It is a core belief of Washington's political culture that policymaking by compromise -- "meeting in the middle" -- is the way to gain and keep the support of the vast, moderate, essentially reasonable group of voters who constitute a coherent political center. My problem with this analysis is that so many of the big decisions that have to be made are binary: yes or no. The terrain in the middle consists only of "maybe" or "kind of," and I see no evidence that the country is in a "maybe" or "kind of" mood.
So writes the inimitable Eugene Robinson this morning, in a column entitled A Middle Ground Gone Missing He begins by noting the conventional wisdom of "The Village" that the safest thing political is to run to the center, but that now
the political center looks like the white line running down the middle of a busy street -- a foolish place to stand and an excellent place to get run over.
It is this idea I wish to explore.
In Revelation 3:15-16 we can read
I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.
In Dante's Inferno one encounters something similar:
The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality
note - on this text see this comment
Or as that great American Jim Hightower has put it,
There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
On might disagree with some of what Robinson has to offer - he thinks it was a mistake to allow the public option to become the litmus test, noting that other countries have reached universal coverage without such an option, although he certainly would have insisted on something much closer to true universality for dropping it than anything the "Gang of Six" has proposed. But even if one would quibble or quarrel on this point, I suspect there would be little disagreement with this statement:
But what's the point of making concessions to Republicans who, in the end, aren't going to vote for the legislation anyway?
Except one can note this: if one offers to negotiate, takes their suggestions, they remain recalcitrant, then the President is in a position to expose to the American people their lack of honesty in the process and perhaps change the tenor of Washington once and for all. That's possible. I do not expect that, not yet.
Robinson is just as harsh towards Dems like the Blue Dogs, noting
Do they think they have a chance of beating their next Republican opponents if progressive activists aren't enthusiastic about writing checks, making phone calls and going door to door?
Perhaps some of those Blue Dogs need to be reminded that unless they have the support of the broad base of the Democratic party they may well lack the resources to hold their seats, no matter how many compromises on the agenda of the President they seem willing to make. In fact, they may even see primaries: in Virginia, only one of the 3 newly elected Dems in the House joined the Blue Dogs - Glenn Nye in the 2nd CD. And his voting record on issues of importance to progressives is no better than that of Ron Paul - around 25%. Heck, even Rick Boucher in the increasingly conservative 9th CD votes at better than a 70% rate.
Let me return to the theme that caught my attention. I remember that on policy many Americans disagreed with Reagan, but were willing to vote for him because he seemed to stand for something, he gave the impression of having a core set of values.
While Americans might in general be small "c" conservative in that they are reluctant intellectually to see radical change under MOST (not all) circumstance, they also are quite capable of being moved emotionally. Not only do most Americans WANT the government to help them and theirs, they also have a sense of fair play that when they see violated they want the government to intervene. That is why so many of the programs of the Great Society were readily supported: the conscience of the US was shocked by the violence against civil rights demonstrators, whether it was the fire hoses and police dogs of Birmingham, or the mounted troopers riding over kneeling and praying marchers at the Edmund Pettis Bridge.
Similarly, the conditions seen in "Harvest of Shame" moved not only the populace but also many key politicians. Bobby Kennedy visited Appalachia and came away convinced that we had a moral responsibility to act.
a moral responsibility those words are clearly applicable to the health care crisis in this country. Intellectually I knew that long before I first read (and wrote about) the Remote Area Medical Mission in Wise Virginia. I lost any doubt during the weekend I spent there in July, which is why I am taking the first weekend in October to go to a similar event in Grundy, VA.
How do we compromise on morality? IF we can make the case that what we are attempting do is a moral obligation, then I believe the politics will be on our side - the conscience of most people can be challenged. Clearly the late Senator Kennedy understood this, which is why the words of Matthew 25 were so prominent at his funeral. For whatever human flaws he had (and acknowledged both in his letter to the Pope and in his soon to be published memoir). on this he did not lack moral clarity.
Part of the responsibility of those of us who speak out on issues is to remember our dual responsibility to afflict the comfortable as we comfort the afflicted.
Yes, in politics we must look at what is possible. We must "advance the ball" down the field, since Americans are too fond of football metaphors. But one should also remember that it matters not who gains the most yardage, only who scores the most points. Thus speak not to me of points of agreement in negotiation if those do not lead to meaningful action in legislation that becomes law.
In moral tests one cannot be neutral. There are things which should not be bargained away for sake of agreement, for the fig leaf for those in The Village that we are being Bi-Partisan. Obama was elected because the people wanted things to be accomplished, and they wanted a different kind of politics. I would argue that compromise for compromise's sake - for the ability to claim bipartisanship - is just as much a part of the kind of politics Americans intensely dislike as was the sheer raw power exercised by those like Tom Delay to accomplish goals that were not even supported by many in his own caucus - think of the impeachment of Clinton over a personal moral failing having nothing to do with his performance as president, or keeping the vote on the drug benefit in Medicare for hours in order to twist arms and bring back out of town Representatives to win the vote, or the postering on Terry Schiavo, or the Texas mid-decade redistricting (including the misuse of Homeland Security to trace a plane used by Democratic State Senators).
I will not argue that inclusion of a robust public option is itself a moral test. I will argue that what that option would create should be a non-negotiable item because that impact addresses a moral issue of affordability and accessibility of health care for all, and thus absent a counter proposal that quickly achieves both of those goals should not be subject to being traded away. Not for the figleaf of "bipartisanship."
The singer Loudoun Wainwright had song that sticks in my mind right now, reminiscent of the words of Jim Hightower - "Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road, Stinking to High Heave." If the Dems - including the president - bargain away the public option for the sake of getting a bill, any bill, through, which does not truly address the moral requirement of affordable health care for all, that is what they - and their political future - will be: a dead skunk, stinking, discouraging and turning away the voters and activists whose support they will need as we hold our noses and walk away.
Allow me to offer one more set of words, these from Yeats, at the beginning of his poem "The Second Coming" --
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
I used a question to title this diary. For myself, I have no doubt that I would give an affirmative answer to that question.
What about you?
Peace.