SONI: Capitol Hill Constipation

It was what we were all waiting for &- an assertive and confrontational President Barack Obama. He served the GOP its first warm can of whoop-ass at the televised Q&’A session at the House Issues Conference in Baltimore, digging into on any Republican with inconsistent stats and faulty arguments. House Minority Leader John Boehner (unfortunately pronounced Bay-ner) sat idly by on stage, the glow of his fake tan paling as his heart sank.

Obama was in beast mode. When told there would be one more question if his time permitted, he replied that he was having fun. “This is great!” he commented.

It’s nice to see a commander in chief so confident he has a lark on the job. Every time former President George W. Bush made a televised appearance, the smirk on his face made you think he’d been huffing nitrous backstage with former Vice President Dick Cheney.

And I hate to say it, but there are some similarities between Bush and the combative Obama of Baltimore.

Some say that the people always favor the strong horse. Dubya was a thoroughbred. His policies were nonsensical and devastating on many levels, but his administration enacted them with a zealous tenacity. Obtrusive laws and institutions were trampled under the might of the Bush Doctrine.

Over the last year, Obama played by the rules. But to no avail. And now it’s time to play the strong horse.

If anything, this last year has proved the futility of diplomacy in matters of the State, exposing the ugly nature of partisan politics in a nation that prides itself on the democratic process. The inability to compromise has caused a veritable bureaucratic constipation, and the confidence Obama exhibited at Baltimore may be the much needed Ex-Lax.

Over the last few weeks, Obama has been desperately calling for more compromise and less partisanship. It seems like the only logical way to get things done in a diverse and representative government like ours, but with the ideological binds of contemporary politics, it’s become virtually impossible.

Politics, by nature, is intrinsically linked with principles. We vote for people we believe share the same general set of values as ourselves in the hope that those values will be represented through legislation. Today, however, the moral worth of elected officials is weighed by stances on cosmetic issues that have little effect on the lives of most Americans. Abortion and gay marriage, the most hotly debated topics surrounding the evaluation of prospective politicians, have become weapons used to capture a shallow and gullible citizenry.

Take the case of Harold Ford Jr. Ford, another thoroughbred politician who inherited his seat as Democratic representative of Tennessee’s ninth district from his pops. After 10 years in office down south he has decided to shoot for a Senate seat in New York.

But Ford is quickly learning that the game ain’t the same up here. He’s been getting a lot of flak recently for his alleged flip-flops on gay marriage and abortion, and many believe his changes in stance have been made as an attempt to lure liberal New York voters.

Ford gave an interview on “The Colbert Report” in January in an attempt to clarify his position. It was painful to watch. He desperately tried to rationalize his obvious moral inconsistencies under the burning cynicism of Colbert’s humor. Ford was packed so full of crap it looked like it was oozing from his pores.

But something strange happened. That “full-of-crap” look so characteristic of politicians progressively gave way to an “Oh God, I think I soiled myself” look, and I eventually began to feel bad for the guy.
“I’ve thought long and hard about this,” Ford said, responding to Colbert’s criticism about Ford’s views on gay marriage. “Have I had some different thoughts? Have I had a wife that believes in this? Do I have friends and others who have helped educate me? Absolutely.”
By the end of the interview, I couldn’t help but think that maybe Ford did have a change of heart &- that his recent marriage, his move to New York and his apparent susceptibility to new viewpoints had indeed caused him to see the issue in a different light.

American politicians are stuck in a Chinese finger trap, torn between an archetype of steadfast decisiveness and the necessity of compromise to enact legislation. Perhaps it’s a cultural thing, rooted in the image of the rugged individualist &- the cowboy/outlaw/charismatic leader that valiantly sets off toward the horizon without ever looking back.

This individualism, combined with partisan loyalty, has spawned government leaders that are chained by the ideological groundings of their parties, voters and themselves. This has created a climate in which legislative compromise, in turn, compromises election success &- and no politician wants that.

Is it any wonder then, that all the big issues of the last year &- health care, climate change, Guantanamo &- have been left festering in the bowels of bureaucratic indecision?

Diptesh Soni is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences and a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. He can be reached at diptesh@bu.edu.