What Loyal Opposition?

Conservative and right-wing politicians should exercise some restraint, and Democrats need to stop apologizing for taking more contentious advocates to task for politicizing every situation. In some circles the likes of Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh are said to be voicing legitimate alternate opinions no matter how outlandish they may be. And the very term "loyal opposition" has lost some of its luster. When politicians and pundits take issue with every program, every statement and every appearance of a president at a time of enormous challenges, they are not engaged in a patriotic duty; they are just substituting partisan dogma for a reasoned response to problems that defy easy resolution.

Former Vice President Cheney's remarks about the country's safety are fraught with devious intent intended perhaps to lay the I-told-you-so groundwork should another 9/11 type attack occur. A responsible person would speak privately with the President to voice concerns instead of flooding the airwaves with attempts to justify his own behavior. When Senator McCain stepped up to defend Cheney he referred to him as "the vice president", one foot firmly planted as usual in la-la-land. And shame on McCain and others who say the president appears weak in the face of Iran's seemingly dysfunctional election. Most experts agree that, while speaking out in support of human rights, we should not appear to be involving ourselves in the politics of sovereign nations in the region. How did the previous administration advance our interests in the Middle East?

If our adventure in Iraq turns out well in the end it will have been at great cost to both America and Iraq in terms of treasure and human life. Besides what exactly would 'strength' now look like - - opposing Ahmadinejad because we think he's a dangerous jerk, seizing the moment to do something aggressive? Or is the goal of McCain and other militarists and wannabe warriors really to keep any dialogue from developing with Iran by preemptively burning our diplomatic bridges? Charges of U.S. meddling by Iran's government may be have been provoked by the irresponsible, inflammatory statements some elected officials in Congress are making.

In typical fashion William Krystol of the Weekly Standard says that although there are "good grounds to criticize Obama's foreign policy so far" he is the president and maybe we should cut him some slack and see what happens. It isn't clear what the "good grounds" are, but more to the point, when has Kristol been right about anything? And in one bizarre moment Senator Lieberman, pontificating about developments in Iran, said if a country can't be trusted to run its elections properly, how can the rest of the world trust that country? Does the phrase "election 2000" ring any bells for Lieberman regarding proper electoral conduct? Take a deep breath Joe; you seem to be running out of oxygen.

Against the backdrop of furious foreign policy debates, opposition forces attack administration attempts to reform health-care. The president is accused of trying to create socialist programs although opponents often lack any real understanding of what Socialism is; nor have they come to grips with the fault lines inherent in the current system.  It doesn't seem to register that insurance companies and corporate interests make medical decisions that serve their interests rather than those of patients; charging socialistic intent is much more provocative for the purposes of political fear-mongers.

The opposition tends to see everything in terms of how it can work to its political advantage; bi-partisan means ignoring the election results and sticking to an agenda of tough talk in foreign policy and unfettered market forces on the domestic front. But it is important to understand what competition often means and for whom it works best. Recently a doctor explained that the reason some prescriptions are so expensive is that a company wants to make as much money as possible before patents expire and generics or other brands become available. That means a medication could be cheaper except for the company's need to please stockholders by enhancing its bottom line. And it helps explain why a friend's several-a-day cancer pills cost $25 apiece.

Administration critics should turn down the volume. Partisan angst is not a winning strategy in the long run nor does it help to move debates in a positive direction. Whatever one's political philosophy, seeking common ground holds far greater promise for us all than playing politics with the future of the country.