Obama: “…just voting no…that’s not leadership.”

Of all the lines I heard tonight in Obama’s State of The Union Address, I was most impressed by this one: “And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.” I think this line got to the very heart of public frustration with American politics.

The issue, as Obama called it, is the “perpetual campaign,” where governance becomes more about winning and holding on to your seat, about winning points and gaining a lead, then actually governing. I wrote a little piece called “Democracy Vs. What’s Right” which asked the question, Given that you are certain of a correct course of action, how do you choose between forcing that issue by majority law and trying to involve an opposition constructively that will not budge? At the heart of this question is an assumption that there will always be a significant opposition and that such an opposition will not cooperate. And that’s the trouble. That’s not the way it is.

We vote for people because they are like minded, like-able, and seem like they can get things done. Once the voting is done, we imagine them carefully considering proposals. I think we think of “12 Angry Men” sitting around a table, working through the facts, the logic, and calling one another out. But it doesn’t seem to be that way. In pointing out the GOP’s staunch opposition, Obama has put a spotlight on the nature of all of Washington: alliances are more important than independence. Another way of putting it, between independent consideration and sticking with the herd, the herd wins; always.

Let me make it clear that I don’t think Republicans do this and Democrats don’t. I see it on both sides.

A sociologist would have a great comment here about the value of herd mentality, especially when it comes to threats. Seeing what the other guy does is a heckuva lot easier than thinking about it on your own.

But imagine a world where we had to put a congressman in a room by themselves, the same way you separate members of a gang in interrogation to see if their story adds up. Next, hand them a proposal. Let them sit with a bill. Then, ask them what they think. I wonder if party lines would be so clearly drawn then.