Written by Andor Carnes   

Having read Michael Tomasky’s January 2, 2013 -RSN, “A Confederacy of Madmen”, I felt that "Mad" was worth a look, and that his historical points are well taken and appreciated. However, taken toward their limit, President Obama, having to work within that tradition, has a way of eviscerating both sides and exposing the underbelly of the fight. This was a President Lincoln technique that certainly does not make the practitioner’s job easier, but at least makes a useful, even if only small, outcome possible. Yes, the seemingly mad behavior of the House and Senate is historical behavior and has deep roots in what we can boil down to equal opportunity self preservation at the public’s cost. This is illustrated by the ever-present “emancipation problem” –no progress unless it serves a local political purpose, regardless of the human toll and the temporary mutings of the voice of kind democracy. As long as the public rewards these political behaviors with indifference, the Founding Fathers will be right in setting the system they devised.

The brilliance of the Founding Fathers rears its ugly cross-bred hydra heads at times like this to remind us that they knew what bastards they all were and the keenly default obstructionist behaviors such a system would obligatorily pass from generation to generation. They knew it would be this way from the beginning and perpetuate. In fact, the fundamentals of human rights and slavery were the perfect breeding ground for understanding just how permanently deep the greed and corruption could run and stealthfully flourish. The structure that seems so recalcitrant and cumbersome actually clearly anticipates their consistent dysfunctional posturing and vacuous, absurdly poorly veiled blackmail, with rare burps of missteps, almost accidently leading to progressive change.

It would seem clear that the Founding Fathers left it to the Public to see that “underbelly” as exposed by the process and to purge the offenders, obstructionists, who clearly do not care for the general welfare. Unfortunately, progress is probably even slower than the Founding Fathers’ realistic minds could foresee because the tools to numb the public’s perception of what is intolerable became far more effective than the Forefathers could have ever imagined. Yet, the system, as played by Lincoln and now Obama, does historically okay. History will surely join them ironically for this, too.

“Alright”, as Mr. Tomasky said, in this atmosphere in the context of politicians’ blatant display of “flipping off” the public’s welfare is not really an illustration of compromise. It is no less than a window into a system amongst reluctant thieves working toward a historically correct illustration of unsubscribed, bastardized “game theory”, where progress can happen curiously without any rational or intelligent components.

Like Lincoln or Obama or not, and whether they were and are cognizant of their ultimate moves at these times, they orchestrate the self-wounding of the opponents to progress. That is simply better than brilliant. It is inspiring. They also believe, and we thank them for it, that we will see the logic and clarity of that bleeding and guilt, and we disappoint them in spirit and reality regularly. However, just because we do not recognize what and how we gain from seeing the entrails of those who do not care about our wellbeing, does not mean that we will never experience that recognition and then translate it to definitive action, and that is hope sprung from madness. To me, that is the core of a democracy that can survive anything.

Each hard-earned scratch in the shifting sands can make a difference. The wind apparently knows this; so, why can’t we? “Compromise” is a wrong word for wrong action. “Cumulative” is a right word for when we finally get behind “alright” for us all. Until that time, Mr. Tomasky’s descriptions remind us of how long and tragic histories are nurtured. Thank him for that!