ADVANTAGE:the first point scored after deuce.

The language of tennis is too precious in some ways. To me, it reflects the genteel origins of the sport. "Love... deuce... advantage...." The words all sound like terms one might expect to be used in describing ballet positions. Not quite the same as "Scrum...foul ball...or piling on...."


However, as gentle as the tennis terms may be, anyone who has followed the sport knows that the words describe intense, aggressive, and demanding moments in athletic competition. When I watch the Wimbledon or the U.S. Open I am awed by the painfully aggressive athleticism of the competitors. The loud and audibly painful sound of grunting when returning the ball is hard to ignore. This is not a gentle sport.

It isn't tennis season yet. Snow still covers most of the sites of major competition in the United States and Europe. But the language of tennis came to mind when I was thinking about the U.S. Congress over the past week or so. The metaphor of tennis applies.

If, in tennis, a competitor fails to jump on the advantage moment she/he may lose the game. The score has been tied, and one player has just scored a tie-breaking point. Thus: advantage. It isn't the end of the game. No one has won yet. But the one player is one step ahead of the other and can smell a victory if other points can be attained without the other player scoring first.

The Democrats in Congress have the advantage position on legislation. They have a sizable majority of Members in the House of Representatives and a mind-blowing majority in the Senate. (Until Massachusetts scored, they were at set point and could have won the legislative game without any interference by the Republicans.)

However, there was a decision to be made: Is this game a tournament competition, in which victory is urgent, or are we just playing a casual, friendly game on a sunny Sunday afternoon where the exercise is more important than winning? From my perspective the latter was the choice. The Democrats seem to have chosen seeking friendly bipartisanship over legislative victory.

Having a scoring advantage(more than a majority) in Congress is a big deal. When both houses have that advantage one party has an opportunity to act in a way that is seldom the case. If a party believes in issues strongly enough to have campaigned on them and defeated other candidates with opposite goals, having a majority is an advantage to be seized upon and applied.

In the case of Congress, a party in that advantageous position needs to recognize that forging ahead and "scoring" legislative victories based upon that advantage can be risky. It may energize the opposing party and jeopardize future elections. It may lead to characterization of being a legislative bully, affecting the political perspective of the populace. (That is particularly true in the current Tea Party environment.)

However, massive social change within one's grasp is nothing to sneeze at. It is how previous generations of legislators brought about civil rights and economic recovery. The other possibility in taking advantage of that majority is to gain the respect and thanks of a nation which returns the party to power because of the strength of its "game."

There isn't a lot of time left for Democrats to hear the announcer's words, "Advantage: Democrats" sounding in their ears. This is no time to decide (mid-game) that gentle bipartisanship (which I believe is incapable of being attained in the current Congress) is better than winning legislative victories.

Health Care, economic reform, gay rights in the Military, and even education and immigration reform can be affected before the November elections if the Democrats in Congress remember that they have the advantage and it was given to them by a nation who wanted them to win the battles in Congress. This is not the time to put on a demonstration tournament in which everyone comes away smiling and cheery on the way to the refreshment tent. But it will take the Democrats remembering why they were elected; they need to stop focusing on their re-elections. They will not have this advantage after November.

Cartoon credit: www.johnhaggis.com/humour.php

CONCOMITANT: existing or occurring with something else, often in a lesser way; accompanying; concurrent

The climate has been rough in Congress this past year. 2009 may go down as one of the most contentious, partisan demonstrations of congressional governance in history. Granted, there were no shootings, wrestling matches, or physical demonstrations such as have occurred in the past. However, the daily (hourly) fighting and mud-slinging has been horrendous. Maybe it's due to the presence of instant media, but for some reason it seems worse than ever.

My take on it is biased, but I believe there is a not-so-subtle conspiracy among the Republicans to destroy the Obama administration. President Obama came into office with a promise to bring a more non-partisan atmosphere to the legislative process. He had the credentials and the "capital" to pull it off. But if he did that, it would ensure re-election and a successful era for the Democrats. It is my suspicion that the Republicans planned (and carried out) a systemic process of destroying that possibility.

The progressive agenda of President Obama has given the Republicans everything they needed to carry out their plan. Controversial legislation in the areas of finance, foreign policy and health care have been ripe for the chipping away procedures employed by those who oppose Obama and his administration.

What has resulted is an atmosphere of negativity. Legislation has been delayed, undermined, mis-represented, and near-fatally injured. That is a serious blow to the American people, but there is a concomitant result which may be more destructive: the American people have lost all faith in the Congress and its ability to function. The result of that perception has the potential of being even more dangerous than the failure of the individual legislation.

The American public is fragile. Economic failures at the level of Wall Street have played havoc with personal income, home ownership, employment, and investment. The usually "upbeat" nature of American attitudes has been exchanged for pessimism, negativity, and fear. It is unlike us, and we don't wear that clothing very well.

Granted, the Obama administration asked a lot of Congress in 2009. To be supportive meant adopting a whole new set of standards and credentials which were foreign to most of the opposition party. Those who are grounded in conservative (small "C") methods of legislation have been asked to expand their horizons and embrace methods of governance which they are unable (or unwilling) to adopt. Instead, they have chosen to undermine the legislative agenda of the Administration by carping and character assassination, labelling the President as "socialist." The fragile public has picked up on this response, leading to a concomitant loss of faith in an Administration which is committed to securing stability and restoring strength to American finance and Main Street and County Road commerce. It may take decades to overcome this concomitant damage.

It would be wonderful to think that 2010 would demonstrate a turn-around in this mind-set, and that a more bi-partisan approach to governance would prevail. But 2010 is an election year. The liklihood of that about-face is limited or even impossible to envision.

Photo Credit: www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/senate-clima...
Dictionary Credit: Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

SCUPPER: to prevent from happening or succeeding; ruin; wreck.

There I was, opening my favorite newspaper, The Martha’s Vineyard Gazette, which had just come in the mail. I love this paper. It is huge, forcing me to extend my arms widely in order to hold it. It is filled with all kinds of great stories written by great writers.

But then I saw the headline: Financial Shortfalls to Scupper Some Affordable Housing Plans. I read it again to be sure I had seen it correctly. Yes, there it was: Scupper. I have never seen the word before, and now I know why.

Scupper is a boating term, referring to the built-in device to remove excess water from the boat, preventing the swamping of the boat. No wonder I didn’t know the word…I’m not a boater. I’m not even comfortable on the water.

But my curiosity wasn’t satisfied by this discovery. The use of the word Scupper in the Gazette headline didn’t compute. Looking down the list of definitions in Dictionary.com, I found it: Scupper: to prevent from happening or succeeding; ruin; wreck. Now it all made sense.

What a great word to describe what we have been watching take place in Washington over the past several weeks:

1. Threats of filibuster. Confusing Jimmy Stewart movies. The season calls for It’s a Wonderful Life, not Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

2. Sleep deprivation. Taking advantage of the knowledge that college-educated, white men over the age of 50 can’t function after 9:30.

3. Reading of the bill. Making sure that congressional clerks earn their salaries.

4. Calling down snow. Crippling travel, creating claustrophobia in D.C.

5. Holding a party hostage. Making sure Nevada and Louisiana aren’t forgotten.

6. Diversionary tactics. Slamming each other. Sticks and stones. Wastes time and avoids dealing with reality.

7. Grandstanding. Living out a fantasy of being a game show host on TV.

8. Writing fiction. Reporting imaginary facts which require time to clarify. It's like What's My Line?, a fifties game show where you have to figure out who's telling the truth.

9. Hiding the Bill. Playing Hide the Bacon, a childhood game where the object is hidden and the person who finds it wins the game.

10. Waiting for CBO. A congressional drama based on Waiting for Godot. There’s an awful lot of dry dialogue by people sitting on a bench waiting.

Scupper turns out to be a really great word. Lends itself to all kinds of metaphors and subtle allusions. It is descriptive, colorful, and carries with it the scent of decaying ocean kelp washed up on the rocky shore and buckets of fish bait stored on the deck of creaking fishing boats…waiting to be tossed into the churning sea and gobbled up by voraciously hungry fish unaware of the concealed hooks.

Definition credit:Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Photo Credit:www.moodymarine.com

PYRRHIC VICTORY: a victory or goal achieved at too great a cost.

Item #1: This past week the President went to Copenhagen to address leaders from around the world. The topic was the environment and the continuing threat to it by industrial nations. The hope was to come away with a major agreement on limitation of release of damaging gasses into the environment. Even before he left for Copenhagen, President Obama knew that the possibilities for that agreement had disappeared.

However, during the time he spent in Copenhagen the President was able to extract a verbal agreement from the leaders of China, India and South Africa regarding a willingness to continue to participate in strategic conversations which could lead to such limitations eventually. That was seen by many as a significant step toward reducing global warming.

His detractors in Congress labelled his accomplishment as a Pyrrhic victory.

Item #2: On Saturday 60 Senate Democrats came to a consensus that the bill being shaped by Senator Reid was capable of being placed before the Senate for approval by the entire Senate. There had been a lot of give and take among the Democrats, finally focusing on a Senator from Nebraska who extracted bill-limiting concessions in return for his 60th vote. Republicans were caustic in their response, saying the process was embarrassingly flawed. A a number of liberal Democrats were angry, saying that the Nebraska senator had blackmailed Senator Reid into concessions which destroyed the central purposes of the bill.

The President breathed a sigh of relief, knowing that a limited, but historic, step was being taken, and that his administration could claim that as a victory. His detractors labelled this as a Pyrrhic victory.

I don't know about you, but I had to go to the Internet to discover the meaning of this term which had been used twice in a single weekend's media reports. I knew that I had heard the term used before, and I understood the intent of the comment. But I didn't have a clue what the word Pyrrhic victory meant. The fact that Pyrrhic was capitalized made me even more curious.

It turns out that Pyrrhus was a third century B.C. King whose forces battled the legions of Rome. The army of Pyrrhus defeated the Romans in several key battles, but each time the Romans were able to replenish their troops from the thousands of recruits waiting in Rome. Pyrrhus had no such capability, and commented something to the effect that if he continued to win such victories he would return home to celebrate alone.

Thus, the term Pyrrhic victory has come to mean a shallow victory with the possibility that such continued victories will result in a moral defeat. It is a colorful term, and one whose subtleties are not lost on anyone, especially the President.

The political climate in Congress is such that these victories by the President's supporters are hard-fought and significant. The climate is far less than Americans hoped for in the election of Barack Obama as President and the overwhelming Democratic elections in both the House and the Senate. This was to have been an historic era, during which great progressive steps could be taken toward a new system of governance in this country. However, that is not to be, at least given the current climate.

Republicans in Congress are determined to undermine and destroy the Obama administration. I'll leave it to you to articulate the reason for this phenomenon. The reasons may vary, both in their stated purposes and in their more subtle sub-texts. At the same time, Conservative Democrats have chosen this moment to exert an ideological battle within the party. The Democratic Party traditionally is known as a volatile bunch, so it's not a surprise that volatility has been demonstrated over such historic legislation. But the reality is that the current drama in Congress is a tragedy when it could have been a comedy (to use the language of drama.)

Clearly, the strategy being employed by Republicans is to affect the 2010 elections in the hope of changing the makeup of seats in Congress. They may well achieve that goal, although it is too early to be sure. But the more significant result of this strategy is that the very fabric of Congress is being weakened. The public perspective on Congress is so negative (deservedly so) that an anti-incumbent furor has been created. While the removal of some members of Congress as a result of this furor may not be all bad, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for those feeding the flames.

And the missed opportunity that the Democrats have to effect an enormous transformation of the governance of our nation is tragic. The small victories of the Conservative Democrats also will turn out to be Pyrrhic. This opportunity for effective redesign of a governance system may not occur again in the lifetimes of the current population.

