Agendas and Pride

Jonathan answered, "David earnestly asked me for permission to go to Bethlehem. He said, 'Let me go, because our family is observing a sacrifice in the town and my brother has ordered me to be there. If I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away to see my brothers.' That is why he has not come to the king's table. Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? As long as the son of Jesse lives on this earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he must die!" "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?" Jonathan asked his father. But Saul hurled his spear at him to kill him.

-1 Samuel 20:28-33

There is a problem that occurs amongst the Sons of Men when people take it upon themselves to extend their plans and agendas beyond the boundaries of their own self. It is one of the most tragic manifestations of human selfishness, and causes irrational, erratic, and sometimes psychotic behavior as the thwarting of a man's agenda is considered a personal affront. It is even worse when such an affront comes from the man's own son. After all, if anybody should pay homage and respect to an old man, shouldn't it be his son? That's at least what is often thought by those old men in those situations.

For Saul and Jonathan, it was a particular problem. Jonathan had developed a very close relationship with David, who was beginning to receive a lot of credit that Saul thought he himself deserved. Saul was jealous of the attention David was receiving from the Israelite people, and it enraged him that Jonathan too had formed a bond with the young and aspiring warrior. We are told elsewhere in the scriptures of the prophet Samuel that Jonathan and David loved each other, and when Jonathan was killed in battle, it is said that when David was told that Jonathan had died, he sang the following as part of his mourning song:
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women."

Such a bond between David and Jonathan was despicable to Saul, because Jonathan's bond with David seemed, in Saul's eyes to be a personal offense and betrayal. It went against Saul's plans for Jonathan--to succeed him on the throne (thought that was still less important to Saul than Saul's own glory and ego, as evidenced elsewhere).

The fact that Jonathan's loyalty to David would spark such rage in Saul is evidence of Saul's own narcissism and selfishness. It was tragic. Saul attempted to harm Jonathan's physical well-being...attempted to murder him even, all for what? Saul apparently did not have the wisdom Paul gave the Ephesian church "Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, lest they become angry."

It is important that we never let such pride and our own agendas come in between people we love. We must elevate love above all perceived injuries and all perceived harms. Sometimes that means abiding by King Solomon's advice that "There is a time to speak and a time to remain silent," and we must recognize the importance of doing each when they are appropriate. We must organize our lives by the principle Paul set forth in his letter to the Galatian church "The fruit of the Spirit is first love, then peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such there is no law." Prior to that Paul advised that "For all of the law is fulfilled in one word, even this 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another."

The tip of the spear belongs in its sheath, and only then can the sword of Love manifest its Divine power.

Brief Thoughts Before Boarding an Airplane

I've spent the last week in New York on business, and I could not help but put my experiences in the perspective of the wisdom of King Solomon.

"He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves wealth with his income; this also is vanity. When goods increase, they increase who eat them, and what advantage has their owner but to see them with his eyes? Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep.

There is a grievous evil that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owner to his hurt, and those riches were lost in a bad venture. And he is father of a son, but he has nothing in his hand. As he came from his mother's womb he shall go again, naked as he came, and shall take nothing for his toil that he may carry away in his hand. This also is a grievous evil: just as he came, so shall he go, and what gain is there to him who toils for the wind? Moreover, all his days he eats in darkness in much vexation and sickness and anger.

Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil--this is the gift of God. For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart."

--Ecclesiastes 5:10-20

It is easy to be pulled in certain directions by the promises of wealth and abundance, but it doesn't satisfy. John D. Rockefeller was asked how much money would be enough for him and he said "just another dollar." Houses and cars and clothes and jewelry are luxuries but they are potentially corrupting luxuries. The only way to approach them is to enjoy them but not cling to them. To recognize that they are not necessities. The real necessities in life are the people we love and who love us, and the impact we have in each other's lives. That is the meaning of genuine agape. All the rest is vanity, and striving after the wind. Instead, so often, these vain things drive wedges between us and our loved ones, they cause worry and strife. Why should we so strap ourselves to being beholden to possessions?

Let's keep our focus on Love, the greatest good, the manifestation of God in us, and when the luxuries of life follow (if indeed they do) then we can enjoy them with the proper perspective.

Monday Montage

Hillary on Health Care: "I'm baaaack!"

It looks like our favorite Horror Flick of the '90s is back: Hillarycare. Yes, that's the womb to the tomb, unfettered, unmitigated, Socialist promise of the would-be President Clinton #2. She warns that it "might be a bad dream for some." I wonder if she needs to be reminded that it was a bad dream for the Democrats most of all. The people of the United States soundly rejected socialized medicine in 1994, and they will do it again. There is no question that massive reform is needed in the health care and insurance industries, but a government take-over of 1/7 of the United States Economy is not the answer. If Hillary wants to quickly undo the fragile Democrat majority in Congress, this is a good first step.

Rudy Runs for President

In the first of what is likely to a litany of announcements of "exploratory committees," America's Mayor has announced that he has formed his own. With no President or Vice President running for the White House for the first time in 80 years, this is going to shape up to be one of the most fascinating presidential elections in history. The initial Republican field will look something like this: Rudy, Sen. John McCain (AZ), Fmr. Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR), Fmr. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (TN), Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (MA), and Fmr. Gov. George Pataki. Not making my list of likelies are the following:

1) Condoleeza Rice. In spite of Dick Morris's almost orgasmic attitude over a Condi White House run, it just isn't going to happen, at least in 2008. Condi, like the entire Bush Administration, is damaged goods. She is too tied to the Neo-Cons and the Iraq War to have any credibility when the political winds are clearly blowing against the war. I'm not counting her out in the future. Churchill's political maxim is as prescient as ever "Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. For in war you can die only once, in politics, many times."

2) George Allen. One of the rising stars of the National Republican scene, the now former Senator and Governor of Virginia bungled one of the safest seats in the country and cost the Republicans control of the Senate. Not only would I be ashamed to run for President if I were him, he'd promptly be sent packing by several million Republicans who will not soon forget the loss of the Senate.

3) Jeb Bush. The third time isn't a charm when it comes to Bush Presidencies. The public isn't going to go for it, now or....well, people might forget a few years down the way, but I seriously doubt it. Hillary Clinton has proved that it is possible to distance from the family, but Bill Clinton was never as unpopular as Bush is now...oh wait, he was...a fact conveniently forgotten by the mainstream media. Nevertheless, I think 2 Bush Presidents are enough, and I think a lot of people agree with me on that.

4) Rick Santorum. Any distant hopes the former Pennsylvania Senator may have had to run for the Presidency were dashed by his utter trouncing at the hands of Bob Casey, Jr. (60%-40%). His brand of conservatism, while perhaps popular with a certain sect of the Republican base, has no broad appeal, as evidenced by his rout in his home state.

5) Haley Barbour. There have been rumors circulating for a while that the Mississippi Governor and former Republican National Committee Chairman might take a shot at the Presidency. He just doesn't have the name ID to stand up to a McCain or a Rudy, so I think he'll bide his time and wait for the phone call to serve in a cabinet post.

6) Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately for the Governator and his supporters, the Constitution still won't let him be President. Maybe that will change, but I think for now he will focus on being Governor of Caleefornia and await the chance to run for an open seat in the Senate whenever Diane Feinstein retires.

7) David M.Walker. This one is my saddest entry. Most of you probably have no idea who David M. Walker is, but he is currently the U.S. Comptroller General, who heads up the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly General Accounting Office). The GAO "has earned a reputation for professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair and balanced reviews of government programs and operations." Walker is one of those lucky people in Washington who has a lengthy appointment (15 years) and still has 7 years left on his term. He has recently been traveling the country warning us of the dangers of an insolvent Medicare and Social Security, and the disastrous economic effects that will have if we do not remedy it soon. I hope he keeps it up, and maybe one of these days, we'll have the benefit of seeing his name on a ballot.

Has the Power already gone to Nancy's Head?

Giddy with power, Nancy Pelosi dove head-first into the heated race for House Majority Leader between Democrat Whip Steny Hoyer (Maryland) a Rabid Anti-War John Murtha (Pennsylvania). In one of the worst political calculations in Congressional history, she has decided to fervently back Murtha, which will both confirm every Republican accusation that she is a dove and simultaneously alienate many in the Democratic Caucus who ardently support Hoyer (including all but about 10 of the 40 incoming Freshman Democrats). In another move that reeks of political payback and completely lacks prudence, Pelosi has decided that Jane Harman will not get to Chair, or even serve on, the House Intelligence Committee, despite being the most senior and tenured member of that committee, and by far the Democrat with the best Intelligence credentials. But, Harman has crossed Nancy the Knife in the past, and to the detriment of National Security, this very reasonable Moderate Democrat is going to be replaced by the radical leftist Alcee Hastings....an impeached federal judge. That's who I want running the House Intelligence Committee....

