Friday Procrastination

I continue my unflappable adoration of President Obama. His speech at Tucson was moving and pitch-perfect. In the State of the Union speech, I heard the same voice, message, and spirit that I heard at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

The Republicans made a decision not to work at all with Obama and the Democrats. They didn't want to give even the smallest bit of support to any of their bills, from Health Care to Financial Reform for fear that the Democrats would label these bills as "bipartisan." The Republicans wanted their hands clean from these bills. And politically, their strategy worked: Republicans swept the midterm elections, and Obama saw his numbers drop throughout the year, though they remained pretty stable considering the state of the economy.

Joshua Green has a wonderful article in the Atlantic profiling the new Republican Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. It describes McConnell's plan to frustrate the White House through delay and obstruction on even non-controversial issues: "Obama could not evolve into a post-partisan leader, because McConnell wouldn't let him. He pegged Obama as either too narcissistic or to naive to recognize that his promise of a harmonious new age was beyond his capacity to deliver."

Once the Republicans won their election, they were more free to compromise in December, from the 9/11 First-Responders and Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation to the Start Treaty. Suddenly it seemed our government could function again! Obama's numbers began to rise after this "lame duck" session. That reinforces the fact that the Republican party had the right strategy, politically. But that strikes me as disgusting, for lack of a better word. They absconded their responsibility for two years in order to gain power in the next election! That might be a simplistic reading of the situation--after all, if I see everything Obama does as correct, then I have a biased view of his opposition--but seriously. Seriously!

Green raises those questions at the end of his McConnell profile, asking if "a party has any responsibility to address society's problems in good faith." But it seems as if this strategy of obstruction will be effective so long as the electorate rewards them for it.

Okay, back to writing. I promised myself I'd get to 8200 words on my would-be novel by the end of the week, and right now I have 7700.

Edited to add: I don't think everyone should unflappably adore their president. I'm glad they don't! We need people to challenge and criticize from the left and right in order for our country and our democracy to thrive. I'm just a cheerleader with purple pom-poms standing on the sidelines.

Tale of Two Worlds

I like to think that I came to my politics on my own, that I studied all sides and points of view and came to the conclusion that, yes, I am a democrat, I believe in a strong federal government, and I believe that government has a responsibility to help the least among us.

But my politics were formed long before I could study the issues and articulate my own ideology. Some of my earliest memories are of protests. I never heard the word "Reagan" or "Republican" without some disparaging remark from my mother. The second wedding I ever attended was between two women. It wasn't one thing; it was lots of things. I don't know how I could have been brought up how I was and become anything but a bleeding-heart liberal.

While Bush was president (for all but a couple years of my adult life), I got used to being a minority party. I could make fun of the president (haha "nuke-yoo-ler") and go to protests (boo "No Child Left Behind," boo Anti-Choice, boo Iraq invasion) and relish the frustration and freedom that comes from not being in charge. As I've said before, it's much easier to tear something apart than it is to solve or build.

But now we're in charge. We have an intellectual, progressive president who reads and writes for pleasure. We swept the house and senate to have majorities in both. We have a public who, despite the noise on cable, supports meaningful health care reform. And yet there seems to be two entirely different conversations going on, neither of which involves most Americans. The first is among the faction that has decided that President Obama is either illegitimate or a stone's throw away from a fascist, communist dictator. This group is talking about death panels and rationing and ACORN. Another conversation is going on more privately between lawmakers and the insurance industry. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be holding legislation hostage at the request of lobbyists.

But most of us, we're not part of this conversation. We are seeing budgets slashed, our friends laid off, and others struggling to get by. We are educated, we're engaged, but the more shut out of the process we are--candidate Obama wanted these health care debates to be broadcast in the open, live, on C-Span--the more disenfranchised we feel.

Winning cures all ills, though; the Bengals have won two in a row, so no one is going to complain about lack of throws his way. Once health care goes through, unemployment drops, and tangible signs of an economic recovery appear, the loony fringe may recede.

I think of a quote I read from one of Al Gore's books: "The opposite of reason is fear." So many people are (wrongfully, in my opinion) fearful, today. They seem to see no common ground. While I'd love for Obama to dictate what should (and should not) be done to reform health care, I think that might only increase fear and resentment as well as decrease reason and engagement. Slow as this is, process is important.

And so here I am again, faced with the task of grading revisions and thinking of new and better ways to make Othello interesting and relevant to nursing students, instead doing my own writing. It's a breath of fresh air to me, sitting here on my couch, my laptop in front of me and my space heater aimed directly at me, typing my own words instead of figuring out numerical scores for creative pieces. (This late in the quarter, I'm tempted to use smilies and "Way to Go!" stickers.) And with that, back to work I go.

How Public, Like a Frog

I'm lucky enough to know many adults who changed career paths in their 30s, 40s, and even 50s. The students I teach, coworkers at the library, friends of parents, my father: their journeys were not a straight trajectory out of high school or college. I say that I'm "lucky" to have witnessed these because I know with certainty that I don't have to have everything figured out right now; I know beyond a doubt that it's ok what I'm doing now. 

But I don't see myself doing this five years from now, at least not in its current form.  I twittered yesterday, "It's selfish 2want 2 sit around thinking of my own things to write instead of sitting around thinking of ways to teach others how to write" (I originally wanted to ask, "Is it selfish..." but was limited by space!) I soon went to bed, deciding to get up early this morning and finish that planning. I'd received a reply to my statement: "Sometimes we have to refill ourselves before we can help others. Be selfish!"

Each person has his own ways, both large and small, of sabotaging himself. Me, I procrastinate. I let things go. I make things harder than they need to be. And I've done this ever since I was small, usually in the context of not being challenged enough.  

Interesting. I'll have to see where this leads.