Reading all the tributes and commentaries on Martin Luther King, Jr., leading up to the formal dedication of his memorial this weekend, I recalled once again my own memories of King and the glorious cause he led.
When King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial 48 years ago this month, the outcome of his nonviolent approach was anything but certain. The Civil Rights law was still a distant dream – despite being only a year from passage -- and the brutality against Freedom Riders, with its ugly footage playing out in living rooms all across America and around the world, was a daily staple of the evening news.
Yet, even in the darkest times, King resisted the call to violence, even from some of his own supporters, tired of seeing men and women in the movement getting beaten up and killed. He had a dream that nonviolence would eventually carry the day and he was right. In the end, he was so right. And for that reason alone he deserves a special memorial on the Mall.
In a different context, the thought recently occurred to me that maybe President Obama has that same dream -- that his reasoned, balanced, nonviolent approach to governing will prevail in the end. Maybe that’s why he is not heeding the calls of his supporters, including this one, urging him to get tough and fight back against his political adversaries.
Maybe he thinks that those advocating an uncompromising “my way or the highway” approach will be the source of their own undoing in the end. As a good friend recently reminded me, relax, “just give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.” And, if the continued disclosures about GOP front-runners Michelle Bachman and Texas Governor Rick Perry are any indication, I think my friend and the President may be on to something.
Maybe that’s why the President insisted on going on vacation and not calling the members of Congress back from theirs. Maybe he is hoping that Americans in Congressional districts and states all across America will deliver the message he has been trying to deliver all along: that in the end a balanced approach and a spirit of true compromise is the only reasonable way to govern, despite our differences.
On reducing the deficit, for example, there is ample evidence that Americans want a balanced approach, which includes increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, a position taken by multi-billionaire Warren Buffett. Moreover, polls show that the majority of ordinary Americans favor increased taxes on the rich, depending, of course, on what is meant by rich and where the line is drawn.
Just as importantly, if not more so, religious leaders of all stripes are protesting the tax breaks for millionaires because that would mean cutting funds for programs that help the poor and disadvantaged. Just this week, The National Catholic Reporter, reported that “almost no U.S. Catholic leaders (sic) have aligned themselves with the adamant Republican insistence on no tax increases for the very wealthy.”
If U.S. Catholic leaders continue to appeal to the Catholic Church’s time-honored allegiance to social justice, the Republicans – especially the Tea Party – are in for a world of hurt. Their position on abortion and gay marriage have pushed Catholics into the Republican ranks in recent elections, but now more and more Catholics whose position on abortion is unyielding realize there is such a thing as “life outside the womb” and that life deserves saving, too.
Does this mean that the President doesn’t need to pick up his game, as we and so many other fervent supporters have suggested? No, he definitely needs to pick up his game. He can’t continue to play “not to lose,” as Tom Friedman cautioned him in a recent New York Times column.
So, let’s hope the President spent his vacation getting his groove back and “goes big” in his jobs speech after Labor Day — the foremost concern of most Americans anyway — and goes to the country to fight for it. Let’s also hope that the August recess gives members of Congress a chance to listen to real Americans and not just the sound of their own voices in that echo chamber called the U.S. Capitol. Will enough Americans speak out? Will members of Congress heed the message? That remains to be seen.
Can the President pick up his game and rise to the challenge? Yes, he can — and I, for one, think he must because the alternative is unthinkable.
Gerald E. Lavey
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
The Elusive President
When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008 and then won, I was more excited than I had been since 1960 when John F. Kennedy captured the White House.
Even more than JFK, here was a man who embodied all the qualities I wanted in a President: high intelligence, coolness under pressure, a mesmerizing speaker and communicator, a strong moral character, a family man; he appeared to have it all. In contrast to Walter Lippmann’s comment about FDR having a first-class temperament but a second-class mind, Obama was said to have both. Author, President of the Harvard Law Review, professor of constitutional law, Barack Obama is arguably the smartest man ever to hold the office of President.
On top of that, he was an African-American, a dream come true for those of us who came of political age in the 60’s and were inspired and forever marked by the Civil Rights Movement and the example of Martin Luther King, Jr. Barack Obama was right out of Central Casting: The perfect man for the times, especially following the experience of the previous eight years.
Yet, shortly after Obama was inaugurated, a neighbor said of him: He’s too smart to be President. Taken aback at the time by that assessment, I did however recall Plato’s warning about philosopher-kings. A philosopher-king was the best type of person to lead a democratic state, according to Plato, but a person, he warned, who had the disabling tendency to ruminate endlessly about issues and not be resolute enough in action.
That same thought cropped up again in recent months as I struggled with my admiration and respect for the President and my assessment of his skills as leader. Equally disturbing was the thought: Maybe Barack Obama is too nice to be President.
Yet, we got in Barack Obama exactly what many of us said we wanted and now we are dissatisfied. We keep hearing in the news media and in our own heads: I wish he were tougher, willing to do the bare-knuckles fighting that successful politicians have always been able to do when necessary. His political opponents roll him time after time because they can, we fear.
