Now that the Democrats have won, what should they do?

First of all, don’t waste time trying to go back and prove that Bush and Cheney “lied us into war”. No one wants to hear about that. If something new comes up, or comes out, act responsibly. But people want to move on. They don't want to waste time bickering about the past.

Going forward, I don’t know what to do about Iraq. And frankly, most of people offering opinions probably don’t either, including, likely, most of the people in Congress. In the long term, we should probably be helping to facilitate a three-state system, rather than trying to force people who don’t want to live together to live together. In the meantime, unfortunately, probably the best thing we can do is manage the situation. But, in earnest, this is primarily a foreign policy issue, which should be left principally to the President, the Armed Forces, and the Departments of State and Defense.

With respect to the domestic issues, we really need to think long term.

I don’t care if it’s done by Democrats, or Republicans, or Independents, or whomever, but I wish someone, or some group of people, would come in and say, “Look, we have three big long-term problems, and we are going to dig our heels in and fix them.”

First, fix Social Security. Put everything else to the side. For the next year, we aren’t going to do anything except the absolute most fundamental budgetary things, and spend the rest of our time and energy rolling up our sleeves, and dealing with this issue. Because, while no one wants to do it, and no one wants to make sacrifices, it’s something we need to do. As a nation. It’s our personal, and public, and fiscal responsibility. And you take twenty people, from all over the spectrum, and you lock them in a room together for a week, and see what they come up with. And you don’t put all your eggs in one basket. And everybody makes sacrifices. And everybody makes concessions. And you do it in a bi-partisan way. And you get it done. How do you do this, politically? I don't know. But what I would say is something like "Look, we know this is the so-called 'third rail' of politics. We know we are putting our political careers on the line. But at some point we need to acknowledge the fact that elected officials are like trustees. We are like fiduciaries. We are supposed to put the nation's interests before our own. And when we take the oath of office, we aren't taking an oath of allegiance to our political party. We are taking an oath to serve the Constitution, the Laws, and the People of the United States. Now if the Republicans don't want to join us, that's their decision. But we have been talking around this issue for 30 years. The Repulicans like to talk a lot about 'personal responsibility.' Every day that we don't take action, we are passing the buck to future politicians, future generations, future workers, and future retirees. What could be more irresponsible than that?"

Then, you spend the next year dealing with Global Warming and Alternative Fuel Sources. And you put everything else to the side. And you spend a year devoted almost completely to this one issue. Which is a national security issue, as well as an environmental issue, not to mention an economic issue, a public health and safety issue, (and probably an immigration issue too). And everyone rolls up their sleeves. And everyone makes sacrifices. Because anything less is completely irresponsible. Not only to America, and it's future generations, but to the entire world.

Finally, you spend the third year dealing with health care. I don’t know what the solution is. I am inclined to believe that it’s likely in high-deductible major-medical policies, so that people are insured against the “big” stuff, but have to, for the most part, bear the burden of routine medical expenses themselves. But I’m no economist. And I have to believe that if you lock the right people in a room together for a few weeks, they can come up with something. Not “socialist” in the sense of setting price controls, and squeezing the doctors and other medical providers. But simply shifting the costs, in some way. I would note, in this regard, that I don’t think it’s necessarily the “right” of everyone to have basic health care; nor do I think it’s necessarily the “responsibility” of the Government to provide it. But I think that, as a democracy, we can choose to do it. Most people seem to be for it, at least on some basis. Of course, some people will take advantage. But you can’t throw the baby out with the bath. Providing medical treatment to the young, and the sick, and the elderly, and frankly the middle class and everyone else, is a good and noble thing and moral thing for a society to do. And I don’t see any reason why we can’t do it, if we set our mind to it.

At the same time, we should likely think long and hard about a draft. Not necessarily devoted to the military, per se. But some type of mandatory service, for a year or two. Which could include a host of public works and services, particularly in times of peace. Both within the United States and abroad. There would, of course, be administrative and other costs. Might be more expensive than it’s worth. And there would certainly be some safety issues and concerns. But if everyone, truly everyone, were required to participate, the burdens would be borne a lot more evenly, and a lot of good could likely be done.


Stephen J. Herman, Esq.

(Note - The views expressed on this political blog or blawg are the personal observations of Steve Herman and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, LAJ, AAJ, TLPJ, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.)

Another thing that occurred to me during the recent election process – (in addition to the fact that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party is really the party of deficit or pork barrel spending, which seems endemic to whatever politician or party happens to be in charge at the time) – is the fact that Republicans, at least in the present political climate, would seem to have a built-in advantage in terms of getting out the vote.

If you are more “liberal” or tolerant of different types of arrangements or outcomes, then you might not tend to see so much riding on any one vote.

If, on the other hand, you are unwilling to abide what you perceive to be an unacceptable outcome, then doing what you can to prevent it becomes imperative.

Thinking further about a year or two of Mandatory Service, it is probably a little too idealistic.

While it would be nice to have an army of citizens who could not only fight wars, but also provide humanitarian aid abroad, assist in rebuilding efforts after natural disasters like Katrina, tutor kids, clean up parks and neighborhoods, help patrol the borders, or do countless other good things, the practical problems associated with such an effort are probably a little too great.

Not to say that we shouldn’t have some actual study, discussion, thought, research or debate, but would be concerned about, not only the direct costs, but also the coercion and enforcement issues, the need for training and education, the arming or other enabling of criminal elements, and the risk of putting fairly disprate people in situations where they might be subject to physical violence, rape, or other abuse.

(The other side of that coin being a potential for eye-opening experience, social bonds, and education.)

(But...)

Anyway....