Pelosi the Change Agent

One thing that has not been reported on concerning national politics is dismal record of this last year’s Congress. When Nancy Pelosi took her place as Speaker of the House we all expected (feared) change. The only thing that I saw changed was the congressional approval ratings. Congress hit an all time low early in 2007 with a 14% approval rating. They failed at passing any meaningful legislation. They failed at blocking the war effort. They failed at defunding the military. Even Democrats in the press have been skewering Nancy Pelosi about her failure as Speaker of the House. I for one, have not been able to find one positive result from her leadership.

However, I now have been proven wrong. I don’t know how I missed it. There has been incredible improvement. In the Politico Blog I learned that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has used her considerable influence to completely revamp the U.S. House of Representatives Congressional Cafeterias menus! The article starts:

The processed cheese has been replaced with brie. The Jell-O has made way for raspberry kiwi tarts and mini-lemon blueberry trifles. Meatloaf has moved over for mahi mahi and buns have been shunted aside in favor of baguettes.

It is all part of her "Greening the Capital" plan to make the House campus more environmentally friendly and socially progressive says the article. It goes on to say:

Even the things that haven’t changed seem cooler because their names are in foreign languages. The taco bar is the “Taqueria.” The grill is “A la Plancha.” The salad bar has expanded to “Salad/Antipasti.”

Has our first woman Speaker found her niche? “Where’s Speaker Pelosi? The Russian Ambassador wants to talk with her.”

“Uh – she’s mincing garlic for the chicken marsala. Tell him she’s busy."

Democrat's Time of Testing

If Clinton wins the nomination, what happens then to the Democratic Party? What is supposed to happen is that the fierce competitors suddenly take off the gloves and lock arms with the winner. This could possibly happen if Hillary names Obama as her Vice President. However, if she goes another direction, which is likely, then things will get interesting. Having tasted the power of a new, fresh coalition, the Obama people may resist the conventional path of folding in behind the victor.

In a recent speech, Mrs. Clinton explained to her audience that even though Martin Luther King was huge in the campaign against discrimination, it took a Johnson to get the Civil Rights Act passed. MLK (“I have a dream”) was – well, a dreamer. LBJ was a benevolent champion for their cause. Her analogy of King / Johnson to Obama /Clinton was not lost on the Obama people. It opened up an issue that here-to-for has not been talked about in Democratic circles.

The Democratic Party for years has operated under a co-dependant relationship that upper class white people provide the laws; black people provide the votes. In one speech, Hillary unwittingly opened up this issue and explained that she is the one to maintain that structure.

It has worked in the past because the black voters never coalesced around a candidate like they have Obama. And until now, there has never been one who has added young educated white voters to that coalition. What is happening with Obama is the sense that this coalition is saying, “We don’t need that relationship anymore. We’ve grown up. We’ve come of age and we can recognize our own power. We don’t need you to provide it anymore.”

Look for Hillary to recognize the power of that coalition and try to buy it by making Obama her running mate. The real mystery here is whether Obama will sell out his coalition and take that offer.

Why Truth Seeker?

When I named my blog I did so because of my favorite verse, John 8:32. (then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free). I could also hear in the background Pontius Pilate’s frustrated question in John 18:38 “What is truth?”

For people who are spiritually on the outside, that is a real legitimate question. Unless you know The Truth, you have to reason among competing agendas to apprehend a belief that you hope is closest to the truth. Or, if you have power, lots of power, you can purchase it and establish it, regardless of its reflection of reality.

E. E. Schotsneider in his landmark book called The Semi-sovereign People, gave the famous quote “He who defines an issue, decides who wins.” Every political battle is a war of defining issues. Is the Mexican immigrant problem about poor families needing to work to survive or is it about an invasion of illegal aliens? Or is there another issue that defines this dilemma?

Schotsneider’s observation is very simple but extremely complex. The war of truth in the world today is all about defining the issues. How do you make your definition of the issue stick and the others pass in to oblivion? Is truth subject to revision?

I submit that in the world today, the power struggles are all about the definition of truth. That takes power and capital. And once defined, the maintenance of that definition also takes power and capital because of the constant assault on that definition. I have come to believe that this issue, the establishment of truth and the subsequent maintenance of it are now the primary driving forces in the world today. “He who defines an issue, decides who wins” Wins what? Wins the world! But he who knows the Truth wins what? Wins eternity with the Way, the Truth, and the Life!

Thoughts on the Presidential Race and Leadership so far:

• Except for the 1992 election, the Democratic Party consistently managed to elect as their candidate the most liberal person in the field. Every time it ended in defeat for their party. Are they doing it again?
• Iowa Republicans answered a big question for the candidates. Republican caucus attenders opted for sincerity. Romney spent the most money. Thompson is the most famous. McCain has the best resume. None of that impressed the Iowans. Theirs was clearly a vote for the least political, most sincere candidate.
• A couple of posts ago I asked a question about who do you think can handle the inevitable international crises that our new President will face. I posed a hypothetical tragedy in the Strait of Hormuz. So did you see the news today? Look here.
  
• The Iranians tested our resolve by racing attack craft straight at our ships and then turning away at the last minute when they reached 200 yards. They knew they would be fired upon if they came any closer. Earlier this year when they did the same thing to the British Navy, 14 Brits were captured and held hostage for 15 days. The British chose to be passive in the face of hostile action. That choice had to come from the highest level. Do we want that kind of military? Do we want another Jimmy Carter?