Still, one year can be an eternity in politics, I realize, so there’s no telling what can happen by next November or in between. Maybe the President will demonstrate that patience and a continuing belief in centrist politics, balanced approaches, and compromise will carry the day in the end. After all, despite their giddiness over the debt ceiling “triumph,” the Republicans woke up the next day to find out that Congress had earned an 82 percent disapproval rating from the public. Which makes me wonder what planet the other 18 percent live on, but that’s another issue.
The President always talks about believing in the basic common sense and essential goodness of the American people. If so, they will wake up from this nightmare of savage divisiveness that has captured our political stage for the past couple of years and do the right thing in the end. That represents a leap of faith on my part rather than a conviction.
In the final analysis, how we respond politically over the next year will say much more about we as a people than it will ever say about Barack Obama. Yet, we are who we are, with the brawling, divisive, money-driven political system that’s been around for more than two hundred years. That’s not going to change. The President knew what he was getting into and the jury is still out on whether he is a fighter willing to mix it up for causes he believes in. It’s time for him to quit trying to be all things to all men and demonstrate that he’s up to the challenge to lead us where he and the better angels of our nature want to take us.
Gerald E. Lavey
Even more than JFK, here was a man who embodied all the qualities I wanted in a President: high intelligence, coolness under pressure, a mesmerizing speaker and communicator, a strong moral character, a family man; he appeared to have it all. In contrast to Walter Lippmann’s comment about FDR having a first-class temperament but a second-class mind, Obama was said to have both. Author, President of the Harvard Law Review, professor of constitutional law, Barack Obama is arguably the smartest man ever to hold the office of President.
On top of that, he was an African-American, a dream come true for those of us who came of political age in the 60’s and were inspired and forever marked by the Civil Rights Movement and the example of Martin Luther King, Jr. Barack Obama was right out of Central Casting: The perfect man for the times, especially following the experience of the previous eight years.
Yet, shortly after Obama was inaugurated, a neighbor said of him: He’s too smart to be President. Taken aback at the time by that assessment, I did however recall Plato’s warning about philosopher-kings. A philosopher-king was the best type of person to lead a democratic state, according to Plato, but a person, he warned, who had the disabling tendency to ruminate endlessly about issues and not be resolute enough in action.
That same thought cropped up again in recent months as I struggled with my admiration and respect for the President and my assessment of his skills as leader. Equally disturbing was the thought: Maybe Barack Obama is too nice to be President.
Yet, we got in Barack Obama exactly what many of us said we wanted and now we are dissatisfied. We keep hearing in the news media and in our own heads: I wish he were tougher, willing to do the bare-knuckles fighting that successful politicians have always been able to do when necessary. His political opponents roll him time after time because they can, we fear.
Still, one year can be an eternity in politics, I realize, so there’s no telling what can happen by next November or in between. Maybe the President will demonstrate that patience and a continuing belief in centrist politics, balanced approaches, and compromise will carry the day in the end. After all, despite their giddiness over the debt ceiling “triumph,” the Republicans woke up the next day to find out that Congress had earned an 82 percent disapproval rating from the public. Which makes me wonder what planet the other 18 percent live on, but that’s another issue.
The President always talks about believing in the basic common sense and essential goodness of the American people. If so, they will wake up from this nightmare of savage divisiveness that has captured our political stage for the past couple of years and do the right thing in the end. That represents a leap of faith on my part rather than a conviction.
In the final analysis, how we respond politically over the next year will say much more about we as a people than it will ever say about Barack Obama. Yet, we are who we are, with the brawling, divisive, money-driven political system that’s been around for more than two hundred years. That’s not going to change. The President knew what he was getting into and the jury is still out on whether he is a fighter willing to mix it up for causes he believes in. It’s time for him to quit trying to be all things to all men and demonstrate that he’s up to the challenge to lead us where he and the better angels of our nature want to take us.
Gerald E. Lavey
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Much Ado about Not Much
We may have dodged a bullet in terms of the debt limit, but we certainly defaulted once again on responsible governance. The agreement on the debt ceiling was a paper tiger, if not a sham, and the stock market immediately reflected how feckless the agreement was to improve the economy and create jobs.
Again, it was all about politics, and in that respect, the Republicans, driven by the Tea Party zealots, carried the day. Speaker Boehner said he was happy with the results because he got “98 percent of what I wanted.” While the President, hoping to reach a balanced, grand compromise that would have helped reduce the deficit and promote economic growth, comes across as a dupe and a failed leader.
On top of that, this embarrassing spectacle between the Congress and the White House is not finished. We’re just getting a short reprieve while the Congress is on its five-week break. Then it’s back to business as usual. Although some optimists have suggested the agreement was a good first step, the 12-member so-called Super Committee that was created to find additional ways to reduce the deficit is not likely to achieve much, if anything. And the legislative triggers that would go into effect if no agreements are reached are a joke. Been there, done that.
