Why, with control of both houses in Congress and the White House to boot, are Democrats having such a hard time making ground? In a word: filibuster.

In the past, the filibuster, while an annoyance, didn’t often keep a majority from creating legislation. But starting in the 110^th congress (the one before the current 111^th), we’ve seen a massive increase in filibusters. Just look at this graph of cloture motions from the past half-century (from Wikipedia):

Part of this huge rise is because cloture is now used for other reasons in addition to shutting down a filibuster, but the number of filibusters has also skyrocketed since the Republicans lost power in 2006. And this graph isn’t even counting the latest Congress!

Now, in general, the filibuster can be a worthwhile political tool. It allows a single senator to stand up against legislation that he or she doesn’t believe in. It can force further discussion on an issue and create public attention. With it, a minority party can still have an effect on the legislative process.

But, at the same time, requiring a 3/5 majority to create policy doesn’t make sense. If there are more senators who support a bill than senators who don’t, the bill should pass.

Why hasn’t the filibuster been eliminated long ago? Largely because the majority party is always scared that if they get rid of it, once they fall out of power, they’ll be powerless. And, as illustrated above, filibusters weren’t as prevalent in the past as they are currently.

But now that bills are being filibustered left and right, it’s clear that if Congress wants to get real work done, something about the filibuster rule has to change.

So the question becomes, how can we give a minority party some power over a majority power without letting them derail the majority’s legislation?

What we need is a compromise. Maybe a party could be limited to a certain number of filibusters per bill. Or the number of senators required for cloture could be reduced. Or we could look at a more novel idea, like the one proposed by Iowa senator Tom Harkin (from a Washington Post interview with him):

The idea is to give some time for extended debate but eventually allow a majority to work its will. I do believe there’s some reason to have extended debate. If a group of senators filibusters a bill, you want to take their worries seriously. Make sure you’re not missing something. My proposal will do that. It says that on the first vote, you need 60. Then you have to wait two days, and on the third day, you need 57 votes. And then you need to wait two days, and on the third day, it’s 54 votes. And then you’d wait another two days, and on the third day, it would be 51 votes.

But whatever compromise is worked out, I believe that the current de facto supermajority requirement simply doesn’t work. When a bill that has the support of the majority of senators can’t pass, you know that something is wrong.

In the current political climate, this number isn’t really that surprising. Between tea party marches decrying government, attendees at town hall meetings lashing out at senators, and the unforgettable “you lie!” during Obama’s speech, it seems as if respect for our government is at an all-time low.

This attitude is one that I find quite disconcerting. I believe that a basic trust in and respect of the institution of government is a fundamental factor in any functioning democracy.

Now, I’m not saying that the public should blindly accept everything the government tells it, or that all elected officials are saints. Obviously, there are some politicians who don’t deserve the public’s trust or votes. It’s hard to turn on the news without hearing about the latest political scandal, whether it’s John Edwards’ affair or Mark Sanford’s steamy Argentinean jaunt or Rod Blagojevich’s senate seat selling.

But the fact is, not every governor or senator or representative is an Edwards, a Sanford, or a Blagojevich. Of the 535 members of congress and countless other politicians that work every day to keep our government running, there are sure to be some bad eggs. Judging the ethical standards of all politicians by a few choice examples, however, is just silly. It’s just that CNN isn’t going to do a top-of-the-hour report on how the junior senator from so-and-so passed another bill helping his state’s residents like they would if that same senator was caught embezzling funds.

But scandals are only one part of the puzzle of why politicians garner such widespread disrespect. These days, it’s considered kosher not to trust or respect someone simply because you disagree with them. Just look at the town hall meetings, Joe Wilson’s little interruption, or Rush Limbaugh’s comments about how he hopes Obama fails.

When it comes down to it, I believe that most politicians, no matter their political ideas, are working toward the same goal: making America a more perfect union. Agreeing with and respecting or trusting politicians are two completely different things.

So give your friendly neighborhood politician a little slack. The odds are, he or she is still working for you. And, at the very least, they aren’t trying to sell you a car.

