Essay by Martha Quillen
Politics – April 2008 – Colorado Central Magazine
PEOPLE WHO HOPE may be audacious. But hope itself is fragile. Or as Shakespeare put it:
This is the state of man: today he puts forth
The tender leaves of hopes; tomorrow blossoms,
And bears his blushing honors thick upon him;
The third day comes a frost, a killing frost;
And when he thinks, good easy man, full surely
His greatness is a-ripening, nips his root,
And then he falls….
…
And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer,
Never to hope again.
That’s pretty much how I felt after Sen. Barack Obama lost Ohio and Texas. So Ed reminded me that Obama still had more delegates than Sen. Hillary Clinton. But that was beside the point. It wasn’t Obama’s hopes I was bemoaning. It was mine. I had hoped we’d be putting all of the fury, accusations, denunciations, jibes, and standard dirty tricks of the campaign trail behind us for a little while.
Oh, sure, they’re part of politics as usual these days. But I’m sick of finger-pointing, grand-standing, and opponent-baiting. And I’m tired of the Bush dynasty. And I’m definitely not eager to embrace a Clinton succession.
After all, what did the original Clinton reign get us? Well, okay, a few things:
1) The destruction of protective welfare programs for the poor and unemployed.
2) More prisons. Higher health care costs. And high-interest college loans that leave poor and middle class students in debt for decades.
And, of course, 3) NAFTA — despite warnings that without appropriate restrictions, the trade agreement would encourage American corporations to move to places where wage, hour, safety, and environmental protections are absent, thereby blighting American manufacturing, and capsizing a century of hard-won labor legislation. (In defense of NAFTA, however, it turned out that even Mexico, with its comparatively low wages, could not compete with the miserable working standards available in China.)
And what did the Clinton administration fail to deliver?
The health care reform it promised. And the generous re-education programs for unemployed workers that had been promised. It also failed to “break the stranglehold the special interests have on our elections and the lobbyists have on our government.” Or to deliver “an America in which health care is a right, not a privilege.”
BUT SUCH FAILURES were not entirely due to the Clinton administration, which doubtlessly meant to deliver more. Clinton’s intentions were stymied by the Gingrich-led Republican Revolution, by vicious partisanism, and total non-cooperation.
And the few things that Clinton did manage to accomplish were quickly set aside during the Bush administration by a Republican culture that characterized Clinton’s entire legacy as too liberal. The balanced budget? The notable prosperity? The relatively benign attitude toward Americans from people aboard? They were all banished before G.W.’s first term was over.
William Jefferson Clinton was not America’s worst President — nor even close. Clinton’s dealings were fiscally sound and his popularity exceptional, at home and abroad. (Considering that he’d been impeached, Clinton’s approval ratings during his last months in office were so high, one might conclude that heads of state under fire should try getting caught with their pants down.)
But in terms of lasting improvements, Clinton didn’t accomplish much. In fact, the most enduring legacy of the whole Clinton era may be that it proved American hypocrisy is rampant — and that self-serving duplicity doesn’t appear to embarrass either Democrats or Republicans.
Despite their tendency to pander to pomp, circumstance, and patriotism, Republicans showed little regard for the dignity of the country, the White House, or the Presidency when Clinton was in office.
Judge Kenneth Starr, the “Independent Counsel” assigned to investigate the Clintons’ role in Whitewater, stayed on for five years investigating everything Clinton, including the suicide of Vince Foster, Hillary’s legal career, the Rose Law firm, Jame’s McDougal’s savings and loan, the White House Travel Office, and Bill’s relationship to Monica Lewinsky. Starr carried on — and on — despite his ties with Clinton’s Republican foes, and unprofessional and shameful leaks from his office.
Republican crusaders reveled in the investigation. It was a civil war from within: Would Bill Clinton run the government? Or would the Republicans?
Remember how Republicans howled about Clinton’s presidency being somehow illegitimate, because it was won by a mere plurality of votes?
Surely, if that had really been important to them, they would have been really upset when their guy didn’t win the popular vote. Considering all their anguish about whether Clinton was the true choice of the American people, you’d think they would have insisted on a recount in Florida.
But to be fair, Democrats have wielded their own share of bigotry and vitriol. Despite their hue and cry about how Clinton’s personal life was nobody’s business, Democrats have denounced, over-investigated, and broadcast scandal just as predictably as the other side — when it was Republicans who were caught gallivanting in fountains, or having illicit affairs in the halls of government, or putting their lovers on the public payroll.
