By Loren Adams, 11 April 2010
Part of the reason President Obama has been unable up to
this point (passage of Healthcare Reform 3/21/10) to get his promises of change
delivered is due to his mistaken assessment of the adversary. “Know your
enemy,” is the first rule of combat; every successful general knows this
premise. (Perhaps he never classified the Republican Party as “enemy” and, so,
his agenda has been slowed to a crawl while he sorted out reality in his own
mind in his own time. Meanwhile, back at the ranch…)
Obama’s premise was spelled out clearly at the 2004
Democratic Convention with his “Red State / Blue State” speech that brought
delegates to their feet. Then it continued in 2007-2008 with his campaign for the
presidency. “Bi-partisanship” became the keystone; all other promises depended
on succeeding at the first. And that operational model became the albatross
tied around progressives’ necks.
In fairness to Obama, the biggest part of the promise of
“change” was improving the tone in Washington. Who wouldn’t desire such a
pleasant environment? But when idealism runs smack into the wall of reality,
the whole agenda train crashes or at best – stalled.
To succeed, one has to assess the field correctly before
going into attack mode. In politics, the science of assessment is called
“opposition research,” and it’s been essential to every winning campaign. Ditto
when off-the-campaign trail trying to accomplish anything for the electorate.
One must know the opposition before defeating it.
Accurately identifying the nature of the Republican Party
has been Democrats and Obama’s weakness. “Look deep into nature, and then you
will understand everything better.” – Albert Einstein
Perhaps in the distant past Republicans were simply “colleagues”
with similar passions, goals and ambitions – although fueled by different
strategies to arrive at the same destination. Not so for decades. Not one
Republican lawmaker stood up for healthcare reform, and filibusters have become
the norm in the Senate for quite some time. The Republican Party perceives the
Democratic Party an “enemy” worthy of punishment on a level with foreign nemeses
like Osama bin Laden or Hugo Chavez. Their concept is extreme, certainly. But
the concept is real, not imagined. Their hostile attitude toward Democrats is
now manifest by violence.
One of the best memorization techniques is to construct a
mental caricature or cartoon, then link other names and/or data to that image.
To get a clearer picture of who the Republicans and Democrats are, I’ve drawn
two caricatures: CHUCK (the GOP boy) and CHAD (the Democrat). Now, the elephant
and donkey have been traditional mascots. But assigning the two parties human
characteristics allows for better assessment how to deal with them in
real-life.
CHUCK the Republican is a slightly overweight white male
fundamentalist with Southern roots and accent. CHUCK loves war and military
combat. He’s a die-hard affiliate of the NRA, a pro-lifer, and member of the Word
of Faith Christian Community Church. This is no contradiction, for the
“Christian” southern church has long renounced the teachings of Christ dealing
with war/peace principles. Replacing the Sermon on the Mount are the
catch-phrases: “Kill a commie for Mommy,” “My way or the highway,” and “Only
good Muslim is a dead Muslim.”
CHUCK did not serve in the military but demands others do.
He’s what is called a “chickenhawk.” CHUCK, the chickenhawk, was a member of
the Young Republicans in college, and – like typical Young Republicans
– schemed and plotted to avoid military service. Yet, he loves war and
military engagement in overseas campaigns – just so others fight and die
and not him or his acquaintances. CHUCK’s hypocrisy is inescapable.
CHUCK is intolerant of other beliefs and races. In fact, he
advocates killing all “rag-heads” and sending Blacks back to Africa (where they
belong, in his estimation). CHUCK’s immigration policy boils down to: ship all
Mexicans across the Rio Grande – no questions asked and not grant visas
to any Muslims – no matter what country of origin. He feels that he’s
being imposed upon by minorities and welfare recipients and that his
hard-earned money is being stolen by big government to “redistribute the
wealth” to undeserving slackers. CHUCK’s icons are Jefferson Davis, Ronald
Reagan, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Ollie North, and he’d vote again for George
W. Bush if given the chance.
CHUCK owns a trucking firm. He watches FOX News religiously,
plus listens to Limbaugh and Hannity daily. CHUCK appreciates simple talk,
condensing every message down to easy-to-digest sound-bites and catch-phrases
– even if they twist the truth.
CHAD the Democrat is in distinct contrast to CHUCK. CHAD
believes he can win over adversaries by simply having an open discussion and
compromising – even with issues of firm conviction that should never be subject
to the grind of negotiation. CHAD is active physically, consumes healthy foods,
and is a member of the liberal Presbyterian Church. CHAD served in the military
but does not love war and conflict. He speaks in soft-tones with a slight
western accent.
CHAD is gullible. His trust in people gets him in trouble,
because he fails to recognize the nature of others, especially the nature of
CHUCK.
CHAD is a member of the Sierra Club, MoveOn.org, and the
ACLU. CHAD is a defense attorney and so sees most everything through the prism
of legal terminology. His lengthy words and phrases also are an impediment,
because common folk have a difficult time understanding CHAD. Nuances are
disliked by most; so sound-bites – the fast-food of vocabulary – is
the average American lingo. Not so with CHAD. The communication barrier is what
makes CHUCK more popular than CHAD, especially in the red states.
CHAD supports unionism, working people’s rights, gay rights,
racial and gender equality, social justice, ecology, and socialized medicine.
But his foremost flaw – gullibility or naivety –
hinders him from accomplishing much of anything.
So, the clash between CHUCK and CHAD is apparent. The
problem is – they have to work together to get anything done for the
country. CHUCK is a bully ready to pounce on anything that moves against his
wishes, and CHAD is a pacifist with high-ideals that he’s willing to compromise
to achieve “bi-partisanship,” his number one passion. You see, CHAD has a
stronger desire for CHUCK to like him than he does for getting things done to
meet his life-goals.
Next time you see Republicans and Democrats in chambers of
Congress, remember CHUCK and CHAD – how they vary and how, together, they
can’t get anything done due to a perpetual personality clash. But the weak link
is CHAD. He has the best vision for the country but lacks the cajones to get it
done. CHAD has the misconception that he can bring CHUCK along in his quests,
but is slapped down every time with zero support. CHUCK is a sore loser and
cheats whenever and wherever he can. CHAD tries to play by the rules, but
cheaters win every time if not checked by the other player.
President Obama needs this mental image of CHUCK and CHAD to
better cope with his job in the future.