THe Myth of Instant Change in America

One of the biggest myths in the unwritten bible of American liberalism is that FDR was elected by a whirlwind in 1933, and everything was fixed immediately. Many people assume that the Democratically controlled Congress was nothing but a rubber stamp that gleefully pumped out the laws creating Social Security, the FDIC, and several other pieces of progressive legislation that reverberate to this day. It is a good story. But, like all myths, it is a collection of inaccuracies and fallacies wrapped around a kernel of truth.

The fact is, as much as FDR accomplished in those legendary first 100 days, not all of it was successful. Much of what was passed was later thrown out by the admittedly out of touch Supreme Court , and that which was never challenged in the courts didn't do as much as hoped, or needed additional legislation later to improve it. The original flavor of Social Security would be considered a betrayal of the nation by the liberal blogosphere today. Many times FDR had to turn to progressive Republicans to get his legislation passed, as many southern Democrats joined with conservative Republicans to oppose FDR. The Depression continued for the most part until the start of World War Two, although the various New Deal pieces of legislation certainly helped keep the nation afloat during that turbulent decade. Nevermind that there were few victories for minorities during this time, a result of the need by FDR to cater to the racist southern Congressmen who held a disproportionate control over Congress during the Jim Crow era (and later the war racism of the west coasters).

An era that was somewhat more accurately an explosion of liberalism was the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson. Even this was nothing more than a major extrapolation of the New Deal, and its civil rights components nothing more than a culmination of a bitter struggle since the end of Reconstruction and the disgrace of Jim Crow. Even here it took the myth of a fallen President, a President who was the most talented vote wringer in our history, and a few willing Republicans to get those laws done. And considering all of those facts, it still wasn't a complete victory, as the divisions over Vietnam, the many well-intentioned failures of the Great Society, and the backlash that created the abomination that is the modern GOP have shown.

Today, the idea that something as sweeping as the New Deal or the Great Society could be attempted is not very convincing. The battle over civil rights in the 1960s resulted in a shift of the Republican base from the Northeast and Midwest to the South, as Rockefeller Republicans went blue while Dixiecrats turned red. The "Reagan Revolution" (the conservative version of the New Deal myth) has created a class of politicians on the right that are unwilling and even hostile to working with Democrats. Where FDR could look to Norris, Borah, and others to support his domestic agenda, Obama and the Congressional leaders face a party who has decided its goal is to be a party of obstruction. Without a few people willing to cross the aisle, the significant, if fairly small, group of conservative Democrats* can pout and hold their breath until bills are watered down so they can still vote against them.

Thiry years of the Reagan myth, and its hold over the so-called "Liberal Media" (another myth of our time), have made it hard for progressives to control the debate. When supposed liberal outposts like the New York Times or CNN parrot GOP talking points, it is hard to counter them, especially when many DLC types believe that Democrats should abandon progressivism and become a Republican Lite party. The political establishment and even the political language of our nation have been so controlled by the right wing since 1980 that it is hard to go against it. Think about this the next time you hear someone use liberal as a slur, or calls a center-left pragmatist with a strong desire for consensus a "socialist liberal America-hating nazi".

Thus, it is hard to ignore the scope of the victory achieved last night. Although there are still considerable steps required to get this bill to Obama's desk, its passage through the House is an achievement by itself. I believe most people in this country would support progressivism, if they could just understand the truth of its message, instead of being instantly biased by the message of the media and the Republican party. To do this requires hard work, and a belief that sometimes the perfect must not be the enemy of the good. The first step in this process is to get off of the couch and actually start making Congress and the President do the job we elected them to do. As FDR said to progressives who wanted him to do more:

"I Agree. Now make me do it."

*Real moderates would have supported this health care bill

Wise Words from the Field

If you haven't already, I recommend that you put Al Giordano's The Field on your daily blog rotation. His reporting on this momentous election has been both entertaining and informative. Without he reasoned and tempered words, I am pretty sure I would be one of the biggest Chicken Littles out there.

His latest post, regarding the whole blow up on the left about Obama's vote on the imperfect FISA bill, is yet again an excellent piece of advice for us panicky political newbies. I disagree with Obama, although I can understand his motives. I don't think he is abandoning his principles on the matter, I just think he is doing what most politicians tend to do. He is making the best of a bad situation, and trying to keep the eye on the big prize.

I have no doubt that Senator Obama will be a much better President than Bush (or McCain) when it comes to obeying the Constitution. For the first time in a long time we might actually have a President who believes in and works to preserve the cherished balance of power that makes our system of government operate fully. Nothing he has done so far shows him to be anything but an intelligent, honorable person who will use reason and facts, instead of beliefs and dogma, to make decisions as our country's leader.

I wish he had still voted no yesterday on the FISA bill, but I can see some advantages in the political arithmetic for him to vote yes. It isn't as if he was the driving force behind this lackluster bill, he was just a high profile senator voting on it. Like it or not, there are a fair amount of Democrats who don't stand united with their left-leaning colleagues on this issue, and no amount of wrangling by Obama (or Feingold, Durbin, Dodd, etc...) on the issue was going to get those senators to change their mind. Most of the Democrats who voted for this bill in both houses of Congress will still be there in January, and it would be helpful to create some political capital. After all, the next President will have some tough battles to fight.

When you disagree with Senator Obama, the best way to enact change isn't to threaten to take your ball and go home. Its to get organized, and take it to the people. Make it as difficult as possible for Senator Obama to ignore your voice, without taking your eye of the big picture. Understand that Obama isn't a die-hard left-winger, and that sometimes he might listen to those who disagree with you as well. And above all, realize that Senator Obama is still a much better alternative to Senator McCain.

To paraphrase his famous 2004 convention speech, we are neither red states nor blue states, but the United States of America. We are a diverse nation, full of people who fall across the entire political spectrum. We shouldn't be so concerned about ideological purity as we should about figuring out what works, and what creates a society that is both free, prosperous, and effective.