The president served notice in his second inaugural
address, and again in his State of the Union speech, that he intends to follow
the path blazed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, two fellow
Democrats who insisted that expanded government could improve most American
lives. They pushed the costs of their programs onto future generations, but
most citizens nevertheless came to cherish government-subsidized pensions,
disability and unemployment insurance, and medical care for the elderly and poor.
It was an uncommonly partisan inaugural address, one
that would have been more suited to a campaign rally. But it was not a
surprise. This was the President Obama that his admirers hoped to see and that
his critics feared they would: a president freed from the constraints of
re-election politics and eager to take his place in the pantheon of Democratic
heroes.
It certainly grated on Republican ears to hear the
president, fresh off a campaign in which he spent millions defining Mitt Romney
as an unfeeling plutocrat, chastising them for mistaking "name-calling as
reasoned debate."
It may have seemed the height of hypocrisy to hear
the president, who less than a year ago still opposed same-sex marriage, assert
that "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are
treated like anyone else under the law," or the man whose administration
has deported millions demand that "we find a better way to welcome the
striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity."
There may have been some smirks at the president's
view of American history when he declared that the white, landowning males who
led the Revolution and were the nation's first voters - some of whom beseeched
George Washington to wear a monarch's crown - "did not fight to replace
the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few."
But most Americans are not historians, and they
don't care whether Obama's history is accurate.
They don't care that Obama is a latecomer to the
cause of equal rights for gays. Those who care about equal rights are content
to know that the president is on their side now, however late and no matter why
he arrived there. The same is true of people who think our immigration system
is dysfunctional, counterproductive and often cruel. They want reform. If the
president now wants to push for reform too, they are happy to accept his help
and let bygones be bygones.
They don't particularly care whether the president
is right or wrong that more federal spending will make their lives better. They
think their lives should be made better, and at least the president seems to be
trying to do it. If economists cannot agree on whether Obama's policies do more
harm than good (and economists are famous for not agreeing on anything at all),
then why should the average person worry about it?
Obama knows where he wants to take the country and,
now that Election Day is over, he is not shy about telling us. What about
Republicans?
All we really need to know about Republicans is that
it took two of them to respond to Obama's State of the Union address.
The statement Republicans needed to make is that
prosperity cannot be built by siphoning money from savers using interest rates
pegged near zero, from businesses through mandates and restrictions, and from
tax increases that target a tiny slice of the population labeled "the
rich." The GOP needed to stress that today's debts and deficits will place
terrible burdens on our children and grandchildren, as will our failure to
address entitlement reform. People care about their kids.
Yet when Marco Rubio, the junior senator from my
home state of Florida, delivered the official GOP response, he immediately
veered off-message. Instead of emphasizing why Obama's financial mismanagement
will hurt Americans in the long run, the party's rising young star put his
personal religious and anti-abortion views front and center. "America is
exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is
precious," Rubio asserted in his not-too-secretly-coded message to the
social conservatives who dominate GOP presidential primaries.
A large slice of people who favor abortion rights
all but abandoned Rubio's talk right there. His jab probably had little impact
even among abortion opponents, coming at a time when many voters of all beliefs
wonder how they will meet their next mortgage or college loan payment.
Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, delivered a
response from the Tea Party - which, of course, isn't a party at all. But it is
a convenient foil for anyone who wants to paint all Republicans as political
extremists who favor all guns and oppose all taxes.
Paul obligingly portrayed Republicans and Democrats
as equally responsible for the nation's fiscal woes. With no more respect for
history than Obama, Paul cited former President Ronald Reagan as a role model
for small government, the implication being that Reagan's soaring deficits were
an example of fiscal rectitude. Paul called for a constitutional amendment to
require a balanced budget. Even economists agree this makes little sense, and
it has no chance whatsoever of passing.
Though many other things Paul said are perfectly
reasonable, at least to Republicans, his all-or-nothing approach and his
attacks on both parties meant most voters probably tuned him out, too.
You don't see television networks giving response
time to Moveon.org or to the Congressional Black Caucus to present their
far-left views of the Democratic Party's agenda. The attention bestowed on the
Tea Party presents the GOP, unfairly, as the only one of the two major parties
that has an extreme wing. But it does not help when the party's mainstream
spokesman presents himself as more socially extreme than the alleged extremist
of the Tea Party.
Republicans are late to the game on immigration
reform. They are far out of step with fast-evolving views on gay rights and
they are rigid in opposition to abortion, even though the American public is
far more diverse than, and often alienated by, that GOP rigidity.
Do Republicans want to be the party that represents
a shrinking pool of religious voters in the Bible Belt, or do they want people
to listen to their economic ideas long enough to give them a chance of
regenerating support in places like the Northeast and the West Coast?
Obama and the Democrats know where they want to go.
Republicans don't. Until the GOP can make up its mind to be a national party
that accommodates America's regional diversity in social views, it is not
likely to get another turn in the driver's seat.
Article source: http://EzineArticles.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment