Howard Zinn (r.i.p.), in his attempt to encompass American history from 1492 up to the present in six hundred-odd pages of small print, points out that the new government comprised our upper class instead of Britain's.It was passed from one to the other as a result of the Revolution. He is compelling. The father of our country was also the richest person in the country. And a mean slaveowner and no advocate for Indian rights. So whose side would the fathers be on today? Hard to say, hard to say.
Some of the opposition candidates are so dumb that they are defeating themselves. Even so, Barney Frank's seat is in jeopardy. Others among today's fathers are as well. Chris Dodds is stepping down. Unsurprisingly, the C is biting him. The sort of unhealthful abuse of physiology that attends the heated, protracted debates at the committee level as well as proposed legislation that's made it to the floor, destroys even thick-skinned brahmins. Not too long ago I researched members of Congress who had ascended to their seats from humble backgrounds and found not many at all.
That is to say, though I'm treading on unstudied ground, that the youth cult that JFK pioneered persists. The strident energy of those innocent of the Capitol Hill swamp but convinced they can clear it out, is compelling. Though "Senate" comes from a root meaning old (senex) and the term originated in ancient Rome, the root also has evolved into another word with less positive connotations than wise--namely, senile. Recall that Arlen Spector, who didn't miss a day of work even and also fighting C, lasted in his role into his eighty-first year, then to be "primaried," hugely, by young Joe Sestak.
Does idealistic youth trump the time-tried badge of experience? I think that if Obama had remained a few more years in the Senate he would have acquired at least some of LBJ's WD-40--the man who changed the course of our destinies so entirely with his JFK-inspired legislation.
How many of us old fogies are around because of that legislation? Is that a positive or negative contribution to the common welfare?
All this is to say that most of the opposition is young and many believe that the terms of senators should be shorter and new blood is compelling.
That Obama should have attacked joblessness and the foreclosure crisis before health care is a compelling complaint. Is it true that the people must be healthy in order to stay alive and keep on fighting the fight? This has occurred to me.
So much is required to make radical changes. Especially those opposed by the rich. But we must reach into their pockets to get anywhere, true?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
