Just Say No

Winger pundits and even some well intentioned moderates have been griping of late because the Democratic party has been unwilling to do anything but say no to the Prez' efforts to dismantle, er, "reform" Social Security.

First, of course, the assertion is untrue. Democrats have floated a variety of ideas to strengthen the US' most successful government program ever: raising the income cap above $90,000, raising the interest rate paid on the Social Security Treasury Bonds, rolling back BushCorp™'s tax cuts for Paris Hilton and friends, that sort of thing.

But even assuming that Democrats are currently the party of "no", why is that such a bad thing?

It seems to me that stepping up to Chairman Chimpy and saying no is exactly what this country needs.

The Chairman, the joke goes, was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. And that's just how he behaves. Born to a wealthy and powerful family, coddled through college, the National Guard, in business, the Chairman acts as though he's never been told no in his entire life. Talk about the law of unintended consequences. The whole "build your child's self-esteem regardless of his actual achievements" philosophy is usually attributed to we muddle-headed liberals. But its most notorious example sits behind the desk in an Oval office that seems to be sagging dramatically to the right.

Chairman Chimpy is the poster child for unearned self-esteem.

And so, when he proposes "fixes" which harm the middle-class ("progressive" indexing) or destroy the system he disingenuously claims he wants to save (privatization), the best, most important thing that a patriotic Democrat can do is say "No".

It's like training a dog or a drug addict.

That's a good boy.