Iran an Agent of Peace, says Blair

Our good friend Tony Blair from across the pond is no doubt under substantial pressure by his foundering Labour Party to distance himself from President Bush and American Foreign Policy. What better way than to endorse Iran as an agent of peace. I happen to agree with part of Blair's argument, and that is that we need a new dialogue in the Middle East. The one we had during the Clinton years didn't work. The isolationism and hawkishness of the Bush years hasn't worked either. So maybe we need to talk, but talk tough. Something has got to be better than the way relations have been for he last 20 years. Better to fail at something new than at something old.

Dallas Fed President: They took our jobs? Puhhlease.

The President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Richard Fisher publicly complained today about a labor shortage in the United States, and especially in Texas. That's right, a shortage. I thought Tom Tancredo and his band of xenophobes had been telling us for the last five years that we were going to lose all of our jobs to low-paid immigrants from Mexico if we didn't shoot them as they came across the border. But no, in fact, wage rates are skyrocketing in skilled and semi-skilled industries, and there is no end in sight. Unemployment in the United States has fallen to 4.4% which is better than "full employment." The Bush recession indeed.

The Dangers of Drinking Your Own Kool-Aid

"Politicians are dealers in hope." --Napoleon Bonaparte

Since the beginning of time, Politicians have made their careers and their successes on selling their proverbial "kool-aid" to their constituencies and the masses at-large. There are two metrics for their success in these endeavors: 1) The amount of kool-aid sold, and 2) What they put in the kool-aid. Many politicians may be excellent salesmen, but not so good at mixing the kool-aid. Others have the reverse problem. But there is perhaps an even more dangerous trouble for politicians, and that is when they get tempted to start drinking the kool-aid themselves. During my campaign days, I always warned my colleagues (and candidates) against "believing our own spin." It can be disastrous; I've done it myself.

My guess is that Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman, et al, have gotten out of detox this week and still have a kool-aid hangover from the last two years. Some would say the last six, but I would disagree. The Bush 43 Gang has been incredibly adept at taking another bit of Napoleon's advice, which is to control the scene of chaos on the battlefield. Taking advantage of the incompetence of Democrat leaders in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and maintaining an above 50% approval rating for the vast majority of that time (let's not forget that in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush's approval rating exceeded 80%), Bush and Rove had built what looked like an impenetrable Republican governing majority in the electorate. They were telling everybody about it. The trouble is they started believing it themselves. There's no such thing.

As soon as they started believing it, they became intensely careless, and far less calculating. Bush began to suffer from the same problem his Father suffered from in the waning days of First Term leading up to the 1992 election: aloofness. There was a distinctive turning point, an event that shouldn't have had nearly the political implications that it did, and that was Katrina. I am not willing to say that Katrina caused the turning point, but that is the time in the history of the last several years I can examine and say that after that incident, everything went downhill for the Bush Administration. The War in Iraq finally became Vietnam, Afghanistan began to fail, the Economy went down the tank, etc. Well, not at all. Those things didn't actually happen, but the public began to believe it. Enter Kool-Aid Mixers Part 2.

Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel decided they had finally had it. Disgusted over the pathetic performance of the Democrats in 2004, and of John Kerry's laughable candidacy for the White House, they determined that they were going to get a coherent message and start pounding it. They remembered Clintonista Politics Rule #1: If you say something enough times, people will start to believe it. The Democrats, for the first time since Bill Clinton left office, got on the same page and said one thing with two parts: Bush is out of touch on 1) Iraq, 2) The Economy. They said other things too, about health care, and education, and so on, but it was irrelevant. What mattered was they kept a clear and consistent, though simplistic message on Iraq and the Economy.

Now that they've won, the Democrats better not make the mistake the Bush Administration made and start drinking their own kool-aid. The Democrat kool-aid tastes like this: Bush was a total failure on Iraq and the Economy and the Democrat plan is what everybody wants...after all, look at the election results, right? If they start drinking that kool-aid, they will suffer the same fate in 2008 as the Bush Administration and the Congressional Republicans suffered last Tuesday.