When you think too long about politics, you understand why hope is fragile. What is harder to understand is why we embrace democracy.
I USED TO THINK that local government was where ordinary citizens could really make a difference. Through county commissions, town councils, and local school and hospital boards, citizens could improve their nation from the ground up. We could build better towns, promote better land use, create better schools, and provide better health care. But I’m not sure I really believe that any more.
For years I attended local meetings (although admittedly, sometimes only because I made my living working for local publications). And I saw people come and go, and trends come and go. And, contrary to what you might suppose, I realized that the majority of citizens say they want the same things. In Salida, that’s rural living, less sprawl, fewer real estate developments, competitive schools, a thriving downtown district, good jobs, affordable housing, reasonably priced utilities, and a diverse community with adequate housing and services for rich retirees and struggling resort workers.
In our region, local citizens spend an enormous amount of time and energy trying to make such a place a reality. But it doesn’t work. Instead, we just keep getting more developments, more sprawl, and higher prices.
Why? Well, I suppose it’s because we don’t address our problems very well. Instead, we batter at each other — because it’s easier.
WE’RE NOT ENGINEERS; we don’t have money; we hardly have any time. We’re already having trouble paying our taxes. The neighborhood is going to hell; the country’s going to ruin. And no matter how much money you toss at your government, it always needs more.
Besides, this is America, the land where there is always somebody to blame. U.S. census figures indicate that our principal religions are Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon and Jewish, and our primary ethnic groups are white, black, Asian, Amer-Indian, and Hispanic — of any race). And there are plenty of unprimary groups to blame, too: gays, rednecks, youth gangs, CEOs, stock holders, drug addicts. . . .
Historically, America’s diversity has presented an enormous challenge. Yet I suspect it’s our greatest pride. The Brits couldn’t even meld a bunch of Anglos into a cohesive nation. (Mixing Scots, Irish, Welsh and English? Forget it.) But we’ve blended Native Americans, Europeans, Africans, Polynesians, Asians, foreign peasants, indigenous tribesmen, and landed gentry into a single people — sort of.
And now we’ve got a black man and a white woman competing against one another to become President of the United States. Hallelujah. God Bless America!
Except I think maybe we’re in trouble these days . . . because our whole political process seems to have disintegrated into a strange, hyped-up, over-amped conversation about nothing.
People say they want political debates to be more substantive. So the newscasters ask the candidates about health care, the economy, Homeland security, the war in Iraq — and more. And the candidates outline their plans. Newsmen ask for specifics, and the candidates offer them.
Then all of the candidates attack their opponents’ specifics. Yet our political discourse still doesn’t seem very substantive. Instead, it seems downright silly. What are we asking our candidates to provide? A specific plan for the financial future of the United States of America? A comprehensive medical plan for 300 million people? Details about how we’re going to ensure Homeland security for 50 states, 12,383 miles of coastline, and more than 5,000 public airports?
If American families were subjected to such a mind-boggling political process, parents would be expected to have a comprehensive growth, education, career, and retirement plan for their children before they were even born.
It’s ridiculous. Yet it’s how we pick our leaders.
Perhaps it’s even the reason President Bush got into trouble. Did he really believe in this nonsense? Did his advisers outline a plan for overthrowing the government of Iraq, and thereby replacing oppression and dictatorship with democracy and stability? And he bought it?
Wow. No wonder his approval ratings are dismal.
Recently, I read a book called Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer by Shannon Brownlee, and I realized that all of the proposed health care plans I’ve heard about (thus far) are thoroughly unworkable.
America needs to take a new approach to health care because we now have the most expensive system in the world (without the best results — or even particularly good results) and Brownlee’s book gives incite into some of the reasons our system is running amok:
One, we rely on a plethora of surgical remedies that frequently don’t improve a patient’s condition or prognosis (hysterectomies, prostatectomies, heart bypasses, cardiac stents, spinal fusions, and others). Second, the pharmaceuticals we use often worsen our prognosis (when they don’t kill us outright). Third, although our government conducts research on new treatments, very little public research is done on what remedies and surgeries work best; we leave that research to the pharmaceutical companies, private hospitals, and surgeons who profit off of the results. Fourth, our insurance companies generally pay for health care by the procedure, rather than for prevention, regular care, or continuing good health.
AND THERE’S MORE, much more, in Brownlee’s book (some of which, I’m sure, medical professionals will take issue with). But regardless of exactly what is wrong with our system, what is amply clear is that we can’t afford to simply insure our overpriced system as it is.
Obama says his plan goes the furthest toward lessening costs, but does it go far enough?
