Whilst doing some research for this post, i spent some time with Dr. Google [no its ok everyone, im not sick, i mean like Ph.D google] and just happened to type into search bar: Obamaism, and low and behond but not really to my surprize popped up that picture [from obamaism.blogspot.com]. Now if one looks up Bill Clinton and 'socialism' quiet alot of stuff does pop up, but with the tea party movement in full swing there are clearly some crazy people out there. However, If you type in Clintonism you don't get a picture of Clinton with a moushache, nor do you get a picture of Clinton with a red flag in the background [which isn't also white and blue and has traded the stars for that communist hammer thing] you get this weird notion of something that sounds alot like what a Republican would be concerned about: being fiscally responsible [not spending too much government money and saving some of what you have to reduce government debt], work instead of just welfare, and smaller government and more people empowerment. Clinton, was one of the most popular presidents, which some might suggest is due to the surge of economic growth that occured under his presidency [internet boom and all] but i think there is more to a popular president in the United States than that [tho, it does help].
Recently, i spent some time reading a Column of The Washington Post called: Post Leadership, where Jena McGregor talks about Obama re-alignment towards more politically centre lines. Whilst she, like alot of bloggers and columists out there is talking about 'does this new tax deal represent a reinvestion of obamaism to clintonism' [i know, i guess there are going to be a whole lot of tea party people really sad, cause they won't know what to do with their Obama as Starlin posters anymore] but instead she points out a key destinction, saying that Clinton had an inclination to play 'centerist' on side issues, like education, quoting "symbolic, superficial or trivial" areas, as according to her the The National Review's Jonah Goldberg points out as the one's Clinton would go Bi-partican over. What does this mean? Well, it means that really, when you break it down, this new tax deal, is a huge concession for the white house, and is not a move to the centre like Clinton, but is a move to redefine what it means to be a centerist president. Whilst alot of liberals might be quick to however point out, this represents a stab in the back for them [since isn't this there president!?], not the reinvention of something as great as a Clinton presidency, I think this represents a real mistake on their behalf. What we need in Washington, is progress, which will happen, as long as the Two-Headed-Monster doesn't rare his head.
Too often, we want to talk about politics [specially in Washington] as though it were a game. This big argument, which I have been reading about recently in Hedrich Smith's really good book The Power Game: How Washington Works where he discusses as a side topic whether the best metaphor for how washington works is football or baseball [please, don't judge his book on my one segiment of baseball over football, it really is a awesome account, on how Washington works, all 1000 pages of it]. I however, read this discussion and thought that neither really surfices as an explanation of how politics should work, or does work, WHY? Cause politics, is not a sport, nor is it a game, cause whilst people run for election and either come back for another round [or don't], politics when it comes to the legislation, and the issues at hand, is not easily won by one side. In baseball, or football or any kind of sport, a winner always takes all. And that winner, shouldn't make concessions to the other side, shouldn't compromise, he should be focused on the ball and win. No one however wins this way in politics, you become a 'one man' game if you play politics like this. Just because there is more then one 'I' in politics doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a team effort. Having this notion that politics is a sport where one wins or loses is crazy, and this is where the Two-Headed-Monster comes in. The Two-Headed-Moster, wants us to forget all that. It becomes all about 'one side' over 'the other side' and who gets the most legislation though, who gets to dominate an issue [when really, it could be a bi-partician effort, if people sat down together] and who gets to better their country.
It would seem that some of the best presidents are Democrats who are alot like Republicans [Clinton, Truman, for example] or Republicans who are alot like Democrats [Reagan in his secound term for example]. But more then just that, the best politican are pragmatic and human. They arn't fixed in stone with their ideological positions [and don't inspire crazy people like the tea party in the first place by attatching themselves to one side of politics too much, even tho, Obama in reality isn't even close to Hitler, or Starlin, or anything like that], they are open to reason, and care about the voters they serve enough to compromise to make a difference for them. This concession by the White House, isn't a 'new president' but the one we wanted all long, the one who would work with others, and listen to different ideas, and would get things done. There are alot of people on either side who look at centerism as a fudge factor, but those people are just feeding the Two-Headed-Monster and assuming that politics is one side, with them right, and the other wrong. And whilst so many will scream to critize Obama, this represents progress, where a true centerist platform can be found. We won't have any progress to the better of our country without it, [and come on, lets face it, no one likes a Two-Headed-Monster.]
