good -- and not the destruction -- of humanity. Giving the American people something it has lacked since the end of World War II: a national challenge that will involve every man, woman and child. Ever since the days of JFK it has been the American wont to proclaim that "Any country that can send a man to the moon can . ." For the most part, it is a true sentiment. The one sticky point is that, generally speaking, the first part of the equation -- "sending a man to the moon" -- is a challenge for science and technology; the second part -- "can end poverty [or bigotry, cupidity, superficiality or addiction to oil, as but five examples] is, largely speaking, a challenge for humanity. The first takes brains, imagination and capital; the second takes will, humility and, above all, leadership. To Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and all their colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, please know this: if we are to have a future, the future must be now. To whatever extent possible, put aside partisanship, political bickering and the divisive wedge issues that serve merely to strengthen the next election's base at the expense of our collective future, and begin 5 the journey of transformation . the journey that leads not to next month, next year or the next election . but to the future. That future is now. January 05, 2007 in All Politics All The Time | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) 6 Beating the Bushes: All Politics, All The Time January 12, 2007 Waist Deep In The Big Wadi Back in September 1967, folksinger Pete Seeger was scheduled to perform on the then-popularly irreverent "Smother's Brothers Comedy Hour." Seeger, who had been blacklisted off the airwaves for years and years [due to his having run afoul of HUAC], was slated to make his comeback singing one of his own compositions, "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy." At the last minute, Seeger's segment -- which had already been taped -- was pulled from the air. The reason? CBS executives thought Seeger's piece was overly provocative -- a punch in the nose, so to speak, at President Lyndon Johnson and his war policy in Viet Nam. Despite the fact that "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" was clearly written about an event that occurred during the early days of World War II, network executives feared that viewers would take it the wrong way. Needless to say, CBS's last-minute decision to pull the plug on Seeger became a cause celebre. Thousands and thousands of viewers who had never heard of the song rushed out to purchased a copy, whose refrain went: 1 Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool says to push on; Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool says to push on; Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a Tall man'll be over his head, We're waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool says push on! To CBS execs, this sounded too much like a slam on LBJ. Four months later -- January 1968 -- the boys from CBS allowed the Seeger segment to air. What had changed? Well, for one thing, Lyndon Johnson had announced that he would not be running for reelection; he had read the handwriting on the wall. Ever the instinctual pol, Johnson knew that the country had had enough. Nonetheless, it would take another six years until American military involvement in Southeast Asia came to a bloody conclusion. How? We declared victory and got the hell out . While watching President Bush's nationally televised address the other night, I thought I was having a flashback; I actually thought I was seeing and hearing Seeger singing "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy." Except in this case, the title had changed to "Waist Deep in the Big Wadi." The similarities between Johnson's 2 War in January '68, and Bush's War in January '07, are hauntingly similar: In both cases, Congress and the American people had been snookered into war under false pretenses: The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in '64 and WMDs in '02.

Load more