Photo Credit: Flickr.com
Definition Credit: Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

REGRESSION: the act of going back to a previous place or state; return or reversion. (Dictionary.com)

To progress is to move forward. How many times in the past months have we heard the conversation about the need for our country to progress out of this deep recession, out of a world view which casts the US as angry and dangerous, out of a mindset that marginalizes segments of our population? Those who embrace this energy are known in the media as progressives.

But, given the political style of the 21st century (so far) wouldn't you know that the positive word progressive has been cast as a negative! There are some...seemingly many...in this country who see progress as a dangerous, expensive, foolish, immature, ignorant, or socialistic direction in which to move. You can choose which ever adjective suits you, or add another which fits for you.

Believe it or not, regression has become a popular stance. I find it hard to write that sentence. It is unbelievable to me that there are those, including many who play significant roles in the federal government, who believe firmly that it would be better for us to go back to "the good old days" rather than follow the path to progress. What ever happened to the General Electric motto: Progress is our most important product?

It is a fantasy to believe that we can return to former days when things were easier. Those who foster those fantasies are too busy Twittering their latest thoughts to colleagues or using their Blackberries to book flights home for the holidays. Not only are the "good old days" a piece of emotionally reconstructed history, but the limitations of those days would not be effective in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Regression is a flaw in thinking and acting brought about by fear of change.

Social legislation which focuses upon race, gender, poverty, and health care cannot be replaced with legislation which denies the progress made in those areas. The people of this nation have embraced past advances in those fields in a way that makes them givens in our thinking.

One of my mentors has advised that we must not be about the process of patching a worn fabric, but that we should be focused upon building looms upon which future generations can weave the fabric required by the needs of those times. We must trust the leaders of the future to have the wisdom to meet the needs of those times with fabrics which speak to those needs. Our ability to foretell those needs is limited.

Regression is characterized not only by desire to return to the past, but by the willingness to embrace the status quo as sufficient to meet the needs confronting us. In too many cases, the status quo is the very source of current problems.

As Congress faces the difficult tasks of creating a new health care plan, concluding our involvement in two wars, healing a global fiscal crisis, and embracing methods of protecting our environment, it is urgent that a progressive agenda be enacted which carries us into the future. Regression at this point would serve only to continue and deepen our difficulties.

BIRTHERS: a conservative group who dispute the American birth of the President

The precipitous growth of populist organizations on the conservative side of things has spawned groups commonly recognized in the media by the supplementing of a word by the syllable "...ers."

For example, a group of conspiratorial folk have questioned the legitimacy of President Obama's citizenship, claiming that he was not born in the United States. Therefore, according to law, he is not qualified to serve as President of the United States. This group has come to be known as birthers.

As with any one-issue group or organization, the birthers are known to generate more heat than light. Despite the Obama administration's repeated production of a birth certificate and accompanying announcement of Barack Obama's birth in a Honolulu newspaper, the group insists that none exists, and that the documents are false.

It is useless to attempt in this blog to present a rational argument against the birthers, as reason is not one of the tools employed by the group. Rather, I want to identify what I believe are the root factors in the very existence of the group. I believe there are three which are noteworthy:

1) I believe there is racism among some who identify themselves as birthers. The very idea of a non-Caucasian serving as President of the United States is anathema. The only thing worse would be a woman non-Caucasian.

2) The fear of change is rampant among extremely conservative voters.

3) The policies of a Democratic administration take us into uncharted territory where the fiscal, social, and diplomatic practices require a different kind of thinking.

All three of these root factors, when blended, create a frantic mindset which demonstrates itself in extreme behavior. Dealing with birthers requires patience, which only seems to further inflame them.

My concern with birthers and other anti-Obama groups is that their behavior attracts too much attention from the media which seems to revel in their gatherings and their sound bites. This distracts the viewing audience from the very difficult and urgent matters which are before the President, his administration, and the Congress. With congressional elections pending (when are they not pending?) legislators pay undue attention to the highly-vocal groups who tend to make it seem as if they are the dominant voters. Back-pedalling on necessary legislation produces milque-toast bills which fail to serve the country effectively.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights give opportunity for political discourse without restriction. I support that. But I regret the effect of irresponsible and inflammatory activity which serves only to shut down the forward progress of Congress.