Trending
Very soon we will have college football and the pros in the NFL back again! So all the teams will be deemed as having a fighting chance at a title, a championship, or Super Bowl appearance. They will all be “fighters.” And as Election Day approaches all the populist politicians are also claiming to be “fighters.” Let’s see.
Fighters in sports win by scoring more points and fighters in politics prevail by passing legislation. For the latter, it can only be done by getting enough votes in Congress. Those who consistently fail to score the necessary points in sports are fired, traded, or cut – they are losers. Likewise, politicians who cannot find consensus and pass legislation are useless.
The Democratic Socialists of America folks have “fighters” listed as one of their premier characteristics. I do not particularly like fighters who are not also winners. Today we have plenty of teams that will put up the “good” fight but will lose. There are a number of NFL teams made up of “fighters” but by mid season it will be clear if they will be winners. Many teams will put up a fight but then lose.
In politics so-called “fighters” who repeatedly lose only add to the frustration of their constituents. Their actions, goals, and promises mimic that of a charlatan.
In politics and in sports we all like and admire winners.
But in politics, like in life, we do not need to crush the other side to be considered a “winner.” In fact, if you are able to notch significant achievements in life, politics or government, that often means creating win-win situations. Yes, finding common ground with your foe or opponent, declaring victory for both sides, and moving forward to “fight” another day as a winner, not so much as the loser coming back for more, is the smart thing to do. Fighting when you know you are going to lose, and doing that repeatedly while expecting a different result, some would call that the definition of “crazy.”
Idealistic movements and pragmatist governance are quite different. It takes a period of time to progress in a “movement.” You have to slowly build support from the public like Dr. Martin Luther King did during the Civil Rights Movement. But we need pragmatists to govern America now.
As Mick Jagger once said in a popular hit song from the 1970s, “You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.” Every successful politician has understood this principle – build on compromise. This means getting 20-30% of what you want initially and coming back for more another time. The success from the first 20-30% gives you momentum to get more of what you want.
In the past we have had many legislative giants – masters of their craft. For example, Congressman Adam Clayton Powell in the 1960s was one of the most prolific legislators of his time. He helped former President Lyndon Johnson gain tremendous successes, especially during the 89th Congress which was considered the most productive in modern times. Together they helped establish Medicare and Medicaid among a host of other meaningful pieces of legislation.
President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, worked well with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neal to overhaul our tax system along with passing other measures that fostered “peace through strength” – a key strategy that led to the defeat of the mighty Soviet Union during the Cold War (and all without firing a shot).
President Franklin Roosevelt whose New Deal policies guided us out of the Great Depression helped the U.S. win against two strong adversaries (Japan and Germany) during World War II. On the domestic front, Roosevelt also established Social Security.
And the last magnificent legislator was the Lion of the Senate – Senator Ted Kennedy whose legacy spanned from 1962 to 2010. He had no equal, offering thousands of bills and passing 300 into law. He also co-sponsored 550 bills that became the law of the land.
So when I hear people talk about fighters, I associate real fighters with winners, not losers. In politics, governing means reaching a consensus to pass laws that improve people’s lives. The aforementioned political figures did just that.
The sports’ fighters who were also winners can be found in their respective hall of fames.
To me the DSA and their supporters are not winners. They are more of a “movement” than a wing of the Democratic Party. They are clueless on how to govern and create win-win consensus politics. Their panacea – a Robinhood style of governing – is “taking from the rich to give to the poor,” a strategy with severe limitations.
“Healthcare should be a right,” they exclaim. Hello! But no one in America has been denied healthcare at a hospital for emergency services. It’s the cost, stupid. Healthcare insurance coverage or preventive care is a different story as the cost can be prohibitive for many. That’s the problem. Once a person qualifies for Medicaid, however, they have healthcare services. There are 76 million Americans in this group who are either indigent or children.
“Housing should be a right,” they exclaim. We have public housing that helps with costs for the indigent. Even those who are homeless today can get qualified to be placed in public housing. Far too many are homeless, but they represent a fraction of our population (approximately 750,000).
For the most part, what the DSA folks are “fighting” for is currently being provided by Medicaid and the HUD (Housing and Urban Affairs Department).
The cost of their proposals cannot be ignored. Personal responsibility cannot be ignored. Opportunities must be offered to all – the pursuit of happiness – must not be denied to law abiding Americans.
Our mission should be to shrink the number of folks on Medicaid and those in need of public housing. We should not make both programs more attractive.
Getting more people prepared and qualified to work in well paying jobs is the real solution, not having the government play Robinhood.
Though the fanatics get lots of media attention, they can count few accomplishments and therefore do little to advance the country.
Why follow losers when we should be seeking politicians who know how to win?
EDITOR’S NOTE: Gary Franks served three terms as a congressman from Connecticut’s 5th District. He was the first Black conservative elected to Congress and first Black Republican elected to the House in nearly 60 years. Host: Podcast “We Speak Frankly” www.garyfranksphilanthropy.org.