It was a great idea. It embodied that concept that you can’t get something for nothing. Instead, here, participants would have gotten something (legal status) for something (attending college or joining the military). It also happened to be the last best hope that Congress would do anything even faintly resembling comprehensive immigration reform before mid-century.

Of course, the DREAM Act had a troubled history. The idea of swapping college or military service for legal status isn’t new. It was first proposed way back in 2001, and it spent nearly ten years on Congress’s back burner. When that happens, it’s a giveaway that lawmakers in both parties find themselves in a tough spot.

In this case, conservatives knew they couldn’t very well support a measure that many in their base consider “amnesty” for college students; but they were afraid to come out against a group of individuals who seem sympathetic to much of the general public. Meanwhile, liberals were inclined to support the measure; but they were afraid that tackling the immigration issue piecemeal in this way would undermine whatever support there might be for a more sweeping comprehensive immigration reform bill.

But, after the 2010 election, there was a new sense of urgency to get something done and try to make the DREAM Act a reality. Perhaps Democrats were eager to repay the support of Latino voters. Or perhaps, with Republicans poised to take the control of the House of Representatives in January, some liberals concluded that this was their last chance to get the bill through.

Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives recently scheduled a floor debate on the bill and held a vote. C-Span viewers were treated to the spectacle of GOP Congressman saying a host of ridiculous things, such as when Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-CA, suggested that the bill would give college admissions “preferences” to illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens and thus amounted to an “affirmative action amnesty.”

When the votes were cast, to the surprise to many, the bill passed – mostly along party lines.

Then the spotlight shifted to the Senate, where those who oppose a piece of legislation have an additional weapon at their disposal: the filibuster. The concern of Democratic supporters of the DREAM Act was that Republicans might filibuster the bill, and that this would amount to a humiliating defeat. So naturally, they did the logical thing and simply surrendered.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pulled the bill from consideration when it became clear that he didn’t have enough votes to avoid a filibuster. He might re-submit it, or he might not.

It doesn’t matter. The DREAM Act is dead. That is clear. The only question is whether supporters should direct their anger at the party that attacked the bill, or the one that abandoned it.

Answer: Both.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, a regular commentator for NPR, and a weekly contributor to CNN.COM.

“Greed is good,” Gordon Gekko giddily extolled in the movie “Wall Street,” capturing the hubris of the 80’s and earning Michael Douglas the coveted Academy Award.

But as greed threatens to consume American ideals, we must ask ourselves: Can “good” stage a comeback to beat greed? Where’s Charlie Sheen when you need him? Can we turn back the clock and give him an award too?

Speaking of the past, the Founding Fathers incorporated a healthy measure of realism in their designs for our system of governance, cognizant that if our politics could align the good of the country with the self-interests of individuals a true win-win would be generated.

To that point, James Madison wrote in 1788: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

Our Founders’ foresight would fuel America’s rise from upstart rebellion to global powerhouse. In sync with American ideals, greed was pretty good.

But in recent times – as corporations, private interest groups and coalitions have amassed rights and privileges once reserved for voting citizens, their vast resources have throttled Washington, bringing into question whether the good of the country remains in alignment with the self-interests of the forces in power.

Note that Madison referred to the interest of “man” – not “corporation” – being connected to constitutional rights; and he characterized government as a reflection of “human nature,” not “interest group nature.”

Admittedly, we humans have not only gluttonous – but tribal – tendencies. This collective avarice is at the heart of our fractious and paralyzing partisanship, driven by campaign contributions of clannish party supporters, typically comprised of entrenched corporate and special interest groups. Their conditional support is motivated by the expectation of reciprocal access, influence in policymaking, and return on investment. With our representatives – and thus our government – no longer in the grip of individual voters, “we the people” must truly worry about abuses, not necessarily by the government infrastructure but by the self-interested, calculating cabals who manipulate it.

Current dramas in our democracy demonstrate how greed is usurping the American citizen’s power to do good for our nation because private corporate ambitions are at odds with the public’s communal needs.

In the health care reform saga, the insurance industry has poured millions into influencing the outcome. How much cash do uninsured Americans have to fight back with?

