I am feeling restless as summer draws to a close

[beachmom]

Summer starts earlier here, and ends earlier as well. School starts in middle August, so I only actually have a couple more weeks of true summer vacation. With that as a background, I cannot tell a lie that I am beginning to be truly burned out with politics, possibly in a lasting fashion. If health care reform fails, as it did in 1993, then I may end up reverting back to tuning out the news and politics. If it fails, that means the system is still a failure, and that too many people can't be bothered to understand basic truths about "socialism" and "capitalism". That the government sets the rules no matter what, and it is whether those rules favor corporate profits alone or whether it is in favor of the overall common good, which would not be anti-corporate per se, but would also benefit American citizens.

We have already discussed and fretted over leftist extremists who together with Blue Dog Democrats seem intent on stomping their feet so that health care reform never happens. Nobody wants to compromise so we sit here, while the GOP takes pot shots at the President in the most petty and sometimes racist ways.

There is also the fact that foreign policy is not going very well either. Afghanistan is in bad shape, and Iraq may get worse, thereby jeopardizing the plan to get out of there as planned. I am very depressed by internal politics in Israel, and there is an extremist right wing element there as ugly as here, which has been attacking Obama (sometimes, at least, in a very racist way). So many things have gone wrong, and could get even worse in the future.

Here at the Beachmom household, the hammer of unemployment will hit probably by the end of the year. Oh, more joy.

I think John Kerry is doing very well, and doing a great job, and reading about his goings on has been a nice balm. But apart from that, when I go on line I no longer find it fun to read. It is just bad, bad news all the way around. I suppose my "news depression" is different from when Bush was President. Back then, I felt like there was a solution: elect more Democrats and take back the White House. Well, we did that, yet I am still seeing little progress. And the Ugly Right is still given a big megaphone (so much for the theory that the reason why Democrats weren't given more air time was because they were out of power.) I am at the point where I just delete BBC America from my DVR, unwatched. I just don't want to hear it anymore. I avoid cable like the plague, of course.

As my news consumption wanes, I have found myself watching more movies, reading books (novels, not current events), or listening to music. I wonder if this will be a trend.

Perhaps what I am feeling is impotence. I strongly believe in the principle that only constituents should call their Congressmen/Senators. I have no one to call. I am not going to waste my time calling Tom Price, Saxby Chambliss, or Johnny Isakson. They are conservative (or right wing nuts) and will vote no to everything I am for. And I have not been impressed by any of the liberal organizing I have seen. Frankly, I feel I did my part. I helped get Webb elected and Barack Obama elected. Now it is their turn to do their job!!! Just DO IT.

[YvonneCa]

1. Summer can't draw to a close in July. I'm a teacher...

...c'mon, make the summer LAST! :7

[beachmom]

2. August 10th. Teachers go back to work the week before at least.

Incidentally, what do you think of shortening summer vacation in general? I am for it. No other industrialized country has such an obscenely long summer vacation. I think 6 weeks would be enough, and then just have some longer breaks throughout the year (like, say, two weeks for spring break instead of one). Kids end up forgetting things in the summer and have to play catch up in the fall. Plus most parents work, so then they have to pay all this extra money for summer camps. It needs to go away. But it probably won't. As a SAHM, I am very excited for school to start up again. :)

[YvonneCa]

3. I know. It's the same for teachers in my district. School...

...was out the 18th or so of June, and they go back mid August...a week sooner for the teachers.


As to the school schedule, I think the agrarian model is going to go away, one way or another. It will be a big political 'lift' to convince the traditionalists among us. :)

There is a learning loss that happens when kids are off for a long time. My district actually went to year round (9 weeks on, 3 weeks off) in the early-nineties because of that (and a desire to coordinate schedules with local HS district.)

I LOVED it. Most teachers did...because we didn't get as worn out. Just about the time it seemed you had reached your stress-limit, you would get time off. It was great. It also allowed for vacations at off-peak times. Families liked that too. Actually teaching days did not change...as they are set by state law.


But, the 'powers that be' decided to go back to the traditional year about ten years ago. After NCLB they needed to have a summer school program in place. Now our schedule is a compromise...more or less traditional, except for 3 weeks at Christmas and 2 weeks in the spring. You'd like it. :7

Long term, though, I see kids in school for much more time...more days in the school year and more hours per day. What they do during that time will probably depend upon where they fit to the standards. California is in such a mess that teachers are actually furloughed...so the current 186 days a year isn't even going to get done well. JMHO. We have a LONG way to go to fix education.

