Letter 2 America for February 5, 2013

Dear America,

On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos interviewed Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of The Senate.  Naturally, the topics of interest were the pending and contemplated legislative initiatives that are going to be pursued over the next year or so: immigration reform, gun control, taxes and spending primarily.  And in the context of that discussion, the issue that continually arose was whether the Republicans would thwart the administration's and the Democrats' attempts to pass legislation.  Strategies came up as did popular sentiment, and Reid maintained a sanguine attitude on all of them.  The American people want this or the American people have expressed their will on that was the refrain he kept uttering.  But Stephanopoulos never brought up the failure of Reid and the Democrats to change the filibuster rules in any meaningful way...also a matter that should have been dealt with if popular sentiment is the governing factor in how the parties vote.  The people of this country want their senators to cast votes, not eschew casting their ballots through the use of dilatory procedural tactics like the filibuster.  The relevance of that omission on Stephanopoulos's part is that if Reid had led the effort to eliminate the sixty vote cloture requirement and restore the simple majority as sufficient to end debate, none of those other questions would have been necessary.  The only reason that there is any doubt about immigration now that the Republicans have been electorally drubbed in the most recent election is that forty one votes...that is forty one Republicans...can still kill any bill for any reason, and if there is one thing at which the Republicans are willing and eager it is fabricating reasons to vote no.  Even the fact that while eager, they are not necessarily adroit at contriving objections to proposed Democratic legislation doesn't stop them from endeavoring to excuse themselves for captious reasons.  The next election is two years away, and they are no doubt banking on two things: the short memory of the American people and their ability to obfuscate the real issues with specious arguments that they repeat over and over until they have been heard often enough to ring true to those who tend to think with the heads of others rather than their own.  In short, if immigration and gun control fail...immigration in particular...Harry Reid is to blame for not taking the ability to obstruct out of Republican hands.  So why isn't anyone talking about that.

The reason is that the media...the electronic media in particular...have let the subject drop.  It was news for one day, but even though it will be at the heart of most political news at least until the next session of congress begins and the rules can be changed with a simple majority it is news no longer.  It is the most important story to get short shrift from the media that I can remember.  We hear over and over again about some college football player who thought he had a girlfriend in someone he had never met, and they even report about the investigation into what went on as if it mattered at all, but Harry Reid gets a free pass.  If that adolescent athlete had the brains, he would probably wonder why that is, but brains don't appear to be his long suit.  But Stephanopoulis and Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelly on CBS and Brian Williams on NBC?  They're supposed to be informing us about what is important.  Does their failure in the case of Harry Reid's apostasy on the subject of the filibuster mean that brains are not their long suits either, because if it's not that, I can think of only one other explanation: ratings.  We are getting news determined by how many people will watch it rather than by what we should and need to know;  And some Americans think that the registration of their guns is the major threat to their liberty.  Speech is free in this country, but what we are getting from the news media isn't.  It is costing us our national political judgment.  The purpose of a public school system is to ensure an educated populace, and that should be the purpose of the licensed news media...but it isn't.

In any event, Harry Reid is at the center of any failure that may befall the social initiatives that the Obama administration may take in its second term.  We'll see if he reverses that legislative legacy if and when the Democrats retain control of The Senate in 2014.  Bit in the meantime, we can all expect rough going.  The Republicans will continue to put the success of their party above the welfare of the nation, and they will continue to covet a larger share of the common weal for a smaller number of their patrons by linking that aggregation of wealth in the hands of the few to social values, with which it has noting to do in reality.  And as an adjunct to that values linked campaign, they will do what they can to thwart progress in the other direction.  That's what they have done for the last four years and more, and since nothing has changed in terms of the political opportunities at their disposal...especially in The Senate...we would be whistling in the dark to expect anything else for the next two year.  Thanks a lot, Harry.

Your friend,

Mike