TEA PARTY AMERICA: THE ‘60s COME FULL CIRCLE

Remember those wacky ‘60s? At least some of us old-timers do, and you kids, you might have read about those years in your history classes. (Do they still teach history in school?) Anyway, those were fun times. A raucous group of anti-establishment, anti-government, anti-authoritarian wackos dominated the national discourse. They were a minority of the population but you would never know it from the amount of attention they attracted to themselves. They competed with each other to see who could be the most outlandish, who could produce the most consternation amongst their fellow citizens.

 

And guess what!? They’er back! Anti-establishment, anti-government, anti-authoritarian wackos dominating the national discourse. To be sure, they don’t have quite the same political philosophy as did their 1960s’ predecessors, but the details are minor compared to the central focus shared by the two groups. That central focus was then and is today the desire to collapse a good portion of society, and mostly just for the fun of it.

NEOCONS, WHERE’D THEY GO?

Remember a few years back when neocons—neoconservatives—were all the rage? Remember the large role they played in getting the nation into those little skirmishes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, they certainly seem few and far between today. A handful are still around: Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham, for example. Dick Cheney still sounds off occasionally. But by and large they seem to be lying low.

Which on one hand is a pity, because their willingness to throw military might at a situation could contribute to the backing the President seeks before delivering a bit of punishment to Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, a punishment that definitely should be delivered.

But on the other hand, those neocons weren’t the most rational people. Their answer to most problems in the foreign affairs arena boiled down to us kicking the snot out of some country or group. Winning hearts and minds was not their thing. Their attitude was, “Grab ‘em by the gonads. The hearts and minds will follow.”

And the “us” that was to do the snot kicking wasn’t necessarily them, safely ensconced in their think tanks, literary havens, political positions, and the like. The “us” was the sons and daughters of ordinary Americans. As Mr. Cheney once said about the five military deferments he received in the sixties (Vietnam, remember?), “I had other priorities.”

Moreover, the neocons weren’t very good on the details of snot-kicking. Just throw some troops at the problem. We’ll think about goals, objectives, strategy, and stuff later. They were sort of the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick.” They were more “scream loudly ‘til the other guy quits.” Only the other guy can often outlast the inept application of military power.

So most of us won’t miss the neocons. They were fun while they lasted, but all good things must end. Now we can turn for entertainment to those rising laugh-a-minute libertarians. It’s like your favorite TV show went off the air but this new one definitely has possibilities.

OBAMA'S SYRIAN SPEECH

This is what the President should say in his upcoming speech to the nation on Syria. Oh, not necessarily the exact words. His speech writers should be able to smooth the jagged edges. But these are the points he should get across Tuesday night.

My fellow Americans. I come before you tonight to present the case for military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The reason for military action is simple: punishment for using chemical weapons.

War is horrible. But chemical weapons are especially horrific. They were used extensively in World War I. The revulsion against them and their terrible effects was so great that they were absent from the battlefields of World War II and have been employed only in isolated instances since then. All but a handful of nations--Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan, and Syria--are party to the Chemical Weapons Convention outlawing the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.

Bashar al-Assad was warned about using chemical weapons in Syria's current civil war. But he ignored the warnings and recently slaughtered more than a thousand fellow Syrians, including over four hundred children, with chemicals.

This despicable act requires punishment. And that is the nature of the military action I am prepared to undertake. The action is punishment for waging war in a manner that is condemned by the vast majority of the world's nations and peoples. The action is designed not only to punish Bashar al-Assad but also to discourage any other powers from resorting to such evil in the future.

But, many ask, how would punishing the Syrian dictator impact our policy toward him in general and toward the civil war he is conducting?

Our desire regarding Bashar al-Assad and Syria is that he no longer be the ruler of Syria and that Syria start down the path to a democratic government and freedom and justice for its citizens. But these goals are not things we will pursue with large-scale military action. To impose our will on Syria by force would require a massive military invasion, an effort similar to the one we led in 1990-91 to remove the forces of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The wars we have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade show the confusing, unsatisfying outcomes that can flow form trying to do too much with too little military. 

Partly as a result of the inconclusive Iraq and Afghanistan wars, partly as a result of a decade of exposure to the perplexing conflicts of the Middle East, the American people would not be supportive of open-ended military action in the area, much less a large-scale military effort in Syria. Moreover, a large-scale military effort would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation in order to protect the fragile new government. And again, this is not a mission Americans are currently disposed to undertake.

We will continue to explore diplomatic solutions. We will provide various sorts of support--short of large-scale military action--to what groups we can find in Syria that share our desire for peace, justice, and democracy in the country. But we are not prepared to attempt to solve the many problems in that part of the world by force. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but there are limits to that power. There are limits to what we can accomplish in, or impose on, other cultures. 

What we can do is to punish pure evil. And chemically killing over a thousand of his fellow Syrians, including over four hundred children, was an act of pure evil by Bashar al-Assad. I propose to punish him and his instruments of power for that act.

 

Thank you, and may God bless and protect America.

OBAMA ROLLS THE DICE

In what could be one of the defining actions of his Presidency, President Obama has rolled the dice on military action against the Syrian regime. Instead of ordering military action, he has asked Congress for authorization to do so.

The need to respond to the despicable conduct of the Syrian regime−using chemical weapons against its own people−would have been unquestioned in decades past. But the combination of three factors is threatening to turn back the nation's clock to the pre-World War II years when peace at all cost was the shameful stance of many Americans. First, after the costly and drawn out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan−drawn out in large measure because of the military incompetence of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld−the American people are tired of foreign involvements, particularly in the perplexing, confusing Middle East.

Second, the current Congress is certainly one of the most partisan and inept in the nation's long history of partisan and inept Congresses. If this Congress is a true reflection of the electorate, we are indeed a nation dominated by dummies. And third, far too many so-called conservatives, including far too many conservatives in Congress, simply want to see Obama fail, never mind the cost to the nation. The visceral dislike−hatred is not too strong a word−of the nation's first President who does not have a typical middle or upper class American background is more than palpable in some quarters.

So it does not seem too strong a statement to say that the President has put his ability to govern effectively over the next three years, and his place in history, on a roll of the dice. Maybe this isn't his reasoning, but his bet seems to be that the Congress can rise above itself, can rise above the passions that have engulfed tea-party, Fox-Noise America, and do what is required of a world power with responsibilities it may not want but most certainly should not avoid.

That is one helluva bet.

THE APOCALYPSE NEARS

Signs that the Apocalypse ain't far away:

) Private Chelsea Manning (It's not the transgender thing; it's that someone with such obvious mental and emotional problems had practically unlimited access to sensitive documents pertaining to the nation's security)

) Senator Ted Cruz

) Republicans in general (Remember the good ol' days when Democrats were the whacko party? At least they were never a real threat to bring the American experiment to a crashing halt)

) Facebook

) Twitter

) The Middle East

) Climate change deniers

) Fox Noise

 

) A financial system that is totally at the mercy of computers (and hackers and technological glitches and whatall)

STAND YOUR GROUND = LICENSE TO KILL

Stripped of legalese and high-sounding bows to an individual's right of self-defense, the essence of stand your ground laws is a license to kill. You find yourself in a ticklish situation with a loud-mouth ahole, you don't have to expend energy in trying to defuse things. You can just blow his sorry a** away.

 

In the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman confrontation, whoever survived arguably had a stand-your-ground defense. Zimmerman was allegedly on the  ground getting his head pounded into the concrete, so he was justified in shooting Martin. Never mind that Zimmerman had stupidly put himself in harm's way.

 

If Martin had been the survivor, he most certainly would have had a stand your ground defense. He was being followed by some weird wannabe tough guy who had a gun. If that is not a threatening situation justifying a bit of preventative killing, nothing is.

 

Yeah, standing your ground is a great addition to the Second Amendment. No more need to show a preference for peaceful solutions or defusing actions. Rationality is for losers. The law says you can shoot first. Ain't that great?

F-BOMB IN COURT

Much to the delight of the nation's media, pundits, and assorted talking heads, the prosecutor in his opening statement in the George Zimmerman trial dropped the f-bomb. It was a planned drop, not one of those spur-of-the-moment “oh f***”s. The prosecutor was quoting Mr. Zimmerman in a call the latter had made to the police shortly before slaying another individual, a slaying Mr. Zimmerman claims was self-defense but the state, represented by the prosecutor, asserts was murder.

The prosecutor was not the first lawyer to drop the f-bomb in a trial. Cranky his own self did so almost four decades ago. At the time, Cranky had a little part-time law practice down in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he had grown up and was working on a graduate degree at the Big Green, or The College of W&M. One day a cousin dropped into his office, a young lady he had last seen when she was a child. She was now a young adult and in a bit of a jam.

Seems she had gotten into an argument with another young lady over the affections of a young gentleman, a truck driver as near as Cranky can recall. Some unpleasant words were uttered and there may have been a bit of hair-pulling. The local constabulary became involved, and Cranky's cousin found herself with a court date. Only a misdemeanor was alleged, so it wasn't the crime of the century.

Still, Cranky didn't get into a courtroom much. Thus here was an opportunity to shine. The only witness against Cranky's cousin was the other young lady. In fact, since only a misdemeanor was involved, there was no prosecuting attorney. The complaining young lady took the stand and told the judge her version of events. The judge, incidentally, who Cranky had been before on several other occasions, conducted his court in the head-down position. He was continuously writing and rarely looked up for eye-contact with anyone in the courtroom−attorneys, parties, police officers, spectators, anyone.

The young lady completed her perceptions of the truth as she remembered them. As one might expect, she was just an innocent victim of a wrathful other woman. But Cranky had heard his cousin's version of the incident, and that version included one item that the complaining young lady had not mentioned.

So Cranky got right to it: “Miss Jones, isn't it true that you called my client a 'Mothaf***ing B****'?”

The low rumble of courtroom back-up noise ceased. Jaws of spectators and attending law enforcement officers dropped. The judge looked up from his writing. And the young lady on the stand commenced a flustered bout of hemming and hawing.

Soon after, the judge ended the proceedings by instructing the two young ladies to stay the heck away from each other. Some months later, after several billing notices, Cranky's cousin paid him his $10 fee.

All in all, it was one of Cranky's finest courtroom moments, rivaled only by the time a young male client ran from the courtroom shortly after being told by the judge that he needed to spend some time at a state facility for troublesome youths. After following his client for several hours through the picturesque Colonial Capital, Cranky was able to flag down an officer of the law, who returned Cranky and the adventurous youth to the courtroom.

But that's another story.

BATON BEING PASSED

The big picture significance of Edwardo Snowden and the NSA situation is that the generational baton is being passed. Maybe slowly but certainly inexorably. This doesn't mean that Ed is any sort of hero, or even that he shouldn't spend considerable time in the slammer, provided he eventually surfaces in U.S. custody.

What it does mean is that the generation now on the precipice of power will not be denied, as previous generations on the precipice of power were not denied. The flow of time is inexorable, and no ranting and raving by the likes of Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, and others standing athwart history yelling "Stop" can hold back the tide.

The generation on the precipice of power is a nerdy group. Computerized social media and computerized everything else have been their environment. They are the first generation fully a product of the Information Age. They don't see 9/11 as older generations do. Older generations see 9/11 as a momentous, paradigm-threatening event epitomizing and releasing forces that must be defeated. The precipice generation is not so sure. Many of its members have no strong recollections of "Before." They came to adulthood in uncertainty. Sometimes they wonder what all the fuss is about.

What they do see, in the United States that is, is a government and ruling class that can be somewhat hysterical. Every minor issue has the potential of going viral, of causing massive and conflicting paranoias. The members of the precipice generation may have concerns about the aggressiveness and rigidity of foreign powers and ideologies, but they have similar concerns about the aggressiveness and rigidity of the right and left sides of the political and cultural spectrums in their own country.

Edwardo Snowden, Bradley Manning, they represent a generational rebellion against the old order. And us members of the old order? We best prepare for change, at least as far as the dominance of our world view is concerned.

WORST ELECTION CHOICE EVER?

Voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia (not a state, Dude; we're a Commonwealth) may be facing the worst election choice in the history of democracy, a history stretching back to at least Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and their pals in ancient Greece.

Okay, that might be an overstatement. At least the two candidates for November's gubernatorial election are not crooks (that we know of). And at least the election appears to be real and not one of those pro forma phony (and often crooked) things held in many parts of the world.

Still, for voters in the vicinity of the political spectrum's center, it is hard to imagine two more unpalatable candidates than Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. The Cuch is one of those far right whack jobs who have pretty much captured the Republican Party. Terry Boy is a Virginian mostly by virtue of paying Virginia taxes. The Cuch got his party's nomination by hijacking the nomination process from an open primary to a convention dominated by like-minded again'ers (those against just about anything). Terry Boy is on the verge of getting his party's nomination because the Virginia version of his party is devoid of state-wide leadership at the moment.

Do issues matter in this election? Probably some. What will probably matter most, however, is turn out. If turn out is low, the advantage goes to the Cuch who can count on the rabid support of fellow again'ers. If Terry Boy can persuade enough middle-of-the-roaders to overcome their apathy and show up at the pols, he has a chance.

But that's a lot of apathy for Terry Boy to overcome.

CONSERVATIVES AS GRADUATION SPEAKERS?

A conservative was complaining on a recent radio show that only a small percentage of graduation speakers at colleges and universities are of the conservative persuasion. Well, duh.

Of course conservatives are not well represented at graduation ceremonies. Graduations are a time of happiness, a time of optimism. Who wants to hear gloom and doom at such events? Gloom and doom may be correct. We may all be going to hell in a hand basket. But really, is that what you want to hear at your graduation, or your kid’s graduation?

Conservatives are all about gloom and doom. And about the past. They are ever moaning about the lost paradises of yesteryear. As a general matter, they are only happy when opining on two topics: their own alleged victimhood at the hands of liberals and the mainstream media, and the alleged decaying state of society.

Occasionally, a conservative will come along who doesn’t sound like Dr. Grump ninety percent of the time. Ronald Reagan was one such individual. But by and large, conservatives impress the rest of the populace as dour and dogmatic, incapable of expressing a positive view of the future without tying it to a particular political stance or a static economic structure.

So yes, Conservatives, you might be under-represented on graduation stages. But most of us get enough of cranky old aunts and uncles at Thanksgiving dinner. Who wants to hear one at a graduation?

"POSITIVE RESPONSE"

A local radio station has been running an ad by a medical clinic specializing in the sexual problems of the American male, the major problem apparently being the erectile dysfunction (ED) epidemic that is making the nation's obesity epidemic look like small potatoes (small potatoes, obesity, get it?). The ad suggests that the clinic focuses on the really hard cases (oops, another poor word choice), experiments with combinations of almost two hundred medicines, has successfully helped a 94-year old, and promises a positive response right there in the clinic or your money back.

The ad raises a number of troubling images, one of course being that of a 94-year old guy gettin' it on. Perhaps the most troubling images, however, involve what might constitute a "positive response." Here's one image. A patient is lying on a bed, or maybe just a gurney. He might be completely naked, or maybe just his head and groin are uncovered. Four or five medical types with clipboards and pens are gathered around. The group might consist of one or two doctors, maybe an intern, and several nurses, most likely elderly. They are watching for movement.

"There, it twitched."

"No, that was strong enough."

"Well, it was certainly close."

"It could have been just a PH." (PH being an acronym for the medical term "penile hiccup.")

Now, if the ad is producing images such as this, perhaps the clinic's advertizing efforts need some adjustment. No matter how bad a fella's problems are, the possibility of group observation of his groin by serious medical types might be more than he is willing to chance.

A much better "positive response" image could involve young Swedish masseuses wearing the official uniform of the Swedish Bikini Team. Of course, developing a tactful, and legal, ED ad featuring Swedish masseuses would certainly be a challenge. But if you're promising a "positive response" or your money back, you gotta offer more than a group of dour medical types watching intently for the effects of a pill.

FIFTY SHADES OF, WHATEVER

Cranky is a little more than one month short of seventy. Cranky's wife is much younger, by a year to be more precise. So Cranky has a trophy wife.

But should that trophy wife be reading "Fifty Shades of Grey"?

Really, how is Cranky supposed to respond? Dinner at MacDonalds?

Or maybe washing the dishes one night.

Or being sure to put the toilet seat down.

Or vacuuming.

Or not complaining about his bunion. (You would be amazed at the size of that thing.)

Or maybe emailing Carolyn Hax for advice. (Note emailing instead of writing; Cranky is not unaware of social media and the Information Age.)

Or thinking, "It's just a phase."

Or suggesting more Nora Roberts.

Or recommending a different arthritis medication.

Or mentioning his heart condition.

Such weighty issues make Cranky sleepy. Time for a nap.

THE GOVERNMENT PROMISES NOT TO. . . .

After a thirteen-hour filibuster, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky extracted a promise from the Government to not drone him while he was having a frappe cappuccino or something at a cafe. Whether the promise is valid in just Kentucky or encompasses the entire country is a little unclear, but subsequent negotiations between the Senator and the Government will presumably clear up that particular point.

Now some might contend that Senator Paul's fear of a personal droning was a little unrealistic. After all, the Government's theoretical capability of doing something does not necessarily mean that the something will be done. But one individual's seemingly irrational fear is another's distinct possibility, even likelihood, and the Constitution's guarantee of freedom from fear makes no distinction between the rational and the irrational, and indeed authorizes no branch of Government to make the distinction. Embedded in the Constitution's Preamble−"in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"− is certainly the right to rationally or irrationally fear whatever one wants.

In any case, Senator Paul's success in achieving a personal promise from the Government concerning a particular fear of his has established a precedent. Taken to its logical conclusion, the precedent is that each and every citizen is entitled to a promise or promises from the Government to refrain from inflicting some unpleasantness upon him or her. Once the scope of this precedent becomes widely recognized, the deluge will begin. To cope, the Government might need to establish a new agency, the Department of Personal Promises, or DOPP. So much for balancing the budget.

An initial promise that many a citizen will request is "to not take my guns away." Despite the Second Amendment, more than two centuries of widespread gun-ownership, and promises galore by politicians over the years and across the political spectrums, fear of Government confiscation of guns is rampant in many areas of the country. So every citizen who desires a promise of no confiscation will be entitle to a personal letter from the Government: "Dear Mr. LaPierre, We the Government promise not to take your guns away. s/The Government."

Of course, given how deeply entrenched is the fear of gun confiscation, the promise will likely have to be re-expressed every month or so.

Other possible Government promises concerning fears some citizens might find unrealistic include:

) To not have your home nuked.

) To not have a microchip planted in your brain to control your thoughts.

) To not have poisonous snakes dropped in your backyard.

) To not have spider colonies put in your attic.

) To not be required to listen to Fox Noise at least four hours a day.

) To not be required to listen to MSNBC at least four hours a day.

) To not have black UN helicopters following you around.

And so on. A Government agency with the sole mission of promising citizens that their personal fears about Government intrusion won't come to pass might go a long way toward dampening the current epidemic of national paranoia. It certainly couldn't hurt. You have my word.

CHARLOTTESVILLE CATFIGHT

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell needed this like the proverbial hole in the head. The University of Virginia catfight between Board of Visitors member Helen Dragas and University President Teresa Sullivan has resurfaced. In spite of her ineptitude, and failure, last year in attempting to remove Ms. Sullivan from office, Ms. Dragas remained on the Board and indeed was reappointed by Governor McDonnell for another term, a reappointment confirmed by the Virginia Legislature in January.

Ms. Dragas apparently celebrated her reappointment by presenting Ms. Sullivan with a list of 65 goals for the latter to meet in the current school year. The number was pared down a bit by the full Board of Visitors but reportedly still remains formidable. Thus the conflict that captured the nation’s attention last June appears posed for round two.

