Politics

Politics in America has always been contentious. Our respect for the free expression and open discussion of diverse ideas is what defines our system of government and our country, and has made the United States the strongest democracy in the world. Yet as national leaders from both parties, we are alarmed by the growing trend toward a corrosive political culture of hyper-partisanship and personal rancor.
 
Democrats and Republicans today often seem less like respectful political opponents and more like immovable partisan enemies who question one another’s motives and even love of country. Extreme wings of both parties are gaining strength from powerful special interests, creating a deepening ideological divide that makes even routine collaboration rare. The American people have become understandably cynical about all this, and doubtful of Washington’s ability to carry out its basic work, let alone help create a more vibrant future.

Last weekend, I joined The Faith and Politics Institute on their annual Congressional Civil Rights pilgrimage to Alabama. I’ve taken this trip several times, but its significance this year could not be more poignant. While we have come a long way and much progress has been made, the many battles fought forty eight years ago in Selma are still raging, but this time we’re not fighting in the streets, we’re fighting in the courts.

Last week, some of my colleagues and I took that fight to the steps of the Supreme Court to rally in support of the most effective Civil Rights legislation ever enacted by Congress, The Voting Rights Act.

There has been much discussion recently about the welcome prospect of pending immigration reform legislation. This is a propitious moment for our Nation to be having this important debate. Unfortunately, many people are narrowly framing this discussion through the lens of political expediency. The truth is that most conservatives - and most progressives for that matter - actually do want to find a solution to our nation's immigration crisis. Unfortunately, the traditional opponents of immigration reform and immigration in general, are doing their best to mitigate against the coming political winds that favor a bipartisan reform of our immigration laws. These anti-immigration advocates, who are in fact paid lobbyists, are encouraging Republicans to blindly follow them as they continue to bury their heads in the sand, and continue to spout their "anti-immigrant agenda" talking points.

Gridlock is good politics these days. Bold action or compromise is easy for the media and political opponents to exploit. Defending the party platform and blaming the opposing party for inaction is an effective re-election strategy for incumbents of both parties. This is the perverse political logic of gridlock.

The logic of gridlock has played out thus far on the $85 billion spending reduction or sequester scheduled to take place on March 1. The president can press for action, but only Congress can avert the reductions. The calculation in Congress, to date, seems to be that the political costs of making a deal are higher than doing nothing.

The president’s State of the Union address represented a sustained exercise in the politics of lowered expectations. President Obama used this year’s speech to remind Americans of a familiar list of policy priorities and to signal that he would not be opening up a broad new agenda in his second term.

Just four years ago, the president faced a seemingly more immediate, focused, and insistent set of problems. His corresponding rhetoric reflected a keener sense of urgency, innovation, and leadership. In 2009, President Obama confronted a ballooning unemployment rate, unstable markets, and a housing industry near collapse. At the time, the president pledged to the nation that “we will rebuild, we will recover” and he promised “to act boldly and wisely to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”

Eager to change face of the party and the trajectory of electoral politics, Republicans put 41 year-old Florida Senator Marco Rubio in the daunting position of offering the rebuttal to Tuesday’s State of the Union address by President Obama. Dry mouths and water bottles aside, real questions about the future of the Republican Party persisted: what brand of conservatism would Rubio illuminate, (how) does it differ from what we’ve heard in the recent past, and will it prove successful?  

In many ways, the substance of the Rubio speech was completely in line with mainstream Republican dogma. America as an exceptional nation. An unshakeable belief in free enterprise. A nod to the value of life “at every stage.” Fewer taxes. Less spending. Less debt. Less government. Where Rubio and Republicans seek to grow the economy, President Obama and Democrats simply want to grow government.

The ghastly tragedy in Connecticut, the rising number of military and veterans suicides, and too many other stories have once again moved the spotlight onto mental illness.  Pundits and politicians, with the occasional expert to provide context, remind Americans that our country needs to improve treatment and services to disturbed individuals who might be at risk of committing such heinous acts. The words all sound good, but the likelihood of actually transforming the care of the mentally ill is extremely low if the experience over the past 10 years with the DoD and VA are indicative. Compared to other areas of medicine, mental health has improved little in the 40 years that I have been working in the field. In this, as in so many areas of life, what has happened in the treatment of brain disorders and mental illness for combat veterans can been seen as a microcosm of our society as a whole. There are more similarities than differences in this field across the military and the civilian communities.

In his fifth State of the Union address, President Obama underscored the importance of creating jobs and  promoting economic growth, addressing the upcoming sequester, making investments in education and infrastructure, and passing comprehensive immigration reform. While most can agree these things are important, unfortunately, the president’s speech focused on what divides us as a nation, not what brings us together.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked the Congress of the United States to actually govern, to actually vote on issues sequentially and to deliberate in public. Can you imagine that?

Let’s open the legislative process to the tools presently available to have true and meaningful dialogue about the issues facing the American people. Let’s return to the precept that elected officials are to lead the educative function of their office holding by debating the issues, informing the public, and having the citizens make their views known.

Since President Obama nominated Senator Chuck Hagel as the next secretary of defense in early January, an ugly barrage of mudslinging and name-calling has ensued on Capitol Hill. While every presidential nominee should be thoroughly vetted by the Senate, tarnishing the name of a decorated Vietnam veteran to score political points is disgraceful. The misrepresentation of Hagel's sound foreign policy positions has now given way to ceaseless tactics to delay a confirmation vote. On Sunday, Senator Lindsay Graham threatened to hold up the confirmation vote unless the administration provided additional details on Benghazi. Sen. Graham should remember the Senate is in session, not the circus — this sideshow must end. Sen. Hagel should be promptly confirmed as secretary of defense.