Now, though, Afghanistan is at a turning point. The upcoming runoff election will have wide-ranging significance on the country and the war.

Let’s review. The Afghan election was originally held in August, and was immediately followed by widespread claims of fraud. These allegations lead to a United Nations Election Complaint Committee intervention and recount. After throwing out almost a quarter of all ballots as fraudulent, the Committee announced last week that incumbent president Hamid Karzai received 49.7% of the vote – the highest of the more than 40 candidates that ran for president but still not enough to secure Karzai a win. Because Karzai failed to achieve a majority, he must run against his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, in a runoff election on November 7.

This election provided an opportunity for a turning point in Afghanistan’s future, and the upcoming runoff election is a second chance for the country. As President Obama decides whether or not to send more Coalition troops to Afghanistan, the outcome of the election will greatly influence his decision.

Although Karzai was the clear frontrunner in the first round of the election, the upcoming runoff is far less predictable.

Let’s take a moment to compare the two candidates.

Karzai’s current government is corrupt and inefficient, and is largely failing at containing the Taliban. Karzai himself has strong ties to many individuals of a dubious nature; both of his vice presidential candidates, for example, have been accused of human rights violations by Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization. One was accused of killing thousands of innocent people.

Abdullah, on the other hand, is seen as a symbol of a newer and younger Afghanistan, one that puts less power in the hands of tribal warlords and more in the hands of a more modern government. Simply put, he is a reformer.

It’s not hard to guess who I’m rooting for. But more interesting than who wins the election is the far-reaching consequences of any result.

A victory for Abdullah would be the perfect opportunity for the Obama administration to intensify efforts to secure Afghanistan. A new government, with more focused power in the central government and more support from the people, would be more effective at helping Coalition troops oust the Taliban.

However, if Karzai wins the election, or even worse, it is confounded yet again by fraud, Obama may need to reevaluate his priorities with Afghanistan. Fighting the Taliban is bad enough by itself, but fighting the Taliban in a country unsupportive of its government could end up a disaster.

This need for support especially ties into a key objective of the war in Afghanistan, and one that I consider of tantamount importance: winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people.

Modern technology lets even a single individual become a weapon in the form of a suicide bomber. A single Afghani citizen turned against America can cause the death of many. On the other hand, a single Afghani citizen turned away from the Taliban can save many lives. And young men aren’t the only ones who need to be convinced. In Afghanistan, it’s considered shameful and disgraceful for a man to enter the Taliban without first getting blessing and permission from his mother.

So, for debatably the first time in history, winning civilian support is as important or even more important than succeeding militarily. And if Coalition forces are to capture the hearts and minds of Afghan citizens, the Afghan government that America and its allies support must be appealing to those same Afghan citizens.

As President Obama approaches a major decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, he’s obviously considering the political situation of the country. The winner of the runoff election, and more importantly, its fairness, will significantly affect the success or failure of the war in Afghanistan.

Sure, in the nine months since he took office, Obama announced he would close Guantanamo Bay, he started to pull troops out of Iraq, and he announced a nuclear nonproliferation plan. All quite peaceful. But right now Gitmo is open, American soldiers remain in Iraq, and, the last time I looked, the US still had quite a few nukes. Most of Obama’s policies have yet to come to fruition.

Moreover, Obama isn’t an obvious choice for the Peace Prize at all. When I think of the Prize, I think of lone, visionary figures struggling and sacrificing all to help the poor or the sick or those who can’t help themselves. I don’t think of the leader of the free world, the most powerful man on the planet, the man who is commander-in-chief of the world’s largest military force.

And yet, after considering the situation, I believe that Obama definitely deserved the Prize.

When it comes down to it, the award wasn’t given to Obama for any of his policies. He won it – and deserved it – for doing something completely different, something almost revolutionary: changing the entire image of the United States overnight.

Living in the US, it’s obviously easy to think of Obama as president, as a politician whose policies we may agree or disagree with. For the greater global community, however, the president represents the entire country, and Obama has changed this representation drastically.

For about the last decade, anti-American sentiments have been common abroad. And it’s not too hard to see why: between the Iraq war, unilateral policies, and a sense of superiority, the US has been seen as selfish and arrogant world round. Just look at the “freedom fries” movement to get a sense of this arrogance.