And just when things were going well for the Governor. In recent weeks he was able to get a compromise tax plan through the state’s cantankerous Legislature, and he has received kudos for being a voice of reason—one of the few in the Republican Party—on the desirability of mitigating the effects of the sequester. So thanks a lot, Helen. You too Teresa, although Helen’s thick-headedness and tone-deafness seem the real problems here.

After all, 65 goals? That sounds like micromanagement carried to an exponential power. Was micromanagement your field of concentration at the University’s Darden School of Business, Helen? And Darden, is Helen a typical example of your output? And what about the dimwit who, after the events of last summer, put Helen on the Board of Visitors’ three-person evaluation committee? Wasn’t anything else available? Say, the prom committee, or the meeting scheduling committee?

But in large measure due to the interplay of three stereotypes, the situation certainly has entertainment value. The first stereotype is the Catfight, two women going at each other. MEOW, scratch, scratch. The second stereotype is the Queen Bee, a woman who reaches a high position turning on female peers and subordinates. Incidentally, the Review section of the March 2-3 Wall Street Journal features an article entitled “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.”

And the third stereotype is exemplified by this very column: males getting an inordinate amount of pleasure watching Catfights and Queen Bees. A Seinfeld episode captured the stereotype, with Jerry, Kramer, George, and assorted other males, including several cops, enjoying Elaine’s travails with another female.

So, Helen and Teresa, don’t let up. Deep down inside, we really are enjoying this. MEOW, scratch, scratch. Who's getting the keg?

s/Cranky, a Wahoo Alum (BA,’65; JD,’72)

MATT DILLON AND GUN RIGHTS

With all the citing of precedents in the current debate over guns, an important figure in American history has been ignored. The views of Matt Dillon, one of the nation's Founding Fathers, have received practically no attention.

Mr. Dillon, as he was usually called by Chester, his trusty helper, had an unequivocal approach to guns: you couldn't wear your gun in Dodge City, where Mr. Dillon was the marshal. And this wasn't just about your modern day assault weapon with a magazine holding dozens, or hundreds, of rounds. This was about your old-timey six-shot revolver.

Yes, Mr. Dillon understood a basic thing about guns: they are frigging dangerous, particularly after you've had a few drinks in the Long Branch Saloon and have become enamored of Miss Kitty. Better you settle your problems with fisticuffs rather than lead, steel, uranium, or whatever bullets happen to be made of at your particular moment of history.

Remember in the beginning of each episode of Gunsmoke how Mr. Dillon slapped leather with some bad guy? Mr. Dillon wasn't the fastest on the draw, but he was the one standing when the smoke cleared. Wouldn't it be great to see Wayne LaPierre as the bad guy, standing there with an AR-15, a Glock, and bandoleers over his shoulders and across his chest? Hey Wayne, even with all that firepower you think you got a chance against Mr. Dillon? He ain't like those Congressional fru-fru boys, and girls, you've been pushing around for the last couple of decades.

Boot Hill, here we come.

GUNS AND MENTAL HEALTH

Perhaps even the NRA could agree with the proposition that individuals with serious mental health problems should not have guns. A no-brainer, right? But at what point, if any, do extreme political views indicate a serious mental health problem that would prohibit an individual from possessing a gun?

Take an individual on the extreme radical left. Does the espousal of armed overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a Communist dictatorship indicate a serious mental health problem?

Or just take a leftist-leaning individual who believes entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security are more important than balanced federal government budgets, even over the long term. Does this cavalier attitude toward deficit spending, toward unbalanced budgets, indicate a serious mental health problem?

Incidentally, the most definitely right-leaning Dick Cheney once said approvingly that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Does such a statement indicate the former Vice President has a serious mental health problem and consequently should have his guns confiscated? Actually, in the case of the former VP, the mental health issue is preempted by the competence issue. In shooting a hunting companion in the face, Mr. Cheney arguably displayed gross incompetence in the handling of a firearm. Ideally, such a level of incompetence should result in placement on the "No Guns For You" list.

