An Open Letter to Harry Reid

Lloyd Braun is quite the salesman. Harry Reid should get him on staff.

The election cycle last fall was so grueling for me, an avid reader, that I stopped following the news for a few months. I came back to it after the holidays, but with diminished enthusiasm. As excited as I was about an Obama Administration, I was no longer so angry, and I had less energy for it. That might be a shortcoming of mine, though indignation does have its place.

Early into this administration's tenure, there were howls that Obama's first 100 days had not been radical enough: he had not vindicated the liberals who suffered through a diaspora during the Bush years. I didn't subscribe to this theory, not least of all because 100 days really isn't that much time, because no true judgment could be properly rendered then, and because I was tired of being upset and hysterical. The bad news for Barack, for the Democratic leadership, and for you, the blog reader, is that a hater can hibernate for only so long. This has been a freewheeling summer for me, a Summer of George, if you will (with a job but without a mustache), so let me invoke a notable Costanza-ism: George is getting frustrated!

It starts with the bailout situation. Not even the bailout, really, but the less glamorous discussion about financial regulation. Approve or disapprove of the bailout if you will. Of the rapid Chrysler and GM bankruptcies. Of the entire premise behind the government owning so many businesses. Feel as you may. Just don't neglect the underlying systemic issues, and the feeble efforts to address root causes. I am not an economist, and I don't intend to wade into the details today, but I'll stand by something Joe Nocera wrote: "the Obama plan is little more than an attempt to stick some new regulatory fingers into a very leaky financial dam rather than rebuild the dam itself." My conviction that this will be completely mangled was sparked by this story and the shockingly offensive arrogance among finance people that Nick Paumgarten catalogued ($) in the May 18th New Yorker.

This isn't even a post about economics, though. This is a post about the timid, calculating politics which Democrats have adopted as a pathetic brand identity. The Democratic leadership worked hard to gain majorities in Congress ostensibly so that it could then administer a comprehensive cure for the ills either created, exacerbated, or ignored over the past eight years. But now that it enjoys said control, and has an ally in the White House, it does nothing but protect turf. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are apparatchicks, nothing more than political operators bereft of ideals and devoid of vision. They seem content to horde control merely so that they can say so. Neither creates meaningful change; neither even pushes hard for it. They just want to win elections, play the game, and hope you'll donate so that they can keep on keepin' on.

Health care legislation is a perfect example. Sixty-one percent of Americans think employers who don't provide insurance should pay money as a penalty; fifty-eight percent say rich people should pay more money into the system; and three quarters say they want a public plan that would compete with the HMO hegemony that currently under serves the country. (Wonkette kills it, as usual.) And yet, the compromise bill which Harry Reid endorses, and the matching bill which will come from the House, will not actually contain these provisions. Why? Because Democrats are horrible at taking a stand, marshaling the facts (which are usually on their side) in service of their arguments, and adhering to any philosophy. People like Reid and Pelosi don't have philosophy, or ideology, or even real goals. They just have big offices in which they'd like to continue working. So they kowtow, they concede and call it compromise, they abandon what they should be doing and then seek out approval, as though it's enough that they simply got dressed and showed up.

I find it infuriating. I don't want these people to speak on my behalf. Worse, I don't want them to claim that they do, or for them to be conflated with what I actually believe just because we all usually vote for the same presidential candidate. So I wrote a letter to Harry Reid today. It will surely not be my last:

Hi Senator Reid,

I hope that whichever member of your staff reads these emails will deliver the following message: you are losing my vote.

I am a lifelong Democrat who recently moved from New York to Missouri and registered to vote in my new state because I wanted my vote to count. I will still be here in 2010 when midterm elections take place. I will probably remain a Missouri voter for the rest of my life, just so that I can continue to exert electoral influence.

If you and the pitiful Democratic caucus continue down the path you've chosen and pass meaningless compromise healthcare legislation that cures nothing, I will not be voting. And neither will my friends and family. Not only that, I will campaign against you and your candidates. I won't campaign for a Republican, but I will work pretty hard to let people know just how badly you are squandering the 60 seats you worked so hard to capture.

What is the point of controlling the Senate when you do nothing with that control? Reform and promises of change have actually just led to more of the same. Bills still get loaded with erroneous extras, national policies continue to fail those in greatest need, and you do nothing to combat the powerful special interests from the financial and healthcare sectors.

This middle-of-the-road healthcare bill is a farce, and I suspect you know it. It does not deliver universal healthcare, it does not expand coverage enough, and it does not sufficiently seek to limit the anti-health policies of the HMOs. Worse is that you still would let it go forward, pissing in America's ear but telling us that it's raining.

Do not pretend that activity equals accomplishment, and do not continue to preside over such ineffectual Democratic control of the Senate. With the White House and the House also under Democratic control, the Senate should be capable of implementing meaningful governance that heals the wounds inflicted by the Bush Administration. If you can't do this, then what difference does it make who is in control?

2010 is fast approaching...

Serenity now.