But opinion of the US has improved since Obama was elected. According to a poll of 27,000 people in 25 nations conducted in June by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, there were double-digit boosts to percentages of people who viewed the US favorably worldwide. These percentages decreased sharply during the Bush years.

Notably, Obama received much support during several speeches abroad. During speeches in Prague and Cairo, for example, he was interrupted often with cheers and shouts of “We love Obama!”

Compare this to the response George W. Bush met in June 2007 when he visited Prague to talk with Czech leaders, when more than 2000 people demonstrated against Bush and his policies while he was in the city. In January 2008, anti-US protestors in Cairo set fire to American flags and called Bush a war criminal when he visited Egypt. And how can anyone forget Bush’s reception in one of his last trips abroad as president: having a shoe thrown at him in Iraq in December 2008.

That’s not to say that Obama is universally loved by the rest of the world, or that Obama deserves a prize simply for replacing Bush. But it’s impossible to ignore the shift in attitude toward America that much of the rest of the world went through basically overnight after Obama was elected. This change is more than simply a shift in president: it’s a shift in paradigm.

In giving the Prize to Obama, the Nobel committee recognized that he was taking the US in a new direction and creating a new image for it. The Prize is a message from the world to Obama that says, “we approve.”

Obama concluded his speech to the UN last month with these words: “We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation – one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations.”

According to Alfred Nobel’s will, the peace prize is for “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.” I’m not sure how well Obama scored in reducing standing armies or spreading “peace congresses,” but as for working toward “fraternity between the nations,” I can’t think of a better choice.

But before long, favor was swinging away from Obama and specifically the public option. Obama stated that he would be open to a compromise without a public option, but even so Republicans were jumping ship left and right. Senator Charles Grassley, who the New York Times singled out as one of six major bipartisan negotiators a couple of weeks ago, is now saying he won’t vote for any reform unless it has wide support from republicans, even if a bill includes everything he wants.

And now, the democrats seem to have decided to ditch the republicans and do it all themselves. On the one hand, this is obviously flying in the face of bipatisanship, which I consider very important. But on the other hand, the democrats will still be forced make their plan moderate enough to satisfy their more conservative democratic colleagues, and that could very well eliminate the public option – something I wouldn’t complain about. Except, if they do decide to ignore the GOP, the dems will also have to placate the most liberal members of congress, many of whom are still clamoring for the public option.

Suffice it to say, it could go any way from here.

But I want to take a minute to write about one reason I think everything is moving so fast. Yeah, politics always moves fast, but in this health care debate we’ve seen a huge range of political climates in a pretty short amount of time.

One culprit of this is, I think, the vast amount of misinformation swirling around this whole issue. I’m not sure where it came from, and I doubt we’ll ever know for sure if any of it was organized by the GOP, but it’s really shocking. Here are some choice quotes I’ve found that really speak for themselves, all from a town hall meeting with Arlen Specter:

“You’re trampling our constitution… You and your cronies in the government do this kind of stuff all the time… One day, God is going to stand before you and he’s going to judge you!”

“This is the Soviet Union, this is Maoist China… The people in this room want their country back.” (Protestors elsewhere called the plan Nazi. High school social studies update: Nazis and Maoists don’t mix.)

“It says plainly right here they want to limit the type of care elderly people get… They are talking about killing people.”

Not only is this kind of stuff utterly ridiculous, it’s also drowning out real information and positive, civilized debate. It wouldn’t be that bad if people who legitimately believed these things expressed their views civilly, but instead most are screaming at or heckling their congresspeople – not to mention burning/hanging them in effigy, in a few extreme cases.

Nancy Pelosi called these disruptions un-American, and while I don’t think I would go that far, I do think that the idea that popular opinion is defined by whoever can shout the loudest is a bad precedent to set.

Whatever happens next in the debate, I hope that the behavior exhibited at these town hall meetings doesn’t become the norm. If you’re angry or passionate about an issue, that’s okay – just express your opinions in a way that lets others do the same.