In the financial arena, when AIG and the banks were bailed out a treasure trove immediately left the country or was absorbed by bonuses. The people engineering the dubious transactions were mostly former Wall Street executives and their cronies, including Treasury Secretaries and Federal Reserve Chairmen. The deals are so complex they puzzle even seasoned financiers. As promised reforms loom, how can taxpayers trust they’re not being swindled? And will the powerful banking lobby succeed in diluting proposed regulations amidst reform fatigue?

Finally, there’s the debate surrounding taxation of unhealthy foods to combat obesity and fund health reforms. I’ve advocated for such taxes coupled with shifts in federal subsidies towards healthier foods. To preempt these measures, the American Beverage Association coalesced with like-minded groups to fund a campaign called Americans Against Food Taxes. They want people to rejoice in the unfettered freedom to get fat and sick on unhealthy, cheap foods. Convenient capitalists, they lament government interference when it comes to taxing their products but not when it comes to subsidizing their source ingredients. Ironically, my company was contacted for a proposal to help their campaign penetrate multicultural communities. When I explained I’d written in support of the taxes, I was told that my personal position wouldn’t matter to them. Ah…but you see…it matters to me.

This brief but telling experience illuminates the disconnect between the thriving narcissism of corporate greed and the imperiled integrity of personal values in America.

Greed is certainly in our human nature, as Madison acknowledged. But so is good. The question now – on every contentious reform and election before us – is whether we can find a way for our better nature to prevail?

To do so, we must either realign self-interest with the good of the country or abandon self-interest and act patriotically. If corporations and interest groups can’t do this, then we should constrain their ability to influence the decision making process, restoring the power to the individual. Only then will we assure that while greed may divide us, it will not conquer us.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

And now we begin to find out, right? Secretary Clinton’s first foreign trip is not to the Middle East, where we wage two wars. It’s not the traditional European debut tour conducted by all previous Secretaries of State as an homage to our longstanding allies. It’s not to Latin America, where our troubled neighbors face escalating drug-related crime and hemorrhage citizens, sparking our own endless immigration debate. No, Clinton is headed to China, to meet with our banker.

That America has become beholden to China for our economic survival is a manifestation of the fact our nation’s leaders have been asleep at the wheel for decades. It is also a reflection of the ambiguity and confusion we face in determining our direction for the future. Why such strong words? Well, our own chief diplomat said it herself: we are losing our economic sovereignty to another country. That’s bad enough in and of itself. But as if that weren’t enough to cast fear and urgency into our collective heart, we’re losing that economic sovereignty to a nation with an abysmal human rights record, a place where gender rights are a joke, a country where democracy is scorned and brushed aside (look at Taiwan) in favor of single-party totalitarianism, where economic might is leveraged to gloss over all of these shortcomings, and where Communism, not Capitalism, is revered. And we thought we’d won that war, the Cold War, right? Hmm, when you win a war, you’re supposed to keep your sovereignty, right?

So now that our economy is in tatters, do we wonder if then-candidate, now-Madame Secretary Clinton is headed to China to get tough on our banker? Or do we suspect she’s arriving hat in hand? Will she be negotiating human rights and environmental accords or loan extensions? Today they’ll give us more rope. But what will they do when we hang ourselves with it?

In my opinion, the most pressing matter in America’s mind should not be partisan bickering over the details of a stimulus package too small to float our sinking ship; it should be the development of a long-term vision to end our dependence not just on foreign oil, but on foreign investment to shore up our underproducing, overconsuming culture. America needs a swift kick in the pants. Right now it’s coming in the form of a recession. If we don’t change our ways, tomorrow it will come from a crouching tiger, hidden dragon. Hopefully, today’s woes will wake us up and get us thinking and working towards a future where we can stay true to our ideals without worrying about our banker calling our economic notes to the detriment of our political and philosophical agenda.

Reversing our fortunes begins – not with getting tough on our banker, but – with getting tough on ourselves. What do we want more? Our ideals and self-respect, a chance at truly reclaiming some semblance of moral integrity in the global arena, or more cheap products from China purchased at Wal-Mart with borrowed money? What does our nation’s fortune cookie hold? And wouldn’t we rather be the authors of our own fate?