Here's where I'm coming from. I was elected to local office (controls zoning, police, public works, etc.) about 10 years ago. Rs outnumbered Dems 2-1, but I still won and was minority member for 2 years, getting the crap stomped out of me by my esteemed repug colleagues. I ran a guy in the subsequent election and we fought the repug's pure pandering campaign nonsense ("I will eliminate all taxes on seniors" when typical senior's taxes were around $40 per year) by explaining to people how wrongheaded the guy's "ideas" were (and most were just as absurd as the national repug platforms).
When we won THAT election by almost 2-1 (virtually no change in voter reg) with record numbers, we got majority and went about making major changes. Some Dems were mad we didn't fire everyone and start over - but that's another conversation. The big policy changes were how the games (with developers, lawyers, etc.) were done. The way it was done is, negotiate your surrender, early and often. At the end of a development, the taxpayers have to deal with all of the impacts to stormwater and a myriad of other expensive problems - in order to involve conflict that was presumed too costly.
I was enthralled by Obama making the call to "end the game in DC" and "not play it" because it was VERY similar to our situation - to change, you have to be ready to rock the boat.
I can tell you, several lawsuits (some threatened, some taken all the way - and all resolved in my community's favor) later, that ending 'the game' shocks the system correctly. The shmucks disappear and the people who, at least superficially, want to follow the rules and respect the neighbors begin to show up. Because schmucks can't handle losing. If they aren't guaranteed an easy win, some ego boost, they're gone to find another rigged game.
Some would say we rigged the rules excessively in favor of the community. But we've let the courts decide those challenges and so far, all the proof is that we simply made responsible rules. We endured withering accusations that lawsuits would bankrupt the township (exactly what the poachers want you to believe), but they were proved wrong. They were pretty cheap, and the effect was that jokers stayed away, knowing there was a gauntlet to run unless they flied straight and narrow. And the array of possible post-development problems were virtually eliminated (not to mention, development demand dropped significantly because we were no longer the door mat our reputation painted).
I'm out of office now, but the 2-1 republican registered township (larger than Wasilla AK) is still run by Dems. And it's still run by Dems because we didn't blather platitudes during campaigns - we told it like it is, how we would deal with the problems, and explained why it's important to solve the problems. County party folks were almost all - to a [wo]man - convinced we would be crushed. We didn't disrespect voters enough to campaign on tired buzzwords or trite slogans... that's how you win - 50% plus 1! And they were wrong.
Which is why I thought Obama was one of us. And then he got into office, surrounded himself with the people who'd relished in playing the DC games, and hasn't yet shown the courage to stop playing the game. For example, in the game, you endorse incumbents. In MY game, if you're deliberately trying to sabotage the priority list that my voters endorsed, I'm going to put as much (or more) effort into replacing you as you put into the sabotage. In MY game, if a solid solution that I know is supported by the voters is going to impact the budget, then I'm going to demand that my Senate Majority Leader run it through Reconciliation. And when people scream from across the aisle about it, I'll clown them. And when the people from my own aisle scream about it, I'll give them one and only one chance to shut their grandstanding pie holes before I work to find their replacement for the caucus. And if that means we drop caucus count down for an election cycle, then I'm at least able to wage war against an enemy wearing the other uniform instead of against one pretending to be on my side.
Is that too long-view? Maybe. But when you chase out the money-changers and instill reason and discipline, surprisingly positive things start to follow... things you wouldn't have expected also change in kind. PLUS, you get to keep your head high, knowing you didn't compromise your integrity and principles in the process of governing.
There. Sorry for the length. But this is why I'm bitterly disappointed in the President. He's gone back on his word. He's had many opportunities to pound his fist and say, "that's it! No more!" and change the game. I don't know why he won't. There's been few opportunities in history when voters are ready for dramatic change. Yet...
I'll keep hoping for it, but I have no reason for optimism at this point.
PS: One of the things we ran on in the second election was to hold a referendum for voters to decide if they would authorize a tax increase, the proceeds of which would go toward preserving open space.
Yes,
WE RAN ON RAISING TAXES. Does it get more in your face than that?!?! And we
crushed the other guy.
THAT is where I come from. Say what you're gonna do, show why it needs to be done, explain how you're gonna do it - AND THEN DO IT. The President did a magnificent job of the first three things.
