Over the last two centuries, members of congress from across the political spectrum have forged compromises that elevated our civil debate, moved our country forward, and gave the world a model for democracy. Sure, at times we did not live up to our highest ideals, but never in my lifetime have I seen such a sustained effort to undermine the function of our government. Government doesn't possess all the answers, but to say that a government has no answers is to fundamentally misunderstand the definition of democracy. When Americans work and sacrifice together in the battle for a better future, we solve tremendous problems.

CONSERVATIVE GRUMBLINGS
Led at its core by the vociferous anti-government rantings of conservative politicians and pundits, Americans' distrust of Washington has hardened the fringe elements of both parties, obliterating comity.

What remains in the crater of goodwill is a depression of courage. We, the American people--not the Republican people or the Democrat people--have systematically hacked off our head and limbs. No longer have we hands for the shaking or legs for the crossing of aisles. No longer have we a head filled with reasoned thought, engaged spirited debate. All that remains is a thrashing stump drenching the public discourse with venomous hate.

CHANGE IS NIGH
What will the U.S. Senate and House resemble after the 2010 mid-term elections? Vultures looking to amplify their stature in order to secure lucrative post-congressional lobbying positions are likely to vastly increase their numbers. These creatures are not interested in serving the greater good; the louder the voice the more lucrative the offers that come their way.

Tea baggers and their allies have such a fundamental distrust of government institutions that they will proudly elect vultures incapable of compromise, and vote out the few members with proven bipartisan track records.

The coming change is the final death blow to reality. Already hardened political lines will be pushed further to the fringes, offering more peril than reward for defying base ideology. The coming change is an even less productive congress, a more feckless administration, and a further weakened trust in public institutions.

WHERE DID WE GO WRONG?
I have worked for the last four years as an independent political strategist serving mostly Republican candidates. Although I am proudly a registered Democrat, I see value in productive and constructive opposition. I maintain a dim hope that sensible forces within the American right will survive the coming congressional massacre to help guide America through our time of national crisis.

When I was 15 I was really excited about the '96 Dole-Kemp campaign--yes, I was excited about Bob Dole and Jack Kemp--my political philosophy guided by a sense that government entitlements desperately needed reform, and in some cases, elimination. Social Security needed massive changes, preferably with full privatization for young workers like myself.

In 2000 I enthusiastically supported Sen. John McCain in his Republican presidential primary bid. He demonstrated that bipartisanship was a badge of honor, earned with decades of honorable service to our country. I worked for "McCain Youth 2000" in Long Island, New York, making signs, organizing rallies, handing out palm cards, and performing hundreds of other tasks. John McCain was the first presidential candidate to use the internet as a grassroots organizing tool, a fact for which he receives little credit. The forces of hate and political destruction now afoot are using tactics learned from this and subsequent campaigns to mount their attacks.

McCain was indeed a maverick in 2000. He rightly voiced his opinion and fought for comprehensive reforms that helped remove special-interest money from political campaigns. Yet McCain now faces the toughest reelection battle in his political career simply because we was willing to make hard compromises and work with Democrats. That is the poison of the tea bag.

POLITICAL GROWTH SPURT
Even though I had been leaning in the direction for some time, in 2003 I officially changed my registration to Democrat from Republican because the Democratic Party best represents core American values of hard work, justice for all and courage in the face of tyranny.

Seven years later, America is at a dangerous crossroads with peril lurking down every road. With the election of Barack Obama, I, like many Americans, believed that we were entering a period of broad cultural healing, and that he was the one leader who could successfully navigate the ship of state on its treacherous journey. I am not so naive to think that rainbows and unicorns were going to descend from the heavens and sprinkle fairy dust over Washington, replacing distrust and division with peace and cupcakes. However, what I did not expect was that the anti-government movement would be so successful in carrying their message of intolerance to facts and ignorance of history to the forefront of American debate.

Civil discourse is as lost an art form as the hand-written letter. Sure, people still write with their hands, but eloquent words on stationery are replaced with incoherent messages on poster board. The ingenuity and tenacity of the tea party forces has deeply confounded educated progressives, producing victories for dubious agents of change. This clearly presents the fundamental flaws of progressive political strategy.

The right responds most effectively to emotional messages which pull at their heartstrings. (This is why I enjoy working for Republican candidates.) The left, on the other hand, seeks to engage in a professorial debate of the facts. Throughout our history, Americans have never been concerned first and foremost with facts because facts ignore the notion of faith. The most direct route to winning the mind of a voter is through the heart.

