The Lame Duck

With the election a month behind us, politicians can finally take off their campaign buttons and get down to the business of governing the country.

If only.

November 15 marked the beginning of the "lame duck session" of the 111th Congress, and our legislators are well on their way to getting little to nothing done in the home stretch of an already disappointing term.  Republicans have heightened their obstructionist talk, with all 42 GOP Senators refusing to bring any issue to the floor until the Bush-era tax cuts are extended for everyone and the continuing resolution (CR) is passed to continue funding the government.  Although these are important matters on the Senate's hands, Jay Newton-Small, writing for Time.com, notes that such issues are usually saved until the end of the session, and that this is merely a way for  Republicans to block action on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the new START Treaty, and the DREAM Act.  

So here we are, in another typical lame duck session of Congress only one month after millions of Americans showed their displeasure at the polls with the inaction of our legislators.  But I wonder how the term "lame duck" came do describe this legislative moment, and how it affects our perceptions and expectations of the session.

According to Ed Quillen, a columnist for the Denver Post, the term goes back to 18th century finance, where a "lame duck" was a stock dealer who could not pay of his/her losses, or someone who defaulted on a loan.  The phrase was first used in politics in 1863, and the first "lame duck" president was Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.  Now, the term is used to describe an elected official in his/her final term, or one who was voted out of office but whose term has not ended.  In addition to this definition, The Oxford American Dictionary also defines "lame duck" as an "ineffectual or unsuccessful person or thing."  And thus, the "lame duck" session of Congress, the one-and-a-half month session destined to be ineffectual, unsuccessful, and, it seems, merely a formality, a buffer period before the inauguration of the next Congress, 

But why must it be so unproductive?

This blog, called "Goodbye Incumbents," points out that 81% of the next Congress beginning in January will be made up of incumbents, or people already in Congress now.  So, although the political balance of this 111th Congress is certainly different from that of the 112th Congress to come, most of the people in there were voted for to keep their jobs.  And plus, the electorate votes for 2 (or 6, in the case of the Senate) year terms, and these legislators have a job they were voted for to do until the day the next term begins.  The country still needs legislators to deal with real issues like the START Treaty and DADT - PM Vladimir Putin has already said that the failure of Congress to ratify the START Treaty this year could push Russia to build up its nuclear arms.  Maybe, if we stopped referring to this important session of Congress, especially after such a divisive election cycle and stagnant action the past two years, as a "lame duck" session, expectations would be higher for our legislators to address the critical issues of the day.  

So here's to a successful, not lame - and not particularly duck-like - rest of this session.

A Loss for Identity, a Loss for America

Two weeks ago, the US Senate failed to pass a defense bill that would repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy on homosexuals in the military.  This policy, which allows gays to serve as long as their sexual orientation is not revealed, has led to the discharge of over 14,000 soldiers since its creation in 1993, including those with crucial skills in Arabic, medicine, and counterterrorism.  It discriminates against people for who they are, for something they have no control over.  It forces gay soldiers to hide their true identity, to live in paranoia for fear of being found out.  And, according to a recent federal court ruling, it is unconstitutional.

As Americans, we must push to end this discriminatory law; as young Americans, we must lead the charge.  Why?  I'll start with a story:

Jonathan Hopkins was a captain in the Army, graduated 4th in his West Point Class, and served three times in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He was discharged in April for homosexuality.  He writes in a New York Times blog of the debilitating paranoia and depression gay soldiers live with when anyone can report them as gay and inhibit their ability to serve their country.  DADT robs gay soldiers of the right to their own identity, forcing them to lie to protect a secret they cannot control.  When a soldier cannot be who he or she is, then how can he or she fulfill the duty of soldiers to be completely honesty with their fellow troops?  This "mandatory ignorance," as Hopkins calls it, works contrary to psychological well-being and success of soldiers, the values of the military, and, indeed, to the American values we hold most dear.

As I mentioned in my previous post, pop star Lady Gaga gave an impassioned speech in Maine on September 20th urging Maine's moderate Republican senators to repeal DADT.  “I’m here because ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is wrong. It’s unjust and fundamentally it’s against all that we stand for as Americans," she said.  She decried Republican Senators for using homophobia to justify discrimination and the military for rewarding homophobia and inhibiting openness.  She stands as a reminder of the responsibility young, open-minded Americans have to support equality and justice in our nation, an echo of the '60s students who fought for African Americans' rights and an end to the Vietnam War.

The fact that 44 senators can and have forced over 65,000 of our troops to continue hiding their true identity from the comrades with whom they live and die is an unacceptable crime against our American value system.  But the battle is not lost.  Federal courts around the country have declared the law unconstitutional and demanded its immediate end.  We have a president willing to cease its enforcement, if only Congress had the egalitarianism to repeal it.  And this is not only a liberal movement.  As a "Young, Hip, and Conservative" blogger notes, while DADT was a step in the right direction in 1993, it does not reflect the more tolerant military and society of 2010.  With 79 percent of 18-29 year olds, the age of most soldiers, supporting an end to DADT, and 70% of all Americans, the time is now to repeal.

America has always moved towards equality, with the young often leading the way.  DADT is detrimental to identity, cohesiveness, our constitution, and our nation.  Discrimination must end; equality must prevail!

And, as Lady Gaga said, "If you don't like it, go home."