[ray of light]

4. I totally agree with you about the burnout and the fallout if health insurance reform

isn't enacted.

I am upset at all of it. I can't stand it anymore. I did 'checkout' for a while. And if healthcare insurance fails then I will likely give up completely. 60 dems and we can't get the real deal going?

I'm very upset!

P.S. As a former home-school mom, as far as summer vacation is concerned, we worked mornings most of the year and took afternoons off. When work was done, we were done for the day. We didn't have to go back and review and instead maintained forward momentum.

[TayTay]

5. Remember this vote March of 2005

on horrendous vote on the Bankruptcy Bill, that made it more difficult to discharge even debt caused by medical bills?

These are the Democrats who voted FOR that abomination of a bill:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE) No longer in the Senate
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader
Salazar (D-CO) No longer in the Senate
Specter (R-PA) WAS a Republican, has never recanted this vote
Stabenow (D-MI)


They did not get worse in 2009. They did not get better. They are the same people who thought that bankruptcy bill brought accountability, responsibility and toughness to our bankruptcy laws. They believed that stuff. They are still there.

This much has not changed. These now 17 Democrats are still there. They are moderate to conservative Dems. We have NO CHOICE but to deal with them. They can form coalitions with the Republicans and pass or block legislation.

Who didn't know this about them going into 2009?

Progress is painfully slow. The other side only has to play to block. We have to play to win. That is the difference.

Change does happen. It almost never happens in big strides, it happens in little ones that take place across wide swaths of time. But change does happen.

If we give up, the bad guys win. There is no one else to speak up for our causes. We are it. Imperfect, tired, incomplete and frustrated as we are, we are it.

I am a huge fan of taking breaks from politics. This stuff breeds burnout because it is hard, frustrating and meaningful. But come back. We need your perspective. Even if it is not applicable in your area or state, it is a balm for the soul for others in other parts of the country.

Two years ago, if you told me the absolute worst we could get out of health care reform was a disallowal of pre-existing conditions and the prevention of imposition of higher premiums on the sick, I would have been astonished. How did we move the discussion so far left in the face of so much money in opposition? That is not nothing. That is a huge, massive, big deal for one hell of a lot of people. It is progress. It is not single-payer and maybe not a public option, yet. But we moved the ball down the field and have a chance to do a huge "good thing." That also needs to be noted.

I have said this before and I will say it again: Progressive lose 99 times out of 100. We have to slog up the hill countless times just to get a hearing on something resembling change. It takes long, careful hours of endless discussion from patient people who get that change, real change, takes time.

It's difficult to watch the "sausage" of legislation being made. I know that, I feel it too. But this is how our system works. We try again, it's what we do. Otherwise, they win.

[YvonneCa]

6. The country cannot afford it if...

...they win. Period.

[wisteria]

7. Baby steps in the right directions are better than going the wrong way.

Sweeping change is not something you see to often in Washington, so I am ready to accept less with the promise of more at another time.

[wisteria]

8. I am taking back my comments after reading alittle bit more about what is being proposed. n/t

[Inuca]

9. TayTay

you are a wise woman. I agree, progress is painfuly and often depressingly slow. And that's true if we talk politics or the wider reference frame of history. Even changes or events that may seem to have been abortive failures may still have a positive impact that we need a longer historical perspective to realize. I am thinking for instance of communist Russia and the whole Soviet block. A failure in most ways, but some of the impact, direct and indirect, that it had on the rest of the world was positive I think. Anyway... would love to chat some more, but have to get ready for work.

[beachmom]

10. It's not about giving up, but rather how much I want to pay attention.

I guess I am in a disagreement with liberal activists and maybe even John Kerry to a certain extent about the role of "citizens" in government. Where I think liberal activists have a role is helping out with elections: both donating and volunteering. That is real and is measurable. It is our only bargaining chip in my view. Where I think we are less influential (or really not influential at all) is trying to participate in governing. Quite simply put, that is not our job. We are not paid to write bills and pass laws. Members of Congress are. We can give feedback, but that is usually done via opinion polls, and also by top opinion makers (which is a collection of elites from mainstream publications as well as a choice few top bloggers. That's not us). But calling one's Congressman or Senator every week? Pissing and moaning in little read rants? Sorry, that is a waste of time (except as therapy, maybe), and carries little influence. I suppose a well written letter to the President MAY get his attention, but that is like playing the lottery -- one in a million shot.

