I hate politics. Ok, so really… that’s kind of a lie. Sorry, I attempt to be transparent. I’m also very human. While several of you consider yourselves among that camp (a camp that includes my very respected spouse), I do not hate politics. If, however, there were ever days when the Intramuralist was most tempted, Monday and Tuesday were two.
From this semi-humble vantage point, politics is a tool that is best used as an ethical, responsible means to govern and assist people. When I come to the proverbial breaking point where the thought of “hate” creeps into my head, it’s typically prompted by a distortion of that responsible means — typically, too, made manifest via the perception of either arrogance or self-servingness. It’s a point where what’s best for the country seems secondary to some other motive — a motive which may or may not be able to be discerned with certainty.
Afford me first the grace to offer both caveat and confession…
All parties and all people are capable of arrogance. All parties and people are capable of self-servingness. I am equally capable. Note: neither Democrats nor Republicans are overwhelmingly noted for their outstanding ethics; neither is known to consistently put what’s best for the country first.
Hence, follow the sequence of events leading to Monday and Tuesday…
Both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama promised to enact immigration reform. Bush promised it within term 2; Obama promised it within year 1 of term 1. Neither prioritized such as promised. With arguably up to 12 million persons living in this country illegally — impacting our workplace, healthcare system, etc. — this is an issue that undoubtedly has bipartisan appeal (hence, the promises)… hence, also, why the Intramuralist believes this is not a partisan issue.
Consistent with that thinking, on Monday, a group of 8 leading senatorial voices (which included Dick Durbin, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Chuck Schumer) excitedly and incredibly respectfully announced the bipartisan agreement they crafted in order to deal with this challenge well. Look at the polls. Citizens have no desire for “liberal rule,” “conservative rule,” or anyone’s dictatorship; they want — we want — effective, bipartisan agreement. American citizens do not seem to believe that one party has the complete and always correct way. Hence, Monday’s bipartisan agreement — where both Democrats and Republicans had to “give” on something and were still excited about it — seemed a potential, effective solution.
That solution may still exist. It may not.
On Tuesday, the President decided it was necessary to announce his immigration proposal. He flew to Las Vegas and back to D.C. solely to deliver this address (note: such a trip costs taxpayers an estimated $1.6 million). While commending the senators for their announced actions, Obama added that the Senate must move fast, saying, “If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.” The President’s proposal seemingly differs from the mixed group of senators in that it does not require border security prior to offering free legal status.
As a person who (does not) hate politics — and questions this of all parties — I question the motive of the President’s speech. Was the proposed bipartisan solution not enough? Was the senators’ joint excitement not ample to keep the momentum rolling toward achieving what’s best for our country? Or does there exist some secondary motive — something that true, we cannot discern with certainty?
In the White House Press Secretary’s daily Monday briefing, Jay Carney added the following: “I think it’s important before we let the moment pass to acknowledge that the progress we’re seeing embodied in the principles put forward by this bipartisan group is happening for a reason: I think it’s happening because consensus is developing in the country, a bipartisan consensus, and it’s happening because the President has demonstrated significant leadership on this issue.” [emphasis mine]
“Because the President.” President Bush? President Obama? My sense is that who is responsible pales in comparison to actual solution.
Wait. Allow me one more significant tangent prior to this post’s end…
If you find yourself excessively irritated or joyfully ‘amen-ing’ at today’s dialogue, please be aware of the prodigious potential for naiveté on each of our parts. Know that persons from both parties have secondary motives, and also know that no politician is exempt from hidden motive, regardless of how much of our admiration they tend to attract.
Ok, ok… enough… I don’t really hate politics. It’s just that sometimes both parties really tempt me.
Respectfully,
AR