pollyannas versus cynics

            Don’t know if there’s a genetic difference between conservatives and liberals (though I recently saw one study that suggested there might be),  but they are separated by much more than just their political viewpoints. 

           

            An easy distinction to draw between the two is to label liberals as optimists and conservatives as pessimists, but those words seem insufficient to me.  From where I stand, liberal behavior seems driven by, not a belief, but something actually much deeper than that—call it an assumption—that in the end, fair play, basic human decency and an underlying, genuine devotion to the common weal will carry the day.

            Conservative behavior, again, from where I stand, seems driven likewise by an assumption that runs deeper even than a belief, to wit, that fair play, human decency and devotion to the common weal are clear evidences of naivete, and in general present opportunities to be seized. Carpe diem.

            For certain, there is a Pollyanna quality to liberal thinking, just as there is a cynical quality to conservative thinking.  In perhaps simpler terms, liberals tend to focus on what’s needed to protect the weakest; conservatives tend to focus on what’s in the best interest of the strongest.

            In today’s polarized political world, the distinction between conservatives and liberals is embodied in the two major parties—liberalism from the Democrats, conservatism from the Republicans.  Interestingly, at least since Reagan, the fundamental difference between a liberal outlook and a conservative one has resulted in democrats seeing government as a tool for promoting the common good while republicans see it as a tool for serving the self-interest of the Republican party.

            From Reagan’s proclamation that government is the problem not the solution, through the “defund the left” programs launched so successfully by Grover Norquist and Jack Abramoff (yes, that Jack Abramoff), through the Newt Gincrich to Karl Rove programs to install a “permanent Republican majority,” the Republican party has shown not a lot of interest in actually governing, but quite a lot of interest in self-aggrandizement.

            Perhaps nowhere was that conservative/Republican modus operandi  more apparent than in recent skirmishes with Barack Obama.  Unfortunately, the Pollyanna quality of  liberal/Democratic thinking is equally apparent in the same skirmishes.

            Obama’s campaign for the presidency was relatively skimpy on specific programs and proposals but high on hope and a commitment to moving past the rabid partisanship that had defined Washington for at least two decades.  We chuckle all the time about athletes falling on their faces when they spend too much time “reading their press clippings,” but in a way that’s what happened with Obama.

            John Roberts had scarcely finished mangling the Oath of Office when two things happened.  Obama made clear that he wanted to work with Republicans to fashion programs that would benefit all the country, while simultaneously, the Republican congressional caucus was meeting to devise a strategy to defeat whatever Obama proposed.

            The first major initiative Obama proposed was health care reform, and he made it clear he wanted Republican input.  What he got instead was South Carolina senator Jim DeMint announcing on the floor of the Senate that the Republican strategy would be to use health care to “destroy” Obama’s presidency.

            Now let’s be clear here.  The Republicans knew they didn’t have enough votes to prevent some form of health reform package from passing.  What they could do—and in fact did do—was everything possible to delay the actual passing of the bill (could the dems get 60 votes to kill a filibuster), and, more importantly, introduce as many distortions (a public option equals socialism) and outright lies (remember death panels?) as possible in order to create enough confusion about the program that, once it was passed, it could become a 2010 mid-term election issue Republicans could exploit. That seems a pretty decent description of cynical behavior.

            Hardball politics from the Democrats would have been to put what they wanted in the bill, then introduce it for a vote every day and force the Republicans to put up or shut up.  Instead, Obama and the Democratic leadership caved and pandered and in the end passed a bill that had something in it for nearly everyone to dislike.  Why did they do that?  Perhaps because they thought what they were able to get was better for the country than nothing.

            If you are a liberal, it’s hard not to pine for the Democrats to produce again someone like Lyndon Johnson or Franklin Roosevelt, both of whom believed passionately in government FOR the people, but had in them enough of that conservative instinct for the jugular that made bashing heads and  twisting arms  something they were comfortable with.  Roosevelt was willing to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would support his agenda.  He didn’t get away with it (thankfully), but his willingness to do it sent a clear message to the opposition party and to the country that he was willing to fight for the mandate his election had given him.

            LBJ might have been a Texas rube who referred to African-Americans as “coloreds,” but he was passionately devoted to civil rights and made it very clear to Republican and Democratic congressmen alike that if they fought him on that issue, they would come to rue that action.

            Today, a liberal with balls is about as easy to find as a snowball in hell.  And conservatives?  Well, they’re united behind Mitch McConnell who says publically that the number one Republican objective is to make sure Obama is a one-term president.  Think about that.  Record unemployment, rampant foreclosures, declining median incomes, two wars, disappearing retirement incomes, skyrocketing medical costs, to name just a few problems—and the number one conservative/Republican objective is to limit Obama to one term.

            I’m not certain a one-term Obama presidency would be a bad thing.  I do however think it’s sad, and more than a little scary, that causing that to happen is important to the Republican Senate leader than any other problem the country faces.