There are well funded liberal organizations who do lobby Congress, and serve as an alternative voice to corporate lobbyists. But again, these folks are professionals, not citizens. This is their job/career. Maybe, a well written letter to them can influence them, which in turn may influence a member of Congress, but that is something only done occasionally.

I just think the reason the Obama White House has had trouble organizing after the election is because the grassroots is set up best for winning elections and working on issues completely divorced from individual politicians and even from political parties (like environmental groups, health reform orgs, etc.). But to think you are going to use citizens to individually call or knock on doors to pass some vague thing called "health care reform", again, it's a waste of time.

Joe Klein had a phrase that I 100% agree with: he spoke of liberal or conservative activists "spamming" Congress. I think that is the right characterization of it. I mean, these members of Congress have pollsters. They know the numbers. They have to weigh the polls of constituents coupled with not pissing off their base too much so that they can get donations and volunteers. Conservatives are FAR more influential over their electeds than liberals are. Why? The numbers. Conservatives represent a bigger chunk of Republicans than liberals are of Democrats. In short, what works for the GOP base (like killing immigration reform) will NOT work for the Democratic base. And even there, conservative activists are oftentimes disappointed even after their spamming, which adds up to a lot of callers urged on by religious right orgs or right wing talk radio.

Of course, Blue Dogs can get their money from non-grassroots circles, so they are even LESS influenced by the spamming, and MORE likely to go with the corporate lobbyists who will help them come the next election when volunteers and small donors will be sparse. Yes, it is a pain for an office to get "spammed". But it has been clear to me for some time that with some exceptions (I do think Sen. Kerry cares a great deal about how the grassroots views his actions, as long as it is fair criticism), I do not think these actions work. And they may even be counterproductive. Which means, there is little we can do right now to influence what happens next. Which brings me back to my main point of whether I want to pay attention so much to the day to day sausage making talk for which I simply cannot influence the outcome. Of course, I want to remain a well informed citizen, but I do read a few things on line and magazines. I am not ignorant (which really IS a problem in our country). I just don't think I want to know every detail of what is happening in Congress anymore.

But the 2010 Governor's race in Georgia? That is something for which I think I can help out on.

[beachmom]

11. This is what I mean. Liberals have ZERO influence on this crowd:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/the_max_baucus_committee.html

[wisteria]

12. Good commentary and sooooooooo true-both you and the article. n/t

[TayTay]

13. They don't on Baucus and never did

They don't on a whole host of people in the Congress and have only some sway over a whole host of others. It has always been that way.
BUT, we do have influence. The health care debate is not going to end with the Return of the Max Baucus Seven (okay, now minus Hatch, but still.)

Political opinion does matter. Negatively, it mattered in the immigration battle. Then again, it is always easier to stop something from happening than to get something TO happen. The system, especially a Senate with a filibuster option in it, is step up that way, by design, from the get-go. (We might want to reconsider doing away with the filibuster rule and go with a simple majority on votes in that august body. Then public opinion would matter even more. But, then the Senate would be more like the House and that is a good and a bad.)

We don't matter much to Max. We do to Teddy Kennedy and Dodd who put out the better bill in HELP. Those bills, along with the ones from the House have to be reconciled. Max will get some concessions, and lose on others.

Then Max will switch to playing to stop. He will go all defense on the portions of the bill he doesn't like. I do wonder if the 3/5ths rule will be invoked on any changes when they go to the floor. That should be interesting. And the end result bill will be not subject to amendment or filibuster. And it is going to be damned hard to vote against that final bill.

[YvonneCa]

14. Negatively, it is also mattering in the education...

...debate. This administration began this debate by listening...but also by using popular rhetoric that was offensive to many in education (get rid of bad teachers, scapegoating, for one). Because of a lot of push back from educators, the rhetoric has cooled. (Mind you, I don't think that implies a change of goal, policy, or method for fixing public education...just an understanding that the rhetoric was HURTING their cause, not helping it.)


http://www.edgovblogs.org/duncan/2009/05/secretary-arne-duncan-takes-listening-tour-online-invites-comments-on-raising-standards/

Does that mean all is good now and we are all together on the issues? No. Absolutely no.

Will educator activism mean our point of view will prevail? No again.


But I don't think we stop. We have the same goal on education...improve it for this and the next generation of students. The 'How do we do that?' part still requires activism and involvement, IMHO, from all who care about the issue. THAT's how we get to the best solution. It's a long process. I've been at this for over 24 years, and I can't give up...I have grandkids. :7