I suspect that our health care woes can’t be resolved with a single plan by anyone. In all likelihood, reforming our system will take a long-term, incremental process. But such a project doubtlessly deserves a more diligent hearing and analysis than Kenneth Starr gave the Clintons — since it will determine the health and safety of all Americans.
It’s time to quit putting band-aids on a health care system that’s hemorrhaging money and destroying lives. Or to ignore the problem (as many Republicans do).
In the meantime, if we can’t rely on politically inspired plans, what should we trust?
Well, forget trust. Trust has nothing to do with politics. But I’m supporting the candidate Hillary Clinton mocks. And I’m doing that because Barack Obama offers hope, inspiration, and idealism, rather than experience and fights.
Oh, sure, I’m a little jaded, but I can’t see how things will get better if we don’t elect someone who can make us believe that they can. And I do believe that things can get better. Despite continuous warnings of doom and gloom from the right and left, the choices for Americans are not all dire. A simpler life, a cheaper lifestyle, a more sustainable economy, less traffic, less debt: Hey, that sounds good.
As for experience? Well, clearly John McCain has the most experience, but he supports the status quo, and it’s not working. The Bush administration has focused so intently on the Middle East that the home front is declining. Katrina, wildfires, lost jobs, rusting infrastructure, insane health care costs, mortgage fraud, telemarketing scams, identity theft, and deceptive advertising are taking their toll.
WHY IS IT THAT Republicans only worry about drug-related crimes, when white collar crime has become so pervasive and destructive? Today, it’s gotten to where junk e-mails, junk faxes, and fraudulent telemarketing have overwhelmed our airways, making honest commercial messages nearly obsolete. Try calling someone to collect for a local charity, or to tell them their warranty has run out; if they’re smart they’ll hang up on you.
Now, your food, pharmaceuticals, toys, and home products may be deadly — because manufacturing oversight and product testing are mercurial and shoddy at best. The Republicans have stripped our protective agencies to the bone, and scammers threaten Americans at every level. From home on the range to international banks, corruption rules. When someone in China tossed melamine into a batch of wheat gluten, dogs in Denver died. Democrats have not been above board in America’s orgy of bogus business boosting, but at least the Democrats have supported some oversight.
I don’t think Barack Obama has all the answers, but he does have a new way of talking and looking at things, which gives me a little hope — fragile though it may be. To win, Obama will probably have to wrestle in the mud a bit, but at least fighting and experience are not his primary selling points.
This time around, Bill and Hillary Clinton are old hands at national politics. But what does that mean? At this point, Washington has urged us into an unsustainable economy, an untenable war, profligate spending, huge debts, and bad mortgages.
For decades now, most Americans have agreed that there’s something wrong with where we’re going, but we keep fighting about who’s to blame. Although Republicans and Democrats agree on a lot of things, like reducing our dependence on foreign oil, they don’t work together; and within our parties, factions frequently wrangle themselves into a standstill.
We need a leader to inspire us into action, like Kennedy inspired us into a space program. What action? Well, how about creating an affordable medical system that serves all Americans; and making the U.S. educational system competitive with others world-wide; and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?
It’s time to put the fighting behind us. In the coming years, with the age of cheap fossil fuels growing to a close, it will doubtlessly take more and more effort to live environmentally and sustainably, and will in all likelihood require personal sacrifice, community efforts, better technology, new legislation, and more. So let’s get started. Let’s put some proposals on the table, and establish some tough goals, then get states competing, towns competing, and individuals competing to live more sanely and sustainably.
WE NEED A LEADER who can identify our common goals and unite us. Recently, on the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, the panel concluded that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on the issues, but are very different in how they approach things. According to them, Clinton is a top-down manager, like most Washingtonians, someone who determines the agenda and commands in the traditional manner. Whereas Obama believes in reform from the bottom up; he’s a coalition builder, an experienced negotiator from South Chicago, and a persuasive leader, who can compromise when necessary, and believes in building consensus and thereby finding workable solutions.
Obama’s style sounds good to me, it’s something new, yes, but also tried and true.
Curiously enough, Barack Obama reminds me of another candidate from not so long ago, a man who was young (even younger than Obama), and charismatic, inspiring, idealistic, and inexperienced in foreign affairs — and whose first inaugural address promised exactly the same things Senator Obama currently promotes.
If only Bill Clinton hadn’t gotten distracted, maybe two Democratic contenders wouldn’t be back here in the same old place trying to establish a national health care plan, and reduce the yawning gap between the rich and poor, and make things better for working Americans.