One final note on Kool-Aid Drinkers...I would be remiss in this particular blog if I did not make mention of the Election 2006 Kool-Aid Drinker of the Year, the man who should perhaps be poster-child of Kool-Aidaholics Anonymous, Virginia Senator George Allen. He made the worst mistake any politician can make: start running for President while trying to run for re-election to something else. Hillary Clinton hasn't been traveling to New Hampshire or Iowa, she solidified New York. After all, there's no way she would be elected President without New York. Bill Frist retired from the Senate, Mike Huckabee didn't run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, and Mitt Romney didn't seek re-election to the Mass. Governorship. Allen took his home state for granted, and they showed him the door. Aloof doesn't cut it in politics, especially in this day and age. So here is my tribute to the Kool-Aid drinkers of 2006 with their new poster child...

The War Within: The Critical Choices Republicans Must Make Before 2008

"The GOP must return to efficient government, to appropriate spending priorities that are not out of line, that don't create deficits, that speak to a strong national defense without failing to understand the need for diplomacy, and the things that will keep this country strong."
-Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland

I couldn't believe it when I read it, a Republican who actually gets it. Not just that, but a Republican who gets it who has the chance of becoming the next leader of the Republican National Committee. Lt. Governor Steele may have lost his race for the United States Senate, but it was not because of his lack of political acumen. After all, he was the first Republican Lt. Governor of Maryland for the first time in 36 years, and he narrowly lost his bid to become the Senate's first black Republican from a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1, and in a political climate where the Republicans nationally were decimated by a wave of strong sentiment against the War in Iraq, the disastrous spending policies of the Republican Congress and President Bush, and overall dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Whether these problems were real or perceived, the reality is that the Steele should have lost his race 60-40 like Rick Santorum lost his, but instead, he only barely lost. Under any other circumstances, and in virtually any other state, Mr. Steele would have won his race rather easily.

Ken Mehlman revolutionized the way the Republican Party operated; Mr. Steele stands ready to revolutionize the way the Republican Party thinks. There will be two camps conducting post mortems of the 2006 elections within the GOP, those who believe the Republican Party failed because it didn't do enough, and those who believe the Republican Party failed because it did too much. Mr. Steele is in the latter camp. James Dobson is in the former. Which side wins this debate will determine the success of the Republican Party for the next decade. There are three questions the GOP must ask itself in the coming months as White House hopefuls begin to start their exploratory committees.

1. Is the GOP going to be a party that can appeal to independents and moderates or is it going to continue to rely on the massive turnout of its "base" while continuing to alienate supporters of the party in the moderate-wing?

2. Is the GOP going to lay out a platform in line with the one that won it control of Congress in 1994 or is it going to continue down the path of the Bush ideology?

3. Is the GOP going to try to exploit certain radical segments within the Conservative Movement to capitalize on issues of the day, or is it going to be a party with a long-term vision for the country that consistently pursues that vision?

Let's be quite clear, there are powerful forces within the Republican Party who want to answer those questions incorrectly, those in the Religious Right who believe the focus of policymaking should be on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. They have charismatic leaders with massive followings: James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tom Tancredo, Jerry Falwell, Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, and the leaders of countless fundamentalist churches and church associations across the country. In 2006, Evangelicals comprise 22% of all Americans, and 51% of them identify themselves as Republicans. There will be those who will argue that the Republicans cannot afford to drop 11% of the country who are a solid base of support. "Don't alienate your base," goes the mantra. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition predicated on the assumption that a party cannot shift its base.

If the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the radical socialism that now pervades the Howard Dean Democratic Party. If the 2006 elections are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the religious extremism and arrogant foreign policy of the George W. Bush Republican Party. Both parties should be focused on pursuing sustained, long-term, governing majorities both nationally and in each of the 50 states. The key to doing this is to have a minimalistic agenda that focuses on economic growth, balanced budgets, low taxes, lower government spending, better education, a clean environment, a strong military but with an equally strong diplomacy, and a belief that social issues have their place of discussion in the home and in the church but not in the halls of Congress.

I'm placing my bets, and my hopes, on a forward-thinking, sensible Republican named Michael Steele.