Moving to the other end of the political spectrum, would a yard sign such as the following indicate a serious mental health problem: "The Second Amendment is the only thing between the People and Tyranny"? Some on the left might say so.

Thus the matter of guns and mental health is no easy thing to fit one's mind around. Fortunately, the nation has a Congress of predominately sane individuals who should be able to produce appropriate guidance.

OBAMA SHOULD GO BIG ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM

Democrats pretend it doesn't exist. Republicans acknowledge it but are unrealistic in their solutions. What is it? An aging population. The proportion of Americans over 65 has risen from 6.8 percent in 1940, to 12.4 percent in 2000, to 13.0 percent in 2010. The Census Bureau estimate for 2025 is 17.9 percent.

But the two major entitlement programs−Medicare and particularly Social Security−are implicitly based on unchanging demographics. Medicare was revamped by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2012−Obamacare−a very complex, and controversial, piece of legislation. The changes made in Medicare might be sufficient to ensure viability for some time to come, but continued monitoring will be necessary.

Social Security, on the other hand, is certainly unsustainable in its present form over the long term. What is the long term? Different observers have different opinions, which means disagreement, which in turn means a barrier to action. Consequently, the nation plods along, meandering into the future and hoping for the best.

At the very least, Social Security's age qualifications should be reexamined, and needs requirements should be considered. But many Democrats want to maintain Social Security in its present form, damn the changing demographics and the unlikelihood of maintaining the status quo solely through sizeable tax increases. As for Republicans, many of them want no tax component at all in any solution, meaning that they don't really have realistic solutions.

Significantly complicating the issue is fear on the part of both fervent Democrats and fervent Republicans of making a political mistake. Keep your head down. Let the other guy step into the line of fire.

This is where Obama should go big. The political center, where the majority of Americans reside, is not that much concerned about who is in power. The center wants solutions to problems. Obama, not having to run for office again, does not have to worry as much about offending the extremes on the left or the right. He does not have to tippy-toe around. He can throw out big ideas, big solutions, and let the chips fall where they may. An explicit proposal to revamp Social Security through both spending and revenue changes would put the left and right extremes on the defensive.

So, Big O, go for it.

CAN DEMOCRATS REMAIN THE ADULT PARTY?

For several years, the Democratic Party has been the nation's adult party, the party of reason, of logic, of compromise. But the characterization was not so much earned as bestowed by default. With the Republican Party resembling a group of infants going through the terrible twos−unrestrained desires, zero self-control, tantrums−appearing to be the adults required little effort.

As a result of being perceived as the adult party, Democrats largely triumphed in the November election and the year-end fiscal cliff standoff. In the election, Mr. Mitt and supporters did not come across as serious people with serious policies. They were all buzz words and absence of details. In the fiscal cliff mess, Republicans, particularly the House Republicans, seemed locked in an unstructured childhood fantasy that only they comprehended, and not really very well.

But in the political world, adulthood is not something that is necessarily permanent. Regressing to political childhood is all too easy, particularly when segments of your party are strongly ideological and bereft of any appreciation for opposing views or of what can reasonably be accomplished.

The Achilles heel of the Democrats, the factor that could destroy the current adult status of the party, is an inability on the part of some to see the need for a long-term balancing of government revenue and expenditures. Segments of the Democratic Party see a problem or an injustice and immediately want to throw money at it, damn the budgetary consequences. Or they refuse to acknowledge that circumstances change and that what were once acceptable monetary solutions are no longer appropriate.

Medicare and Social Security are two areas in which current policies are financially not sustainable over the long term. The population is aging. The proportion of people over 65 has risen from 6.8 percent in 1940, to 12.4 percent in 2000, to 13.0 percent in 2010. The Census Bureau estimate for 2025 is 17.9 percent. For Medicare and Social Security to remain viable over the decades ahead, such factors as age qualifications and needs requirements need to be revaluated. Can the Democratic Party participate in this revaluation? Or is the Party poised to abandoned the adult world for childhood fantasies?