Barack Obama wasn't elected president because he presented logical reasons for his election--though he did. He was elected president because the idea of a black president with a soft, palatable, progressive message fundamentally appealed to the hearts of Americans who wanted to believe that racism and segregation were ghosts of the past. While Obama was by far the best choice in 2008, America needed to seat 535 more Barack Obamas in desks at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to effect real change in Washington. Sadly, there is only one Barack Obama.

MR. SMITH RUNS FROM WASHINGTON
As radical elements dip their tea bags in the well of America's future, they sit on the face of moderate members of congress with the solitary goal of preventing progress. These fundamentalists chase away the few good men and women left in our government. As retiring Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said in his surprise retirement announcement Monday, "I do not love congress." How could anyone love congress when every day is an election, and no real work can commence?

Mr. Bayh is not the first politician, nor will he be the last, to run from the poisoned game of congressional politics.

SIMPLE SOLUTIONS
For years I have advocated change in how we elect our representatives in Washington and how they perform their duties. Unfortunately, the current system prevents real progress from occurring because no congressional majority would vote to change the rules of the game.

Here are a few common sense solutions that would truly change the way Washington works:

• Members of the U.S. House of Representatives should be elected to a single six-year term
• Members of the U.S. Senate should be elected to a single eight-year term
• U.S. Supreme Court justices could serve no more than a single 15-year term
• Members of congress would be prevented from working as a lobbyist for 10 years after they complete their term
• Presidents would be elected to a single eight-year term
• Eliminating the senate filibuster and instituting majority rules
• Judiciary positions would not be elected, rather appointed by the chief executive of that government level
• All federal, state and local campaigns would be 100% publicly financed, and corporations would be barred from advertising, endorsing or supporting any candidate

Swift implementation of these ideas would by no means solve all of our country's myriad problems, but they would go along way to improving its function and restoring public trust.

GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY SOCIAL SECURITY
Since 1995 I have paid into this broken system--and likely will continue to do so for another 60-70 years--to receive a sharply negative return on my investment. By contrast, the de facto 0% interest rate I receive for any overpayment in my income taxes (tax refund) is a far more sound investment than any contribution to Social Security. Why should anyone have such an outrageous return on investment forced on them for a program that will eat up the largest share of our GDP in the decades to come?

As a long-time self-employed individual, I have paid a significantly higher percentage of my income to the federal government when compared to salaried individuals with similar compensation, but I don't have the benefit of social safety nets. There is no unemployment insurance for me to collect when business dries up; I can't afford health insurance premiums for myself or my employee-contractors; and my access to credit started shrinking in 2007 and early 2008 before the economy took a complete nose-dive. Like many other casualties of our broken system, I was forced to close my business and lay-off workers. Where was my bailout?

These sentiments are a large part of what is fueling the harsh rhetoric of the tea party movement. My greatest concern with the tea baggers is not that they are thoughtfully voicing the concerns of people like me, but that they are supporting candidates who have no interest in actually improving the function of government. These candidates engage in public temper tantrums reminiscent of the ineffectual anti-Iraq war movement, rather than debate the specifics of an issue. This repulsion of civil discourse is not going to usher in an age of better government; it will only make rational citizens less inclined to tune in to their message.

CHANGE WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN
With no end in sight to the perverted dialog, these are among the many changes we shouldn't expect to see in the future:

• The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
• Marriage equality for all
• Comprehensive climate change legislation
• Social Security and Medicare reform
• Education reform
• Broad and inclusive employment non-discrimination legislation
• Restoration of balance to the American system of taxation
• Making pay-as-you-go rules a constitutional amendment
• Instituting a robust single-payer public health care system
• A coherent national energy, infrastructure and technology policy

The strongest impediment to American progress is the political stagnation of the perpetual campaign. Without fundamental change to the idea of how the governement operates, we can't expect to place new people in a broken system and somehow expect different results. With the departure of centrist, reasonable individuals from the halls of political Washington, it's time to wave the white flag of our castrated democracy.

Justin Schuck is an independent political media strategist, and served as a senior policy adviser to the 2006 Scott Rolle for Attorney General campaign in Maryland. He was the founding editor of PoliticsAside.net and the executive director of The Center for Independent Dialog in Washington D.C.

Labels: Barack Obama, Budget, Democratic Party, Editorial, Evan Bayh, Government, John McCain, politics, Republican Party, washington dc

Democratic Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine is being talked about in political circles as "at the top of [Obama's Vice Presidential candidate] short list." While this might be good fodder for the Wolf Blitzers and Mike Barnicles of the world, I don't think it's smart talk.