Water and Faith

I had the pleasure of reading Masuru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water on a flight yesterday from Dallas-Fort Worth to Fort Smith, Arkansas. I found the book moving, if not compelling, at least from the perspective of its underlying message promoting love and gratitude. Not being a physicist or a chemist myself, I cannot comment on the scientific validity or lack thereof of Dr. Emoto's more technical claims, specifically, if he conducted his experiments in accordance with the scientific method, etc. However, I don't even know that it's precisely relevant. The message of the book is that we shape our world and our reality by the words we speak, the noise we absorb, the attitudes we have, the way we treat our fellow human, the way we approach the natural world, etc. I not only wholly agree with and endorse this premise, but I believe that if we look, open-mindedly, at the world's major religions, we find that this is quite established over the course of thousands of years of faith and practice.

For example, Dr. Emoto argues about the energy transportation of water, the essential life force of water, and its vibrant ability to heal, cleanse, and empower. I do not think we should take lightly this claim, particularly those of us who adhere to the suppositions and tenets of one of the world's major religions. From the Christian perspective, it takes but a moment for me to reflect upon the thematic importance of water throughout the Old Testament Scriptures and the Gospels. A perfect illustration of this is that there are 620 different verses in the Bible that make reference to water. Beginning at the immediate opening of the Old Testament Creation Story we find Genesis 1:2 says "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." What a magnificent bit of imagery that is. The Spirit of the Universe's creator was hovering over water, as if the water were his empty canvass on which he was about to paint. In fact, subsequent verses describe this precise action--"And God said 'let there be an expanse between the waters, to separate water from water." Water, as the lifeblood of God's creation, though, would not produce life on its own. As one of the earliest paradoxes of the mythology of Man, there had to be an absence of lifeblood in order for there to be life. God enabled creation by limiting its inherent lifeblood. What a parallel to the Incarnation. In order for there to be Spiritual life, there had to be a limitation of God Himself--and that was manifested in the person of Christ, all man, all God, physically limited, just like the Water in the Beginning. God's first creation of life was in water, "Let the water teem with creatures..." And then, in order for there to be life in the Garden of Eden, it says that a stream flowed up, watering all of the Garden. It was only after this that God created man.

Yet, in spite of the more than 25 references to water in the creation story alone, the theme continues. The offering of water was a sign of love, compassion, and gratitude throughout the Old and New Testaments. We find that the scarcity of clean water in the early Middle East caused it to be one of the most valuable gifts one could offer another. Many of the Old Testament's most meaningful spiritual stories occur when somebody was "going out to draw water," either from a river or from a well. Moses, as a small boy, was saved by the flowing powers of the River, which carried him from his mother to safety and from whence he would gain his position of great power in the land of Egypt. One of the early signs God gave to Moses to help Moses prove that he was sent from God was to pour out water from the Nile on the ground and it would become blood, which eventually turned into one of the plagues God wrought upon Egypt, the turning of water to blood. How curious it is, that the blessings of water have the converse of the curse of its absence. Of the more famous stories of Moses, the parting of the Red Sea showed the tremendous power in he who is able to control the waters.

The importance of water throughout the Old Testament continues, with the centrality of the theme of the Jordan River, a parallel that is extended into the New Testament, as it relates to cleansing and healing. The ending of the droughts by the prophets, the story of Noah and the flood, and on and on indicate such importance in the scriptures of water. One of the more famous passages in the Prophetic Literature is Jeremiah 17:8 where it says that a man close to God is "like a tree planted by the water that sends its roots out to the stream, for it does not fear when heat comes, for it will always be green. It has no worries of a year of drought, and always bears fruit." Looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, the prophet Zechariah writes that "on that day, living water will flow out from Jerusalem."

In the New Testament, water is amongst the most central metaphors and themes. Its first mention in the Gospels is a quote by John the Baptizer who said "I baptize you with water for repentance." When Christ encountered the woman at the well, he promised her that if she partook of His "living water," that she would never again thirst. At Pentacost, the heavens opened when Christ came out of the water. The entire notion of Baptism itself is rooted, most literally, in water. Christ showed his power over the water when he walked on the Sea of Galilee, and at the Crucifixion, Christ's pierced side flowed with blood and water simultaneously.

