Congressional Democrats and democratic chaos

If you've ever been tempted to sever your politico-cultural ties with this nation's tradition of representative democracy, and to opt instead for something with a bit more philosophical oomph -- something like, oh, I don't know, maybe nineteenth-century anarchism, or perhaps absolute monarchism, or even magocracy (government by witches and wizards) -- then now would be an excellent time for the hyperjump.

Because the United States Congress is proving, once again, that although democracy in the ruling hands of Republicans results in aspirational incompetence, democracy in the ruling hands of Democrats results only in incompetent aspirations.

We've known this for some time, yet still, that which is unfolding before us inspires a certain awestruck, hopeless wonder.

For more than a half-century Democrats have pined and needled and moaned for a national system of comprehensive health care; and though congressional majorities they've substantially had on their side before, never, quite, the people. But no longer. They again possess not only the House and the Senate, and not to mention, of course, the White House, too, but a prodigious three-fourths of favorable public opinion on some manner of "socialized medicine."

In a word, they have it all. Yet what do we read? This, from yesterday's Politico, is all too representative: "[H]ealth care reform by this fall, once considered highly likely to succeed, suddenly appears in real jeopardy."

Congressional Democrats' official excuse is that they don't know how to pay for it -- an excuse that comes with a rather peculiar if not perverse sincerity: they keep batting away every decent idea that comes along, such as President Obama's suggestion that plutocrats' tax deductions be capped along middle-class lines. Oh, the tragic egalitarianism of it all.

Other excuses abound, but that's really all they are; just the smoke, mirrors, and political sleights of hand of organizational bumbling and cautious inertia. My favorite? This omnibus one -- again, from the Politico -- is a real keeper:

"Congressional chairmen say that the pipes are overloaded between health-care and climate legislation -- and that was before this week's arrival of the biggest overhaul of financial regulations in 70 years. And don't forget Congress needs to fit in work on all of its annual spending bills and take a month off in August."

The month-long vacation thing is just too easy, so on that I'll reserve comment. No, the real gem amidst that appalling collection of legislative whining is the running theme that they're simply overloaded with work and worry -- in short, they're just too damn conscientious.

Now it's true that they're not so overloaded they can't take time to formulate and pass counterproductive, demagogic resolutions on Iranian protests. But health care for their own citizens? Sorry, they say. First comes the really important stuff, like cheap opportunism, and then, oppressed as they are, they must move along to tackling and destroying, say, cap and trade, among other doomed urgencies.

Admixed with Congressional Democrats' excuse of excessive legislative burdens is another humdinger: on coming up with a coherent health-care package they're being rushed, you see, and this matter is just too important to tolerate expeditiousness.

But hold it. Let's think about that. Not only have Congressional Democrats had that aforementioned half-century in which to fashion coherent legislation on comprehensive health care, they could have, should have been crafting an in-the-can, ready-to-go bill at least since they took majorities in 2006 -- because even bigger majorities were profoundly anticipated in 2008 in addition to a sympathetic chief executive. Yet what did they spend the intervening time on? Why of course: mere promises.

Finally, there was this: "[F]or the first time, Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats."

OK, but let us be clear, Mr. and Mrs. Congressional Democrat at large. We understand and even accept from an electorally pragmatic point of view your "big-tent" philosophy, and realize, as well, that such a vast ideological arena guarantees internal gladiatorial combat on most any piece of legislation. But, on occasion, with respect to party-defining issues, there comes along a smothering need for, like it or not, philosophical allegiance and absolute party discipline.

Health care is one such issue, 60 years in the making. And on this, the electorate at large simply no longer gives a damn about your party's need to protect and defend its swing-voting fortresses. For your ever-larger majorities are worthless -- utterly pointless -- if you can't get the big, party-defining stuff done.

Stand for something, for God and the country's sake. Demand party loyalty on health care, and if the moderates/conservatives don't come through for you, then cut 'em loose from organizational support. Let them run on the Republican or Libertarian ticket -- where they belong -- next time.

Because if the Democratic Party fails to triumph on health care, it'll cut its majorities anyway, and even faster.