I have said for many months, close to a year now, that the only Virginian that fills perceived gaps in Obama's resume is Jim Webb, but I acknowledge that his previous statements on women would be a sharp affront to Clinton and her supporters -- and myself for that matter. But the selection of Webb would certainly make Obama seem more earthy, manly and appealing to a broader range of Americans.

If I were advising Obama, I would give the following advice: Pick a white man from the south. If John Edwards were a politically valuable asset, he'd be at the top of the list, but he proved in 2004 that he isn't the person to compensate for problems at the top of the ticket, and his never having been reelected doesn't make him more appealing. I still think Janet Napolitano is a sensible choice, but she isn't reassuring.

FAIR WARNING: I'm going to be extremely superficial. I hate Gov. Kaine's eyebrows. I hate his how his smile always appears forced and the way his eyebrows arch when he's thinking. He's not an attractive candidate, but I guess Obama is attractive enough for both of them.

I think that the best way to demonstrate how you want to change politics is to change politics. I think Sen. Chuck Hagel would make a good choice. I think Colin Powell would be a smart move, but Alma would likely interfere again. I even think Newt Gingrich would be a wild choice, but it would demonstrate a fundamental understanding that America will always be somewhere in the middle. The Democratic Party would be in a self-hating, never-ending turmoil if Obama chose someone outside of their party to run with the senator. The move would likely depress turnout among the most liberal constituencies and it's that tendency among left-aisle politics that screws up a good thing election cycle after election cycle.

But it's not my choice, it's Obama's choice and only he knows what he's looking to fill. But this lowly pundit thinks a candidate who brings voters not already in the senator's column would be a bigger value to the ticket. Selecting Gov. Kaine might enable the senator to think he's got Virginia wrapped up. And the truth is, it won't.

Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, Editorial, Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, Newt Gingrich, Tim Kaine

The only real way we can support our troops is to have the ability to pay their salaries and benefits with American Money. It is far past the time when running up foreign debt to pay for our wars and the sacrifices of soldiers if the burden isn't shared by all.

Unlike no other war in the history of the world, we are asked to shoulder the burden not with responsibility or care, but on the backs of low-income Americans often from low economic hope areas. We place yellow ribbons around trees. We put magnets on our SUVs. We bedazzle our license plates with ghosts of our sacred flag. "United we stand" is emblazoned on everything from coffee cups to baby bibs. But what does that mean? Do these hollow phrases ask us all to share the sacrifice? Does it ask us to drive less to leave more petrol for our military? Does it ask us to buy used cars or to recycle more to free up industry to convert to war-supporting operations? No. "United we stand" has gone from the lofty rhetoric of a nation healing from the wounds of the attacks of September 11th to the Republican rallying cry. They defame the definition of "united" to make us more divided.

Nowhere has anyone asked us to make sacrifices in our daily lives for our freedom. It's time this burden is shared. If our leaders see fit that our security as a nation is compromised and requires a military solution, our leaders owe us the respect of asking for our shared sacrifice.

The idea of shared sacrifice is practiced often in humanitarian crisis at home and abroad. When earthquakes level hundreds of square miles we give; when tsunamis devastate whole continents we give; when hurricanes and floods destroy lives, communities and cities we give; when terrorists murder thousands we give. But when our country is fighting wars on multiple fronts we give nothing.

I don't wear a flag pin on my lapel; I wear one on my heart. I try to remember the tremendous sacrifice Americans are making at the direction of our president. We do have one of the finest fighting forces in the world today, but this administration's stubborn naiveté in it's nonacademic prosecution of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show the vulnerability of a nation ruled by sound bites and slogans.

We again need a leader who can talk outside of an outline and stand in his (or her) own shoes to direct a thoughtful U.S. foreign policy towards a respectful engagement of the international community.

Labels: Afghanistan, Bush Administration, Editorial, Flag, flag pin, Iraq, Justin Schuck, September 11th, U.S. Military, United We Stand, War

I could draw my explanation out, but regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination fight, and I still predict Sen. Barack Obama, the polls between the Democratic nominee and the John McCain will be close. They'll be close right through to election day.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's because Clinton is a woman, because Obama is black and because McCain is old. Call me crazy, but it's going to be a battle of the lesser-risks for most Americans, and no poll regardless of the science or the sample behind it will ever accurately show what the actual electorate is thinking.

I get calls all the time, usually for free vacations or herbal supplements, but I think that polling is inherently flawed. Polling that takes place in a market research firm in front of a double-sided mirror isn't any more accurate, no matter how many cameras are recording the participants' reactions.

There are two things in life that have no science, love and politics. Any attempt to apply scientific methods to either yields nothing but enlarged egos and broken hearts.

Labels: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Editorial, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Politics Aside, Polling, Primary, Republican Party