The Trouble With Politics

Politics, in the larger sense, is how people get along with other people. We talk, we trade, we compromise; we sell each other things and swap stories; we interact, and at the end of the day, we sleep and get ready to do it again. It is, definitionally, about government, true enough; but it is also about simple human interaction to accomplish given purposes and goals. With that latter sense in mind, politics can also be defined as "the art of the possible."

Frankly, there is nothing wrong with politics in the United States. The interactions are still functioning, people are still talking (often too much and on the wrong subjects), and we hold elections as regular as clockwork. Politics, we have.

What we don't have is a clear differentiation between elections and governing. Getting elected, to far too many people, is simply the prerequisite to getting re-elected, and that quest begins before new legislators take office and continues until they retire or are shown the door.

Here's the problem: getting elected is not the job. Getting elected is getting hired to DO the job.

We have always had legislators who understood the difference, ranging from the great antebellum Senators who kept the Union together until the lunatics blew it asunder to the brilliant 20th Century Congresses that gave us everything from Social Security to the Interstate Highway system, on through to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is safe to say that there were differences of opinion throughout that were in diametrical opposition, one to another. But they served in wars together and experienced life outside of Congress; this let them see the other guy as someone who honestly thought about things differently - not as the enemy, or as evil.

They knew that compromise was not a bad thing. It gives the best deal to the most people, and if you do not get everything you want, at least everyone gets something...and you can always try again next time when you have more votes or better arguments.

These days, compromise is seen as surrender. But without compromise, without a willingness to listen, actually LISTEN to the other opinion (which, against the odds, might be closer to the truth than yours is), the work simply doesn't get done very often or very well.

Obamacare is a case in point: it passed through a procedural trick on a virtual straight line party vote. There was no minority party buy in, even though there were and are items in the ACA that both sides agree needed to be enacted. The lack of buy in provoked a sustained response that is eager to rescind it, defund it, or use it to defeat Democrats in elections - the latter being the most effective. The thing the Democrats forgot is that having the votes simply meant that something could get enacted; the point was to get the best bill possible, bringing both parties on board. Many Republicans, particularly in the Senate, wanted to pass a health care bill, and bringing them in, even if it made the bill less comprehensive, would have lent the legislation legitimacy. Instead, the ADA ended up looking partisan, and it was.

The times are too fraught with peril to put up with ballot mice. We need legislators. We need our leaders to emulate men like Henry Clay, Thomas B. Reed, Sam Rayburn, Tip O'Neill and Everett Dirksen, not people like Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner. We need people who are willing to govern and make the damn deal.

In short, we need statesmen. We need men and women of character and honor. But mostly, we need them all to do the jobs we hired them to do.

Or we need to fire the lot of them and give some other people a shot.

A Life In Full...

Bobby Brooks Farmer – 1931-2013

A man is defined as much by what he does as who he is. All throughout America, exceptional men live in relative obscurity, known to friends and family and not, perhaps, to the communities at large. They live lives of enormous integrity, in their work, their churches, and their homes, taking care of the people who depend upon them and the towns they live within. They are aldermen and councilmen, elders and deacons, businessmen, professionals, husbands, and fathers. As much as anyone anywhere, they are the glue of our society. They manned the ships and planes and infantry brigades during times of war, and built, then rebuilt, the country they continued to serve. This is the sort of man that Bobby Brooks Farmer was, and that was the sort of life he led.

Bob Farmer was born July 19, 1931 in Benton, KY, and died August 25, 2013, age 82, at his home in Murfreesboro, TN. He was preceded in death by his parents, Sam L. Farmer and Reba Darnall Farmer and one brother, Sam H. Farmer. He is survived by his wife of 62 years, Marlene Emerine Farmer, and his children Jeff Farmer (Linda/ Jill, Brett, Micah & Sarah), Julia Farmer, John Farmer (Margaret/ Joshua, Ethan & Anna), and Jamie Oneida (Dene/ Sarah, Andi & Brittni). He is also survived by his brother Solon W. Farmer (Frances) and his sister-in-law Royalyn Lawrence (Dan), all from Benton, and his nephew Mark Phillips (Ann/ Colton) of Collierville, TN.

Bob graduated Benton High in 1949, was married in 1951, and then joined the Navy that same year, serving as an Electronics Technician during the Korean War aboard the USS Hornet as well as mainland assignments in Memphis, California and Florida.

Subsequent to his discharge in 1955, he attended Murray State studying pre-Pharmacy, and graduated pharmacy school at Memphis in 1959. After working for five years in Maryville, TN, and 13 years as half-owner of Martin’s Drug Store on the square at Murfreesboro, Bob was employed at the Murfreesboro VA Hospital, retiring from CMOP (Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy) in 2012 after 53 years as a pharmacist.

Bob loved sports, having played baseball and basketball as a youth. As an adult, he avidly followed the University of Kentucky basketball program, but his greatest joy was attending the countless games played by his sons and daughters, and then his grandsons and granddaughters.

He was a member of the First Baptist Church in Murfreesboro, and served as a deacon, an usher, and taught Sunday School for many years. Donations may be sent to the First Baptist Church library in lieu of flowers. Services will be held Saturday, August 31 at the Woodfin Funeral Chapel on Lascassas Pike in Murfreesboro.

The Inconvenient Paradox of DOMA and Prop 8

During the hearings for DOMA and Prop 8 this week at the Supreme Court, one of the more interesting problems of bringing both cases in such close proximity arose but was carefully ignored by everyone other than the Chief Justice. He posed Solicitor General Donald Verrilli a couple of questions during the DOMA session that had to do with the extent of federalism and the power of the states within their own spheres. The questions were a bit elliptical and the meaning a bit less than clear, but the substance is this:

You want us to overrule DOMA on the basis of federalism, that the Federal Government should not take a stand on marriage as such, but leave it to the discretion of the states and then simply recognize the status of individuals according to how the state characterizes them (married, same sex committed couples, domestic partners, etc). States that do not recognize other arrangements than traditional marriage would not be forced to reciprocity by the federal government. AND you want us to assert federal Constitutional supremacy over the California State Constitution, which was, in fact, legitimately amended by a legally mandated process to disallow gay marriage solely within the boundaries of that state.

Essentially, what he said was this: we are moving at cross purposes here. Either the federal government has supremacy power over the states when dealing with questions of rights and how they may be exercised, or it does not. If it does, then DOMA has to stand for the basis for overruling Prop 8, federal civil rights supremacy, to be legitimate. If DOMA, on the other hand, is a federal overreach into the rights of the states, then the decision of the California Supreme Court should be reversed, as California law was followed to enact Prop 8 and the federal government should have no say in the matter.

Obviously, this is not how the cases are going to play out. But it does explain why several of the justices seem very open to either dismissing the Prop 8 case as improvidently granted, or finding another way to affirm the state Supreme Court. If the case is DIGed, the District Court's ruling stands (probably suggesting that the Prop 8 backers had no standing to represent the amendment in court), and Prop 8 is dead. If it is dismissed, likewise; the result stands at the state Supreme Court level.

So, what I expect is some sort of straddle, where DOMA is overruled and Prop 8 is disposed of administratively. But let's be clear: even if DOMA is affirmed and Prop 8 is reversed, civil momentum is on the side of gay marriage. Even without a one-size-fits-all-states Roe v. Wade sort of ruling (something the Court is anxious to avoid), we are looking at a fundamental change in how marriage is viewed, both legally and culturally. It is only a matter of time.