Don't Cry Over Spilled Milk

I haven't written much on the debate (and I use that term loosely) over health care reform because while I've paid attention, I'm still not sure I understand the current system well enough to imagine what impacts the proposed changes will have. Still, there's no way to escape the bizarre (albeit typical) behavior of congressional Democrats regarding Joe Lieberman. For those who don't know, Lieberman has been threatening to filibuster any bill that includes an expansion of Medicare coverage, or anything resembling a government-run insurance plan... sort of.

Since his threat was issued, the liberals everywhere have flipped their lids, demanding, among other things, that Lieberman be removed of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Some have reiterated the call for Harry Reid to be replaced, contending that he is weak and incompetent, even when his party is in charge. Still others are blaming the White House for being too laissez faire with the processes at work in Congress.

I can't comment on Lieberman's motives or angle here; I just don't know enough about his political history. In principle, however, it doesn't seem ridiculous for someone who's listed as an Independent to decline falling in line with a major party, even if he has gone back and forth with his support several times. And this can't be completely unexpected! Lieberman actively campaigned against Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

A quick note for all those complaining about a lack of leadership and direction from the White House:

During his campaign and the beginnings of the health care discussions, Obama said that he wanted to be the kind of President that didn't have to lead a flock of 535 immature, incessantly-babbling politicians from one step of the legislative process to the next.

His words were obviously nicer than mine, but Obama's point was that he's purposely trying to pull back the amount of control he has to exert over Congress. He wants Congress (all of it) to grow a spine again. He has stated several times what he wants in the bill, and he'll help wheel'n'deal behind the scenes, but I don't think you're going to see the kind of heavy-handed leaning that we're used to unless something starts to go horribly, horribly wrong. To that end, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have to make damn sure that they get their party in line so that when they see a chance at success, they can pounce on it.

Whatever you do, don't mistake Obama's reluctance to lean on Congress for an aversion to participating in the legislative process. He wants to make sure that all his speeches and discussions count, and that means being judicious with his time. It's a lot like TNC's oft-repeated advice for himself: don't say anything if you don't know or can't add anything new.

While the administration might not be married to the public option, they have certainly been pushing for deals that make it possible. The White House has made clear that the administration's preference would be to appeal to Olympia Snowe (which would've practically guaranteed an public option in a few years), but bowed to Harry Reid's promise of 60 votes for a public option instead.

We haven't really seen Obama lean on Congress yet. Does anyone really doubt that he could make something good happen if he wanted to spend that kind of political capital? I don't think he's willing to settle for something that can't really be called successful. He knows too much is at stake for his party, his presidency, and the movement that gave him its banner last November.

We Won't Get It

Reading things like this does two things to me:

1 - It blows my mind.

2 - It reminds me of why I get so angry when I hear people doing things like this. Or this. Or this. Or defending this. Or saying this.

There are people alive today who dealt with Jim Crow as they grew up, but because we're almost 150 years past the end of slavery, we're far enough removed from the days of whippings, plantations, and the underground railroad to be sensitive about it. At least that's the message I get when I hear people use the word nigger, or see them sport the confederate flag for the sake of "heritage." I cringe because it shows how little we, as a country, understand the magnitude of slavery's brutality. I don't think we'll ever be able to fully appreciate the magnitude of its effects. Consider that for more than half its existence, the economy of the United States depended on the abuse and oppression of millions of people.

Many of the people who do the aforementioned things are not racist at their core. Many of them honestly don't think there's anything wrong with what they do, and they often do not mean any harm. But this is no excuse. By utilizing these provocative symbols in a modern context, people show a remarkable callousness towards the incredible damage done to our country as a result of slavery's existence. Furthermore, by trying to save or redeem these symbols, we prevent ourselves from coming to a very logical conclusion: there are ways to remember the sinister aspects of our history without forcing the acceptance of tainted symbols and ideas into our modern culture.

We don't lose anything by dropping these symbols from our everyday lives. People should leave these sordid cultural artifacts where they belong: in museums.