Chair's Corner - “Big Tent” Limitations

By Dr. Phil O'Dwyer, Chair
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

For generations, Democrats have lauded the importance of the “big tent” theory of political affiliation. We promote that our party is tolerant enough to embrace diverse shades of opinion while remaining true to a general philosophy. Our tent, it is said, harmoniously houses “blue dogs” and progressives; the fervently religious as well as unconvinced souls.

But this range of perspective renders the term “liberal” an ill-fitting moniker for many current Democrats. Regional differences also reveal troublesome rifts in the party while Michigan’s Congressman Bart Stupak remains an enigma.

The current Healthcare debate has been an unhappy display for many active grassroots members of our party. It surfaces the weakness of the “big tent” theory of politics. Essentially the letter “D” after some elected officials name is for convenient coding but cannot be relied upon when they are called upon to act.

Historically, the Republican Party has demonstrated the ability to keep their members in line for the big votes. They use strategies like those Lyndon Johnson used in another era to help errant members come around to his way of thinking. That is essentially how the Civil Rights Act was passed.

As we accord seasonal forgiveness to those Democrats representing particularly conservative districts, one has difficulty finding equal goodwill for our former Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman. His behavior and implacable demands are as self-serving as they are despicable.

Many on the progressive side are now murmuring words of discontent with President Obama’s failure to be more forceful. In some circles, prominent supporters feel let down and are uncertain that he can fulfill the promise of last year. They want him to punish Lieberman by taking away his committee chairmanship and punish others by landing Air Force One in their States capital city without them on board. Lyndon Johnson would do that at the very least.

But Obama is a principled pragmatist, aware that it takes 60 votes in the Senate and that he has none to spare. Not one! The result will be a Healthcare bill that is sub optimal but is a good beginning. Basically, “half a loaf is better than no bread.” Later modifications will only require a simple majority and he knows that.

As the curtain falls on 2009 many at home and around the world are just as pleased to see this year come to an end. The hope that filled America as Obama took office still endures. The challenges were far worse than even a pessimist would have anticipated. And the party that created this crisis in the first place still has no solution.

While the big tent may have some who seem uncomfortable in its shade, it is still the preferable place to be. It is wise to adopt a pragmatic approach and take the long term view. On balance, at this writing it appears that by Christmas Eve we will have a Healthcare plan.

The Republicans could add nothing but obstructionism as 30 million Americans get health coverage. Their total unwillingness to tell the truth on this issue has reached unparalleled levels. Spin is one thing to which we have all grown accustomed to in modern politics, but unvarnished lies which they know to be lies is shocking.

Thus, thanks to the Democratic Party and our President, 94% of the country can celebrate Christmas confident that they can access medical treatment for themselves and their children. It is far from a perfect bill and a disappointment to many of us who work in healthcare everyday but it still is landmark legislation. The public option was desirable but it could not get past the Republican filibuster.

Our Congressman, Gary Peters, made the difficult vote that represents us well, as did Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow in the Senate.

May I take this opportunity to wish each member of our club the Blessing of the Season, which is Peace; the Gladness of the Season, which is Hope; and the Heart of the Season, which is Love.