Ranting On...Passing the Buck

DNC Chair and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)

I’m feeling oddly random today, so I thought I’d do something of a midweek rant.  A while back (I started writing this post a month or so ago and then forgot about it, but it's still relevant so I'm sticking with it), Jon Stewart was doing an interview on his show.  He had on DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is a divisive figure on both sides of the aisle but I generally tend to be in favor of her.  She is a fierce competitor, she’s one of those few people who somehow manages to be both a fiery partisan (key to being chair of a national committee) and a solid yellow dog Democrat (vital to getting Democrats across the country elected, the other key job of the DNC chair).  Yes, she occasionally puts her foot-in-her-mouth, but so does Reince Priebus-it’s the job of the Chair to say things that will get your side some press.

One negative I will say about the Chair, though, is that the way she frequently stems into talking points (in this constant news media cycle, this is again a major part of her job, but something I loathe about modern politics) can occasionally shine a harsh truth on the political process.  Case in point-Stewart made a joke at the beginning of her interview about the title of her book For the Next Generation, saying that it meant that she had “given up on their generation,” and she said, “you have to focus on the future if we can’t salvage this one.”  It was meaningless banter, but it highlights a major issue with politics, ambition, and progress in general: the passing of the buck.

To be fair, the congresswoman is one of millions of public speakers who focus on the “the children are our future” platitudes, and she’s literally right.  The children are the future of our society-today’s youth will be tomorrow’s leaders.  It’s something that will be true for as long as humanity exists.  It’s a life cycle, after all.

The problem is, though, that I sometimes think that we get so bogged down on the future that we forget about the present.  I feel relatively strongly that, since roughly the late 1960’s, we have lapsed more and more into a treat the problem instead of cure the problem sort of approach to progress.  Think about the landmark ways that Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and the congresses and citizenry of the 1960’s revolutionized America.  We had the emergence of the Civil Rights movement, we won the Space Race, we saw major cultural movements in film, literature, and art, and we saw breathtaking new boundaries being jumped in travel, globalization, and communication.

One could of course argue that there have been stunning strides since then.  The Cold War ending, the internet, and the gay rights movement stand out over the past forty years.  But it’s hard to imagine someone a decade ago making a list of major world problems and seeing definitive strong progress on those issues.  Disease has become such a standard part of life that does anyone really believe that we’ll find cures for cancer, AIDS, and diabetes anymore?  I mean, I do, because on occasion I’m an optimist, but I don’t think we will be able to under the current treat-but-don’t-cure-the-problem mentality.  Hunger and wealth disparity have gotten worse, not better.  Our last presidential election was brimming with special interest money, despite the bulk of the country wishing that we could take the money out of politics.  Climate change doubters continue to shout “not happening” with their intellectual ears covered, despite the devastation of Katrina, Sandy, and the storms that ravaged the Philippines this past year.  We’ve spent the past three years debating whether we want 18 million of our own citizens to have access to life-saving affordable healthcare.  This sounds like regression, much less progress.

The problem with politics, and with a lot of cultural attitudes, is that we want everything to be comfortable, but not necessarily bold.  Someone like Rep. Wasserman Schultz can highlight what we want to do for the future, but politics doesn’t seem intent on doing just that-they want to debate the immediate, because that’s what gets you elected.  Mitt Romney frequently made allusions to his experience as a businessman, but any good businessman knows that you fail if you can’t keep investing in the future of your enterprise.

Therefore, it seems quite foolhardy to shout platitudes about "the children are our future" while not giving them a better present to grow from and within to succeed.  I feel very strongly that we can do this by not only funding education, but by taking real strides within government to support our entire citizenry through expanded access to healthcare, stronger support for immigration reform, equality of opportunity (whether that means in marriage, jobs, housing, or education) for all and not just the rich, straight, white, or male, and truly examining the problems of the day and gaining solutions.  We have the intellectual and financial heft to treat problems like cancer and AIDS, to de-stigmatize mental illness, to advance the space race in the same way we did forty years ago, and to save the planet through renewable energy sources and cutting down the carbon footprint.  But we won't get there if we survive on platitudes.

So, while Rep. Wasserman Schultz is correct, that the children are our future, the present is in just as dire need for leadership as the future is, and as one of our present day leaders, it is her responsibility to focus on both current and future generations by fixing today's problems so that they don't compound with tomorrow's.