Besides, the Republicans have already made it clear that its six members will be chosen for their adamant opposition to tax increases, and chances are the Democrats will stock the committee with those equally opposed to any changes in Social Security and Medicare. This despite most economists maintaining that we can’t just cut ourselves out of this problem, that we need to raise revenues and we need to put everything on the table, including sacred cow entitlement programs.
So, it looks to me like continuing stalemate and gridlock for the foreseeable future because what’s not on the table is compromise. The Tea Party, in particular, is not willing to budge in the slightest. They’re a scary bunch which gives them a decided edge in negotiating with sane, responsible people. Senator James Webb of Virginia, who served under President Reagan, hopes that the Republican Party, which is riding the Tea Party wave, doesn’t look back one day and realize, in the words of the infantry officer in Vietnam, they tried to “destroy the village in order to save it.”
Whatever happened to the concept of “compromise?”
Once considered “the genius of American politics,” in the words of the late historian Shelby Foote, compromise is now considered a dirty word, to quote President Obama, and a sign of weakness.
American greats such as Benjamin Franklin and Henry Clay were lauded for their ability to forge compromises. Our very Constitution is a paragon of compromise and our Civil War a tragic reminder of what can happen when compromise fails. In our time, President George H.W. Bush believed in prudence and balance, and paid the price for it politically when he agreed, despite his “read my lips” pledge, to raise taxes that helped pave the way for the prosperity of the 90s and a budget surplus that his son inherited and squandered.
Warren Buffett said he could solve the deficit problem in five minutes; “You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” Cute thought, but removing politics from the legislative process is the stuff of fantasy.
However, there are faint glimmers of hope, with the emergence of The Coffee Party www.coffeepartyusa.com on the right side of the political spectrum that aims to restore the balance that the Republican Party once enjoyed, and a third-party movement http://www.americanselect.org/, -- recently cited by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman -- of unhappy Republicans, Democrats, and Independents fed up with the two-party system who want a third choice.
So, once again, hope springs eternal, even though these movements show the level of national discontent rather than any hope of relief for the immediate future.
Meantime, thank God, the NFL owners and players have reached a settlement and we’ll at least have football to distract us.
Gerald E. Lavey
Again, it was all about politics, and in that respect, the Republicans, driven by the Tea Party zealots, carried the day. Speaker Boehner said he was happy with the results because he got “98 percent of what I wanted.” While the President, hoping to reach a balanced, grand compromise that would have helped reduce the deficit and promote economic growth, comes across as a dupe and a failed leader.
On top of that, this embarrassing spectacle between the Congress and the White House is not finished. We’re just getting a short reprieve while the Congress is on its five-week break. Then it’s back to business as usual. Although some optimists have suggested the agreement was a good first step, the 12-member so-called Super Committee that was created to find additional ways to reduce the deficit is not likely to achieve much, if anything. And the legislative triggers that would go into effect if no agreements are reached are a joke. Been there, done that.
Besides, the Republicans have already made it clear that its six members will be chosen for their adamant opposition to tax increases, and chances are the Democrats will stock the committee with those equally opposed to any changes in Social Security and Medicare. This despite most economists maintaining that we can’t just cut ourselves out of this problem, that we need to raise revenues and we need to put everything on the table, including sacred cow entitlement programs.
So, it looks to me like continuing stalemate and gridlock for the foreseeable future because what’s not on the table is compromise. The Tea Party, in particular, is not willing to budge in the slightest. They’re a scary bunch which gives them a decided edge in negotiating with sane, responsible people. Senator James Webb of Virginia, who served under President Reagan, hopes that the Republican Party, which is riding the Tea Party wave, doesn’t look back one day and realize, in the words of the infantry officer in Vietnam, they tried to “destroy the village in order to save it.”
Whatever happened to the concept of “compromise?”
Once considered “the genius of American politics,” in the words of the late historian Shelby Foote, compromise is now considered a dirty word, to quote President Obama, and a sign of weakness.
American greats such as Benjamin Franklin and Henry Clay were lauded for their ability to forge compromises. Our very Constitution is a paragon of compromise and our Civil War a tragic reminder of what can happen when compromise fails. In our time, President George H.W. Bush believed in prudence and balance, and paid the price for it politically when he agreed, despite his “read my lips” pledge, to raise taxes that helped pave the way for the prosperity of the 90s and a budget surplus that his son inherited and squandered.
Warren Buffett said he could solve the deficit problem in five minutes; “You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” Cute thought, but removing politics from the legislative process is the stuff of fantasy.
However, there are faint glimmers of hope, with the emergence of The Coffee Party www.coffeepartyusa.com on the right side of the political spectrum that aims to restore the balance that the Republican Party once enjoyed, and a third-party movement http://www.americanselect.org/, -- recently cited by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman -- of unhappy Republicans, Democrats, and Independents fed up with the two-party system who want a third choice.
So, once again, hope springs eternal, even though these movements show the level of national discontent rather than any hope of relief for the immediate future.
Meantime, thank God, the NFL owners and players have reached a settlement and we’ll at least have football to distract us.
Gerald E. Lavey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)