The "Deal": Apparent and Real

“The Deal”: Apparent and Real

P. Schultz

January 1, 2013

            Happy New Year! I don’t believe I have to add much other than attaching this article from the NY Times today to illustrate that our two political parties, or at least those who control them, are interested in little more than preserving the status quo and, therewith, preserving their power and prominence. And let it be noted that this outcome seems to me to confirm that the last presidential election was meant to serve the same purpose of preserving the status quo.

            Nonetheless, at least one quote from the article should be highlighted. 

“As Mr. Obama all but acknowledged Monday, big bipartisan legislative dreams seem all but certain to be miniaturized as incremental policy visions.
“My preference would have been to solve all these problems in the context of a larger agreement, a bigger deal, a grand bargain, whatever you want to call it,” he said. “Maybe we can do it in stages. We’re going to solve this problem instead in several steps.” 

            What Obama did not say is that by “solv[ing] this problem . . . in several steps,” the problem has been redefined. That is, “in the context of a larger agreement, a bigger deal, a grand bargain,” the problem is one thing; but that changes absent such a deal, call it whatever you will. I just think of it this way: If one approaches political reform, say of foreign policy, in a big way, then your problem is decidedly different than if you approach such reform as, say, cleaning up “a mess” or “messes,” which is how Obama chose to talk about his response to Benghazi. To pursue big change requires challenging and changing the status quo, whereas dealing with change piecemeal does not. In fact, the latter is a way of preserving the status quo while pretending to do the same thing as if one were undertaking “a larger agreement, a bigger deal, a grand bargain, whatever you want to call it.” 

            Well, Mr. President, I want to call the alternative “real change,” “significant change,” not unreal change or insignificant change, which of course isn’t really “change” at all. But then why am I not surprised with the outcome? Because this outcome is perfectly consistent with the actions of the Obama administration since his election in 2008. 

            So, folks, I say once again: Happy New Year. Just don’t expect anything of any significance to change in Washington, D.C. The oligarchy is firmly entrenched there and will be for the foreseeable future. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/us/politics/grand-bargains-give-way-to-legislative-quick-fixes.html?hp