The Problem with Boehner and Why Republicans Need a New Tone.

John Boehner,current GOP House Minority Leader as of February, 2009, is problematic both for Barak Obama and for the United States. Through second-hand observations (news reports and radio interviews) I have concluded that the specific nature of our collective dilemma with regard to this individual is that he is essentially hostile, insidiously acrimonious; that is to say, subtly caustic, and all-together in essential opposition to the central driving premise underlying Barak Obama's (and by extension, OUR (the collective United States')) success: change.

Indeed, the most fundamental and practical nature of the change President Obama has sought is with the top-down governance of the United States, and in particular, with the tone, character, and spirit of the actors in the upper echelons of government.

In essence, what I am asserting in this preamble, is that John Boehner of the GOP is an unyielding partisan, incapable of compromise for the sake of the country, and retains the bitter residue of divisiveness and hypocrisy which drove the country and the Republicans into the ground.

Take, for example, this quote from NPR:

Asked whether the president is correct in saying that the long-running debating over big vs. small government is over, Boehner told NPR's Steve Inskeep, "I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly what he was trying to say... Clearly, in our society, there is a role for government. And by and large, liberals tend to believe that government's the answer for almost anything," Boehner said.
[end quote]

Boehner has also said on various news radio interviews (NPR and PBS's "The News Hour") that [paraphrasing] The Republicans have to show the country that we're the party of "better" ideas. BETTER ideas??? **BETTER** ideas??

It would be interesting if George Lakoff could examine each member of Congress and profile them based on the language and syntax they employ. (Hmm... that's a good idea... with the exception that much of the language a federal politician uses may be primarily rote talking points). In any event, I offer this brief analysis:

Boehner used the term "liberals". This is a term used to broadly categorize and lump together a large group of people and is often assumed by those who use it in this manner to have a negative connotation. This is a form of PREJUDICE. (see definitions below)

Then he engages in hyperbole by saying "that [they believe] government's the answer for almost anything." Really? So, if you're liberal of thought, then that means you're necessarily a bureaucratic extremist. One type of Conservative mind-set suggests that extremism can only be countered with extremism ("eye for an eye", and Bush's "War of Terror" are two examples of this). Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that Boehner used hyperbole in order to justify the republicans and GOP taking a tactic of extreme opposition to the Democrats.

Third, Boehner's assertion that the Republic party should present "better" ideas. This statement is praiseworthy only from the perspective of one person trying to beat another in a contest. If Boehner was running for office against an opponent, and that was his slogan, then I would praise the offensive stance. However, Boehner is not running for office, he is leading an opposition party of government whose objective it must be to find avenues of compromise. The objective is not for the party to win, but for the country to win. By employing the word "better", Boehner's tone is confrontational and exclusive. That has been the tone of the Republican party as a whole, for over a decade. Win at all costs. Pass all of President Bush's bills and stand by all of his policies **just to win**. Boehner should have said "The Republicans will present different ideas which will be important for crafting legislation which is representative of all of America. I look forward to working with my esteemed Democratic colleagues to achieve this." Using the neutral adjective "different" rather than the biased adjective "better", would signify an intention to work together, rather than apart.

A final note: when Boehner said "I'm not sure that anyone knows exactly what he was trying to say..." with regard to President Obama's suggestion of finding a way to make government work, he was being divisive and confrontational yet again. So, no one in the United States or around the world can understand that sentence?

Perhaps it is a measure of Boehner's hypocrisy that he did not realize that President Obama was borrowing a theme from Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address on January 20th, 1981.

Reagan said: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work..." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html

Obama said: "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/20/president-obamas-inaugural-address/

But, perhaps there is no hypocrisy. Perhaps Boehner didn't understand what Reagan meant either.

In essence, Boehner's tone is prejudiced, extremist,confrontational, and mildly hypocritical.

Until Boehner's tone changes, he will be like Suraman at the end of "Lord of the Rings", a broken man with brankrupt ideas, but malevolent none-the-less, and capable of turning the weak-minded to malevolent thoughts. The Republicans who share this mind-set are beaten for now, but they remain a dark and looming cloud in the depths of Mirkwood, biding their time till they can strike again.

Instead, we should remember and hearken to the mantra of President Obama: unity through compromise, good-will, and mutual respect. If we dare to forge a new country, then Republicans should dare to forge a new tone.

prej⋅u⋅dice: –noun: 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.