Is “The American Game” Rigged?

Don’t use me to make your boyfriend jealous.

I am seldom as profoundly affected by an op-ed piece as I was by Frank Rich in Sunday’s NY Times.

What the Great Recession has crystallized is a larger syndrome that Obama tapped into during the campaign. It’s the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged — that, as the president typically put it a month after his inauguration, the system is in hock to “the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few” who have “run Washington far too long.” He promised to smite them.

No president can do that alone, let alone in six months. To make Obama’s goal more quixotic, the ailment that he diagnosed is far bigger than Washington and often beyond politics’ domain. What disturbs Americans of all ideological persuasions is the fear that almost everything, not just government, is fixed or manipulated by some powerful hidden hand, from commercial transactions as trivial as the sales of prime concert tickets to cultural forces as pervasive as the news media.

Though President Obama was elected by appealing to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, liberals are now marginalized on the edge. With no one farther left Obama has shifted farther right knowing we’ve no place else to go.

I understand this move to the center as a strategy, but I am left feeling unclean and used. Don’t use me to make your boyfriend jealous.

It’s not just health care that has me bugged. It’s all sorts of national security issues reaching back to policies of the Bush administration that need to be unwound.

To me liberalism is just another name for idealism. Good deeds should be rewarded. Bad deeds should be punished. Governmental rules should encourage good behavior. We continue to do the opposite.

President Obama was nominated and then elected heavily on the backs of people who feel as I do–and he himself made promises to that effect.

There is no satisfaction in this airing of my angst.

John Bolton

What is going on here? This was the ultimate “us” versus “them” appointment by the Bush administration. John Bolton, their designee to be United Nations Ambassador, is a man reviled by Democrats with a well documented career and strong opinions (including some spoken in front of rolling camera, now distributed by liberal groups).

But what could the Democrats do? They are a true minority party and have virtually no power on Capitol Hill at the moment.

Then, last night, a Republican senator started getting cold feet. From FoxNews.com:

Tuesday’s meeting came to a surprising halt when Sen. George Voinovich (search), R-Ohio, suggested he wasn’t “comfortable” voting for Bolton in light of new allegations that some members said they hadn’t had time to investigate.

“I’ve heard enough today that I don’t feel comfortable voting for Mr. Bolton. I think one’s interpersonal skills and their relationships with their fellow man is a very important ingredient [in] anyone that works for me,” Voinovich said.

I won’t discuss the merits of Bolton’s nomination. I don’t want partisan politics here on my blog. My interest is the process, not the merits of the appointment.

However, this is a stunning turn of events. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out, as it has become more than a simple nomination. This is now a test of the mettle of the Bush administration and their ability to rally, maybe even control, other Republicans.

There is no chance anyone could have predicted this nomination would end up in political limbo. Stay tuned.