Photo credit: New York Times

I think it’s a big enough issue to warrant several blog posts. In this first one, I’ll examine Obama’s plan for health care reform and give my opinion on it.

On Obama’s website, the following tidbit about health care can be found:

President Obama has announced three bedrock requirements for real health insurance reform:

Reduce Costs — Rising health care costs are crushing the budgets of governments, businesses, individuals and families and they must be brought under control

Guarantee Choice — Every American must have the freedom to choose their plan and doctor – including the choice of a public insurance option

Ensure Quality Care for All — All Americans must have quality and affordable health care

Now we have to show Congress where the American people stand.

In my opinion, Obama has generally the right idea. I agree with and support his plan on all but one key point.

First of all, I agree with him that we need reform. The insane costs alone warrant some action on the health care front, but even without that, nearly 50 million Americans have no health care insurance — that’s about 1/6 of the population. I believe that every person has a right to quality health care.

I also agree with Obama that everyone should be able to choose their plan and doctor, and that government shouldn’t get in the way of patient and treatment.

But I strongly disagree with Obama about the necessity of a public insurance option that would compete with private companies. I definitely am in support of Medicare and/or Medicaid for those who cannot afford private health insurance. But introducing a public or government-run health care option for the general public would be, in the long term, a disaster.

In the short term, a government-run option competing with private health insurance companies would be great. It would create more competition, forcing prices down and quality up.

But I am of the opinion that when private and public companies compete, private companies can rarely, if ever, survive. Public companies usually give higher quality for less cost; they can have government funds to back them. Again, this would be great for consumers in the short term. But the public option would be too good: private companies would be unable to compete and would die out in the long term.

So let me be clear. Right now, Obama’s plan does not call for a socialized “one-player” health care system. I don’t want to spread that kind of misinformation. But there’s a good chance that the public health care provider he is calling for would eventually drive private companies out of business, and this could result in a one-player system whether that was the original plan or not.

Any one-player system is always worse than a system with multiple, competing players; in the latter competition will drive down costs and keep quality high, while there is little incentive for low costs or high quality for a single player. Because of this, I am unsatisfied with any health care plan that would include a public option, including Obama’s plan.

In a town hall meeting, Obama responded to a criticism similar to this with the example of the US Postal Service. As a public company, it competes with private companies like UPS and FedEx. I don’t accept the validity of this analogy.

In my opinion, the USPS offers a different service than its competitors. When you want to send something on the cheap, you use the USPS. But if you need to get something somewhere fast, FedEx or UPS are better bets – even though they cost more. In other words, speaking generally, the USPS is low cost and low quality, while its private competitors are high cost and high quality. While USPS does compete with FedEx and UPS, it really offers a different kind of package delivery.

Now, take that and apply it to the health care system. The public option (a la USPS) would be low quality and low cost. Obviously, your health is more important than the speed your packages are delivered. No one wants low quality health care. Unlike the situation in Obama’s postal example, a public health care option would compete directly with private companies.

So, to sum things up, I agree with the majority of Obama’s plan. I agree that reform needs to happen, that everyone should have health care, and that people should be able to choose their provider. But I am against the idea of a government-run insurance option for the general public.

If I was a congressman, would I vote for a bill based on Obama’s plan? Probably. Even this partially flawed reform is better than doing nothing, in my opinion. But I would much rather see a compromise with GOP congresspeople that ditched the public option but kept the rest of Obama’s plan.

I think that Sonia Sotomayor is a very strong nominee. As has been pointed out numerous times, she has more experience than any nominee in history. Her rulings are generally seen as pretty moderate. She has completely kept her cool throughout the entire questioning portion of the hearings. She has said all the right things. There is very, very little chance that she won’t be confirmed.

And so, the Republican senators have been forced to work with whatever negatives they can find about Sotomayor. Namely, her one speech that included the now-famous comment about a “wise Latina woman.” GOP Senator Lindsey Graham told her “don’t go into speechwriting if the law thing doesn’t work out,” and if I’m sure she deeply regrets making that speech.