Although I am less familiar with the sacred texts of the world's other major faiths, I somehow imagine that they too are replete with hydro-metaphors, water references, and intensely meaningful utilizations of water for spiritual and physical salvation. Dr. Emoto's experiments, if they are to be believed, illustrate the universality of positive and negative energy when directed toward water. "You Fool" spoken to water in English had the same essential effect as when spoken in Japanese. What an interesting connection, since in the New Testament writings, it is said that "he who says to his brother Raca, Raca, will be in danger of council, but he who says to his brother 'thou fool,' shall be in danger of hellfire." Perhaps the unifying theme of Dr. Emoto's work, however, is my longheld conception of Sin as being its own inherent judgment. If our attitudes lead us to be unloving towards our neighbor, that unlovingness is itself a punishment. The behavior's internal consequences are sufficient effect, and no "outside" punishment is really necessary. When I am hateful, it has a deteriorating effect internally. When I have a negative attitude, it affects myself and everybody around me. When I do not take the time to reflect and have gratitude, that is, when I am driving myself so hard to reach some sort of material end or goal, I am guilty of a sin of omission, rather than of comission. When I do not take the time to be grateful to those who I love the most, who contribute so much to my health and well-being, I have sinned against them, and consequently, against God.

I tend to endorse Dr. Emoto's belief in faith healing and homeopathy as a viable, and even preferrable alternative to modern Western medicine. A sick body and sick soul are inextricably linked. I have been most ill, physically, when I am most ill spiritually. When I am at enmity with my fellow humans, I am, ipso facto at enmity with myself, since we are all connected by unifying life forces and by our eternal relationship to God. The saying about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is parallel to this. We frequently, in order to spite our fellow human, do something to harm him. But what we don't always recognize is that action hurts ourself as much if not more than it hurts the one for whom the spite was intended. This happens when we try to manipulate those around us to get what we want, when we engage in backstabbing and other ill behaviors.

So let us keep all of this in mind, and pursue love and gratitude. Let us keep our attitudes pure, our intentions clean, and we shall all be healthier for it, both physically and spiritually. Our metaphysical selves will thank us.

Politics 2.0

In the aftermath of the expected, but nevertheless brutal defeat of the Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections, I predict we are turning the corner in American politics, a trend that may influence the way campaigns are run, candidates are selected, policy is made, etc. for the next generation. In order to properly understand these changes, it is vital to have a bit of context on the 2006 race. It is my supposition that November 7 was not the endorsement of the Democrat agenda, Nancy Pelosi's leadership, or anything of that sort, but purely a rejection of the Bush administration and the ineptitude of the Republican Congress over the last 8 years (I trace it back to Dennis Hastert's ascension to Speaker).

The country is still split in half. The United States Senate will be 49-49-2 (with independent Joe Lieberman and socialist independent Bernie Sanders caucusing with the Democrats). It is hard to imagine a scenario more divided than that. The Democrats will hold a razor thin majority of fewer than 20 seats. Rigid party discipline will be required for the Democrats to accomplish anything in either House, and chances are, the Democratic leadership in both houses will find difficulty in maintaining such discipline in the wake of the Democrats' success. That is the funny thing about politics in its older iteration, though. Majority parties have much greater difficulty with party discipline than do minority parties. Minority parties understand that only by being the united Loyal Opposition can they have any influence over the making of policy. Members of Majority parties, on the other hand, know that they can play kingmaker, especially when things are close. It is nothing less than extortion. It is the kind of behavior pulled by the moderate Republicans in the Senate on a frequent basis in order to gain increased influence, committee chairmanships, etc. This is not likely to be any different for the Democrats.

So here we are, in the new era of Politics. I will be uninventive and call it Politics 2.0. Perhaps it should be called Democracy 1.0--because that is where we are headed: the first true manifestation of genuine participatory democracy in the United States from campaigns to policy. This progression will be uniquely enabled by the advent of new technologies on the web, shifting attitudes toward traditional media, and a shift of paradigm in the hearts and minds of Generation Y, who are coming of age and taking their stands. There is an unseen buildup of pressure under the surface of American politics that is about to blow its lid. Perhaps it will be in 2008, or perhaps later than that. This remarkable shift towards a more genuine democracy, a more pure ideal of governance will be predicated primarily upon two tipping points, and I believe the first will lead to the second: 1) The grassroots seize upon the advent of Web 2.0 technologies to create a new political dialogue and dynamic across the country and 2) The recognition by politicians and policymakers that they must embrace technology to better enact the principles of democracy.

I am going to be starting a spinoff blog just about Politics 2.0. It is time for the people of this country to fundamentally change the way the government is run, rather than swinging the pendulum constantly between two equally undesirable options. Gen Y and Web 2.0 will make this happen.