Reply #12: I hear ya! [View All]

[NanceGreggs]

It's been a while since the Dems have been the majority, and I think they have yet to find their "authoritative voice". In addition, being the majority without also holding the WH is a difficult position to be in.

We all saw the swagger of the GOPers when they had the majority - they rubber-stamped Bush's every whim, knowing it would NEVER be votoed. So they were in a position to say to the country, "THIS is what we've decided to do, and look how easy it was for us to do it." Unfortunately, we won't be in that position until January 2009.

I think that is why it's going to take some time before we hear what the long-term goals are; the Dems haven't been in a position to set long-term goals with any confidence they will be attainable for quite a while now.

I have been extremely critical of the Dems on many issues (and have sent some really scathing communications to several of them over the past few years and months). However, I try to step back and appreciate the tenuous position that ANY politician is in from the minute they take office: When does impassioned outrage cross the line into being perceived as a temper tantrum? When does standing your ground on a given issue stop being seen as commitment, and start being seen as childish stubborness?

Should a politician vote according to what THEY think is best for their constituents? Or do they vote according to their constituents' demands, even if they feel it is the wrong choice in the long-term, or against their better judgment?

Some would say that a representative should never act on the basis of what might affect their own re-election. Others would say that if a representative feels they can contribute something of value in future, if they DON'T take their re-election into account, they could wind up out of office - where they can't follow-through on long-term goals.

It's like walking a tightrope; it takes experience and a perfect sense of balance, neither of which are attained overnight.

To be REALLY simplistic, I think our reps have to be 'trained' to do what we want done. LOTS of positive reinforcement when they do something we approve of (like bombarding Reid's office with faxes, calls and emails saying "Way to go, Harry!"), and LOTS of impassioned outrage when they don't ("What the hell is the MATTER with you, Pelosi? Don't you GET IT?)"

(Admittedly, I have been guilty of screaming my head off almost to the complete exclusion of offering praise when it was warranted - my bad.)

But I do try to remain aware that no Dem is EVER going to do things MY WAY a hundred percent of the time - sometimes because MY WAY is not feasible, or because it doesn't represent what the majority of my fellow Democrats want done. And I also try to remember that sometimes compromise is necessary, because each side of the aisle refusing to budge an inch means NOTHING gets done, one way or the other.

I sometimes lose faith completely in my party, and my government. But I never lose faith in my fellow citizens' ability to eventually find the right path, and set their respective parties' feet firmly upon it.

If that sounds overly optimistic, I don't apologize for it. Optimism sometimes leads to great things; pessimism, on the other hand, rarely leads to anything other than more of the same.