Sotomayor’s comment implied that she thought it was okay for judges, in some cases, to rely on their backgrounds in ruling on cases, and not just rule objectively. Sotomayor clearly distanced herself from that statement during the hearings, saying that she would rule based on law alone.

Also brought up was a statement President Obama made during Chief Justice John Roberts’ confirmation hearings. Obama said this:

The problem I face… is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court… what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

It’s interesting to note that Sotomayor said point-blank that she disagreed with Obama about this issue, and I think it was with that answer that she sunk the GOP ship. Her open disagreement with the president who nominated her about objectivity made the Republicans’ main objection to her – that she wasn’t objective – seem silly.

But the question still stands: should judges take Obama’s advice and take their values and perspectives into account in “the 26th mile,” or should they answer only to the law, acting more like umpires in a baseball game (another oft-mentioned analogy)?

In a perfect world, judging would be as easy as umpiring. The law would be perfectly clear about everything, leaving no gray areas. It would even be possible to process the law and hand down decisions with a robot.

But I think that the fact is that the law isn’t always as clear as balls or strikes, and I agree with Obama that in those kinds of cases it is acceptable for a judge to rule more subjectively. There’s a reason that so many Supreme Court cases end up 5-4.

At the same time, however, I think that it’s of utmost importance to keep subjective opinions out of the 95% of cases in which the law is clear. It would be a disaster for our legal system if judges began to rule on most cases based on empathy or personal beliefs instead of the law.

So while I don’t then agree with Sotomayor that a judge must be objective 100% of the time, I do think that she’s going to be an excellent justice.

By the way, you can read more specific reactions I had to Sotomayor and the committee on Twitter, where I tweeted live during the hearings.

1. The Good-Bye Government Possibility. First, let’s look at it at face value. It could be, as Palin said, an attempt to create change outside of government. I can definitely see her going around the country, speaking, writing books, and supporting conservative ideals, but never running for office again. I think that this is the best choice for her: she can still be influential without actually having to win any races.

2. The GOP Cheerleader Possibility. From here, she could also go on as a supporting role for the GOP. She could campaign for republican candidates, be kind of a behind the scenes woman. Her position wouldn’t be too different than Newt Gingrich’s. Again, this would let her continue to be influential while not actually being in government.

3. The Get Ahead for 2012 Possibility. Of course, there’s the possibility that this is all just a way for her to get a head start for 2012. Being governor of Alaska isn’t really conducive to campaigning for president, and the extra year or so she gets from stepping down early will let her gain momentum ahead of candidates like Romney or Huckabee. If this is the case, I think she’ll come to regret her decision: running against a popular incumbent without even a term as a governor to her name is not a good situation for her – or the GOP – to be in. Palin’s lack of experience has always been her weakest point, and her latest move makes things even worse.

4. The Get Out While she Still Can Possibility. Another possibility is that she is getting out of the governor’s office while she still can. Her ratings are far lower than they were before she ran for VP, and ongoing ethics investigations aren’t making anything better for her up in Wasilla. If she was planning to not run for reelection in 2010 in order to campaign for 2012, it could be seen as an admission that she couldn’t win reelection. That would be a disaster for any future presidential campaign. I don’t think, however, that, as some have suggested, she is running from another scandal. If so, we would have heard something by now, at least a leak.

5. The Prepare for a Future Election Possibility. Finally, there’s the possibility that she’s taking some time outside the spotlight to run in 2016 or later. I’ve heard this compared to Richard Nixon’s move in 1962, when he left politics after losing a race for the governor of California (he had earlier lost the 1960 presidential election to Kennedy). Nixon took the time between 62 and his subsequent run and victory in the 68 presidential election to repair his damaged media image, forge stronger ties with the right, and campaign for others. This time off helped him a lot in 68. Palin could do the same: grow her base, write a couple of books, travel the country, and prepare herself a little more for the next election. It wouldn’t be experience in government, but it would still be good for her. An added bonus is that she wouldn’t have to run against Obama. My only question in this situation is why quit now? If I were her, I would at least want to have one term as governor under my belt.

It will be interesting to see what Palin does now. This one decision could impact the rest of her political life – for better or for worse.