Blitzkrieg.

President Obama signed a series of tax breaks and spending plans designed to spur the still sputtering economy yesterday. He is at the moment making a push to get his immigration reform plan through Congress. He is also working feverishly to get his health care reform bill signed into law. Education and banking reform are on the table. So are the issues of energy and the environment. Many other issues, domestic and foreign are on Obama's list. I think the country could use some time off. The country might benefit if it can go a few days without reading about Obama or Washington on the front page. At least it might be able to relax and catch its breath.

But it won't. Obama insists on keeping the government moving at a frantic pace. The problem is, Congress doesn't move at a frantic pace. It can't. It was designed to move at a slow and tedious pace. It was intended to be a bottle neck in which policy would be studied, sifted, and discussed. This was so that the federal government would not act out of passion and urgency, but out of deliberation and reason. It was acknowledged that, because of this, legislation would move at a slow pace. The benefit was that it helped ensure that only legislation that was well considered, thought through, and deemed legitimately beneficial and acceptable to the majority of Americans would be enacted. The system was designed to inhibit the ambitions of impatient and opportunistic men. In other words, it was designed to prevent just what is going on now.

Granted, the government has only very rarely been able to live up to the designs and expectations of the Founders. Nevertheless, even if the only benefit the system provides is to slow Congress down and force debate, it is worth the cost. Passion and urgency have never resulted in good policy. Laws and policies enacted in the midst of zeal are an ill fit for times of calm. The time it takes to craft, consider, debate, and pass legislation allows time for public reflection. The technological advances since the time of the Founders allows the public to participate and be aware of what is going on in Washington to an extent unimaginable to the Founders. The result is an increase in information available to voters and the opening of new avenues for participation. But, even with technology, the process of deliberation still takes time. When the issue is as large and complex as health care reform, still more time may be required.

Legislation as large and complex as the health care bill before Congress requires a huge amount of attention and concentration for it to be even begun to be understood. It is an extraordinarily complex bill that is not understood in its entirety even by those voting on it, let alone those who will have to live by it. This makes the urgency claimed needed by the administration to pass it all the more disturbing. They are asking the public to trust that the government knows what it is doing and that any problems in the bill will eventually be worked out to public satisfaction.

Most groups who support it understand only those parts of it that affect them. The rest of the bill they are content to leave to others to weigh and examine. As for the public at large, they are left to decide the matter on the basis of whether it is simply good or bad for them. Even then, the public often relies upon what others tell them about how it will affect them. More often than not, they rely on their gut. In any event, I suppose it doesn't matter what the voters think at this point. They are not voting on the issue. Obama and Congress do not trust them to vote. That is why Washington is in such a hurry to get the bill passed before the fall elections. They are preparing a feast and they don't want the children in the kitchen while they are trying to cook.

The passion, zeal, and frustration on the part of those trying to push health care through is not well thought out. Amendments and alterations are being made on the fly. The many rules and procedures that have been criticized and found so frustrating to those pushing to get the legislation passed were put there to keep one side from acting rashly or beating the other into submission or irrelevancy. It is certain that when the Democrats find themselves in the same position at some point in the future, they will rely on the very maneuvers and procedures they are now condemning. Chances are with the precedent that is now being set, they will have less success than the Republicans have achieved.

The need for national health care has been explained may times. The urgency has yet to be explained satisfactorily. It could simply be the awareness that familiarity breeds contempt. If the bill lingers too long in Washington, the people will weary of it. A strange fear considering the broad support for it claimed by the administration. It could also be a calculation on the part of the administration that if they keep enough things moving, flashing, and beeping, the public will be unable to concentrate.

Obama and his administration are perfecting a new form of political warfare: the legislative blitzkrieg. Republicans cannot defend everything at once. The presidency is a much more agile institution than the Congress. If the administration can move aggressively and quickly on enough fronts, it can disorient and divide its slower moving opponent and prevent organized resistance. When a break through is achieved, it is to be exploited. Pockets of resistance can be cleaned up after the victory is won. The essence of the blitzkrieg is to keep your opponents off balance and not allow them the time to regroup and reorganize. The urgency behind the push for national health care is being used for the same effect. There is no need for health care reform to be passed this month or next. There is no need for it to be passed this year. But the administration knows that resistance will harden in time, not soften. That is why it is trying to seize the moment and striking with such fury. With the increasingly gloomy forecast for Democrats in the Fall, it is unlikely they will ever get this close to victory again.

Yet, what is becoming unclear is just who the administration's opponent is. Is it the Republicans? Or is it time?

Republican Alamo or Iwo Jima?

Some Democrats in the House are proposing the use of a procedural short cut to get around opposition to the Health Care bill now before Congress. The procedure would allow the Senate version of the bill that is before the House to be passed through budget reconciliation. That is, without a new vote. The bill would simply be "deemed" passed. Republicans are outraged. Many Democrats are uneasy. Rep. Chris Van Holen, D-MD argued that the move is necessary because Republicans are "trying to deceive the public." Leader of the House, Steny Hoyer defended the move arguing "it is consistent with the rules." Van Holen's histrionics aside, Hoyer, at least, has a case.

But what is peculiar about the maneuver is that many of the bill's supporters would allow the bill to be passed without taking the opportunity to publicly renew their support and passing on the chance to harangue their opponents. In many ways, the bill would be passed anonymously. There would be no speeches, no debate. There would be no explicit vote on the Senate bill. The bill would simply be "deemed" passed. A curious way to pass a popular bill. It is as if some supporters of the bill are afraid to stand up and restate their support and, if necessary, take the issue to the voters.

One would think that support for a bill this sweeping would be a cause for speeches and press releases. One might assume that the supporters of the bill would welcome a renewed debate and the opportunity such a debate would provide to bolster their position. One might think that for a bill this important, and, as we are led to believe, this popular, many would be eager to take the issue before voters in the Fall. Why the urgency? Why the trepidation? What are they afraid of? They are not afraid of Speaker Pelosi. They are not afraid of Obama or the lobbyists supporting the bill. They are afraid of the voters. They are afraid of the fall elections. The best case scenario for democrats is that the public truly supports their plan. If that is the case, they can expect to win big in November. They then could then crush any republican opposition to the bill. Democrats would be vindicated and republicans would be chastened. The worst case scenario is that the public would continue to sour on the bill, the democrats will lose in September and republicans will be emboldened. Evidently, democrats are not very confident that the best case scenario will come about.

There is a large and growing opposition to the bill among the public. Many Americans are becoming increasingly uneasy as details of the bill leak out. The longer the debate goes on, the more uneasy the public becomes. To consider the Senate bill would reopen too many issues in the House and risk the tenuous majority that was assembled in the Senate to pass it.

Support among the public for the bill has been steadily eroding. Obama and democrats in Congress want to move on to new issues. Quite a few democrats in Washington are concerned that continued debate over health care reform would undermine support and cost them in the Fall elections. They are afraid they will lose their jobs. Interestingly, few Republicans seem to share that fear.

If the out manned republicans can hold out until Fall, they still can win the battle. Whatever the possibility of victory, the republicans should fight as hard and as long as they can. The out manned Japanese fought desperately to defend Iwo Jima. The out manned Texans fought desperately to defend the Alamo. They both lost. However, unlike Japan, Texas rallied after the loss and ultimately won the war. If republicans can hold on until fall, they still might win the battle. If they can't, they need to convince voters that they were defending the Alamo and not Iwo Jima. If they succeed, even though they lose the battle over health care, they still can win the war.

Democrats might think that once they pass their health care legislation, the issue will at long last be behind them. If they do, they are mistaken. The issue will be in front of them. They will face the issue again in the fall and for many elections to come.

Executive Arrogance

President Obama's recent criticism of the Supreme Court has caused a stir in political and legal circles. It was an attack on the Supreme Court by a sitting president concerning a decision by the court. It should not have been unexpected.

The arrogance of Obama's administration has long been on display. His increasingly strident rhetoric and heavy handedness in pushing his policies is alarming. It appears that Obama genuinely feels he is a man of destiny. Fate has marked him for greatness and ordained him reshape American society. He is increasingly frustrated by those who are standing in the way of his destiny. Obama's decision to try and ram his mammoth health care plan through Congress before this Fall's election is testimony to his impatience with those who oppose him.

He at times would have us believe that those who are standing in his way are doing so out of pettiness, ignorance, and malice. Even the Supreme Court is conspiring against him. Like others before him, Obama feels history is on his side. He is leading an effort that would have government embrace every facet of American life and lead society into a new age of enlightenment, prosperity, and compassion. While he will admit the details of some of his plans may bear discussion, the plans themselves are noble and should be embraced. Only revanchist elements and counterrevolutionaries oppose him. It is Obama's arrogance and his firm conviction in the righteousness of his crusade that risks fracturing Washington, not the machinations of counterrevolutionary elements.

Looking for Dragons.

On Saturday, President Obama called for an overhaul, of the nation's schools. It was announced that the administration would send its "blueprint" for improving the nation's 100,000 public schools to Congress soon. The administration is once again determined to succeed where previous administrations have failed. "We've got to get accountability right this time" said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. It is the goal of the administration to make sure every student should graduate high school "prepared for college and a career." That is a tall order. The current law requires students to perform at grade level. To attempt to prepare every high school graduate in the United States for college or a career is a monumentally Utopian idea. It is as if Obama and Duncan never attended high school. Certainly not a public high school.

The administration intends to go about this task through the usual methods, giving money to those schools that meet standards and withholding money from schools that don't. Since the federal government has no direct authority over schools, it can only bribe and coerce. Schools that achieve the new standards will benefit by receiving more money and getting a longer leash. Those that do not meet standards will have their teachers and administrators purged. It is hoped that a bill can be drafted by August. The new bill will have a new name. It was felt that "No Child Left Behind" sounded too harsh and was too likely to be associated with the earlier, largely unsuccessful program that some said put too much pressure on teachers. The administration is working on a new name. I might suggest something along the lines of A Great Leap Forward.

The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are grumbling at the new proposal. They claim that, like earlier attempts at education reform, the new proposal places too much responsibility on teachers to meet standards set by Washington. They have a legitimate complaint. Education is a complex problem with many variables. Teachers are different. Students are different. Schools are different. Parents are different. A program developed in Washington will be unable to take all those variables into consideration. Even if, as is claimed, the program would simply be a "blueprint", it will be a blueprint that all schools will be pressured to use.

The tools available to Washington to affect education are few and blunt. They can set standards and they can manipulate funding, but they cannot address the complexities of education. There are just too many variables. Most of those variables are too subtle and too complex to be addressed by any legislation passed in Washington. Washington can demand results, but they cannot bring those results about. Only teachers, parents, and students can. Holding teachers and schools hostage to standards set in Washington is not a solution. Earlier attempts to do so have been unsuccessful. Curriculum and pedagogy were manipulated to achieve the results desired by Washington and the results were disappointing. So disappointing in fact, that the administration has decided to have another go at it. To try and manage the curriculum and set standards for 100,000 public schools across the United States is indicative of the monumental arrogance of the Obama administration. Obama's faith in the efficacy of federal government to solve all the nation's problems is absolute. How many overhauls does the nation really need?

Even with a struggling economy, a swelling federal deficit, a battle being waged over health care, two wars being fought in the Middle East, growing tension with Iran and China, and a host of other problems, the administration is still looking for new dragons to slay. It has yet to slay even one. Obama increasingly needs a victory. He is determined to find one, no matter where.