In what is almost certainly not news to anyone, more American voters than ever — some 63 percent of them — now tell the Washington Post-ABCNews Poll that rather than "vote to re-elect (their) representative in Congress" in the 2012 election, they instead "are inclined to look around for someone else to vote for."
Sadly, this Congress does seem to have cornered the world's known reserves of bile. Consider the recent "debate" between two South Florida House members, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz — who doubles as the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee — and freshman Republican and tea party favorite, Rep. Allen West.
In a statement on the House floor — when West was not present — Wasserman Schultz characterized West's support of the GOP plan to cut federal funding for Medicare "unbelievable," when he "represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I ..."
Rejecting any advice to turn the other cheek, Republican West, by e-mail and in statements, called Democrat Wasserman Schultz "vile, unprofessional, despicable" and "characterless." For the defense, Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., compared West to Terry Jones, "the pastor in Florida who burned the Quran" to provoke "a media frenzy." Regardless of where you might stand, you'll agree that the preceding is not to be confused with the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Washington, believe me, has not always been this poisonous. There was a time, not that long ago, when fierce political opponents could still be personal friends.
In 1986, House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill had announced he would retire from the Congress. Friends and supporters planned a testimonial dinner to honor the nation's longest-serving speaker and to raise money for his beloved alma mater, Boston College.
But there was a big problem. The leading Democratic money men in Washington disparaged the idea of a big dinner: Everybody liked Tip, but he was on the way out of office and unable to deliver on any future favors.
The two women organizing the dinner understood that to overcome such attitudes, they needed a Big Name to chair the dinner. The call was made to former President Gerald R. Ford, who had been House GOP leader when O'Neill had been House Democratic leader and, more importantly, was a close personal friend.
Gerry Ford did not hesitate. Of course he would be happy to chair the event, and, yes, he would be there. His personal check was in the mail. With Ford on board, the next call was to Mike Deaver in President Reagan's White House. Yes, the Republican president would attend the dinner honoring his political nemesis, the Democratic speaker.
It was one of Washington's grandest evenings. A paid crowd of 2,200 (at $1,000 a ticket) filled the Washington Hilton ballroom to hear Ronald Reagan observe: "To be honest, I've always know Tip was behind me — even if it was only at the State of the Union Address. As I made each proposal, I could hear Tip whispering to (Vice President) George Bush: 'Forget it. No way. Fat chance.'" He continued, "Mr. Speaker, I am grateful you have permitted me in the past, and I hope in the future, the singular honor of calling you my friend."
But the man who made the memorable evening — and $2 million to Boston College — at all possible was Gerry Ford, who stepped up and who had so much personally in common with Tip O'Neill. Both men were total strangers to self-importance. Neither man had even a trace of hate in him. They wasted no time at all worrying about what the media were saying about them.
President Ford and Speaker O'Neill, great political adversaries and great personal friends in a Washington, D.C., I really miss.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
COPYRIGHT 2011 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
2 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Nice to pine away for the good old days, but the fact is that past results are no guarantee of future performance, as that obligatory investment advisory goes. What is going on in Washington now reflects continuing degeneration of our national culture, our entire political paradigm, and our will to maintain our position as the leader of the world.
All swirling the drain, as docs in the ER sometimes characterize their dying patients.
There are many models we can follow. Let's see.
There's the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the resulting cascade of failures of smaller entities that emulated the Soviet arrangement, like Yugoslavia. Those are sobering possibilities.
Then there's the pathway down which which utter scorn of democratic institutions drove Germany on its march toward fascism in the 20's and 30's.
Or, perhaps we could go for a softer landing, like the decline of the British Empire, or before it the Spanish Empire.
We certainly aren't considering the China model, which consists of less democratic concepts like administrative power to order the creation of a bullet train network connecting all of its major cities, no environmentally oriented opponents or purveyors of litigation subterfuge to be tolerated. Not to mention expeditious methods of correcting deficiencies like the death penalty for governmental officials who take bribes--think Zheng Xiaoyu, the head of China's food and drug agency who allegedly took bribes to approve untested drugs. We don't do that kind of thing here, even though we might want to consider it for the banking and finance industry leaders whose complete dependence on bribe-like relationships plunged our entire country into the economic winter that threatens to crush us.
So where to, my increasingly ignorant, education-starved, and pissed off fellow Americans? Here are some options:
(1) choose hard-sell, anger-based fantasy platforms a la Michelle Bachmann, or
(2) return to the good old lazy days of deja vu-all-over-again, unearned, hot air-based leveraging of our credit into uncharted territory, or
(3) choose, as the example we shall emulate, from among the many examples of civilization failures that have plagued human history, or
(4) do something resembling waking up, confronting the cause of this horrible hangover, and starting off on the long 12-step road to finding the serenity (now there's a word--one that seems long forgotten) to accept the things we can't change, change the things we can change, and find the wisdom to know the difference.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Sir; I love you man... Seriously... You are like that uncle who never takes too much care of himself, drinks too much, tells the kids to pull his finger, and enjoys a blue joke now and again... Yet, you tend to trivialize this country's political problems by seeing the human side of people...It is too bad to hear the words that come out of the mouths of this nations representatives in reference to fellow citizens only because they too are representing their districts and their parties... Not one of those representatives is elected with even a 65% majority, and each thinks they have some mandate... Where would such a mandate come, if not from God??? The people have not delivered it, and just as the government is divided, so is every district divided... I know of one only that is not, -in South Dakota, where a cousin was persuaded by her husband to not register as a democrat so the county would not have to have a primary for one person... There, unanimity may be forced, but it is real if only to keep a girl with her family... But as a nation we have long since lost the familiar spirit... The power of the parties has been bought by selling the unity of the people... I did not make an enemy of them... They made an enemy of me... It is their endless playing off of people and interests, of needs against demands that has kept me for nearly forty years on the edge of disgust and revolution... Envy of the rich is a terrible sin... I have envy of anyone who can toss away a thousand dollars of yesterday's money on a political dinner; but I do not recommmend it... The problem is not one of envy, and the question in this country is not even one of justice because if national injustice is our aim, then so long as it is our common choice, where is the problem??? You cannot stop people from having more or another from having less... You cannot stop people from being more intelligent, brave, or beautiful than others... If you cannot stop those with wealth to begin with from totally taking over the government and manimpulating the laws to suit themselves, then simple inequalities become major disparities of wealth and opportunity...The inequality of wealth and power is the destruction of society... It is not that the rich should be denied their vote or their voice... Rather, If they cannot be stopped from looting the government, throwing workers onto the public support and then pulling that rug out from beneath them, then we are done... There is no reason we should not be ruled by a king since a king is no different from anyone else... The moment any king begins to serve only his class and take all social and political power unto humself he has become an enemy of the people... All these politicians and rich are enemies of the people doing as kings once did, selling our national interests out for a few articles of luxury... The Western World did not get rid of its kings because they were bad people... The West got rid of kings because of mismanagement of their economies and societies... Now that the country has been given to the rich, and the rich refuse to support the population dispossessed, what are we to do with them??? These people are without patriotism or conscience... If we refuse them, they will attack us from some foreign land... If we accept them they will run us into even greater ruin... They are not fit to govern or to follow... What would it take to re-educate such people and make them productive citizens??? We will have to find out the hard way... Thanks... And good job Masako.... Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
