In light of the recent comments made by Governor Jeb Bush, the topic of partisanship deserves discussion. Governor Bush called both parties to blame for a lack of compromise, saying that his father and Reagan were successful because they were willing to “put policy solutions above political wins.” In politics today, it’s as if both parties would exterminate the other like cockroaches given the chance, doing so with a grin. Has the idea of “two heads is better than one” been forgotten? Do not forget a setting in Philadelphia in the late 1700’s where great minds came together to work through a problem. Compromise worked then, it can work now.
The differing sides need each other. As viewed by Democrats, the Republican Party could be compared to a frugal, hard-nosed,
we’re-not-buying-the-expensive-toilet-paper-this-week-because-we-can’t-afford-it kind of husband. Conversely, as viewed by Republicans, the Democratic Party is comparable to a compassionate, tender-hearted, I-want-to-adopt-all-the-orphans-and-save-all-the-stray-pets kind of wife. The reason this couple works together is that they balance each other out. Alone, the husband would do well financially, but leave all the poverty-stricken individuals to fend for themselves, which is not acceptable. Similarly, if left to her own devices, the wife would adopt all the orphans and save all the stray animals, but very quickly go bankrupt and on welfare because she went about filling the orphan’s and animals needs before looking at the budget, which is also not acceptable. Together, these individuals can care for needy individuals while at the same time keeping their heads above water financially for years to come. Are politics all that different?
Imagine now if either the husband or wife in this relationship were so rigid in their views that compromising would cause their universe to careen out of space. An unwillingness to compromise and come to an understanding of differences will bring nothing but grief. After all, look at what happened to the Montagues and Capulets. The fact is that neither the Democrats nor Republicans are simply going to disappear, so they had better learn to live with each other. Who knows; maybe some good could even come of it.
The Jeb bush story is everywhere, including The Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post and The New York Times. Among hundreds of comments on each of these sites, there was only one on the Huffington Post article that hinted at the idea of the parties compromising and working together for the common good of America. Is that idea so far gone? That is left to be seen. For now, one must hope this couple can work out their differences, because their home is feeling the strain.
As far as I can tell, all this feel good wishy-washy talk about “compromise,” “problem solving,” and “pragmatism” essentially boils down to one thing: Republicans are actually standing on principal for once, and Democrats want them to shut up and do as they’re told.
Compromise only works if what both sides want are not diametrically opposed. If a husband wants to vacation in New England, and his wife wants to vacation in California, they can compromise by vacationing in Europe or some other mutually acceptable destination. If Republicans want smaller government and Democrats want bigger government, there is no compromise possible. Either one side wins or the other side does.
Why aren’t Democrats called “the party of no” when they refuse to cut spending? And I’m not talking about those phony spending “cuts” where they agree to increase spending by $200 billion instead of $300 trillion. If Republicans want to reduce spending, and Democrats want to increase it, should the compromise be to keep it the same? Why are automatic increases the default?
For years, Republicans have been caving in and permitting more regulation, more spending and more taxes for political purposes. Finally, after the 2010 midterm elections, they received a mandate to put a stop to all that, and now that they are living up to their promises, they are labelled as “extreme.” Don’t, as the President once said, “elections have consequences?”
If by calling for “problem solving” you really meaning maintaining the status quo and perpetuating the bad policies that have destroyed the economy and kept it from recovering, then I for one would like to see Republicans take an even harder line.
The Democrats want to keep spending money we don’t have, overregulating business and raising taxes on the wealthy in the face of 8% unemployment and a debt that is greater than our GDP. Forgive me if I view that as the extreme position.
Well said. The point I was trying to get was how discordant our government is toward each other. I thought everyone had the same idea of what the American dream is, but i guess not. And you may be right in saying that Republicans need to take a stronger stand against the excessively growing government. Here’s a link to a blog I wrote in college that illustrates how I feel about the current trends in government. http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4115801666548170047#editor/target=post;postID=6464347069742154029 I
You may have already seen it, but I thought the video was pretty funny. If it doesn’t work just search “raising debt limit parody” on youtube and it should come up.
I’m still a novice at this whole “having strong opinions about government” thing. Not too long ago I could’ve cared less. So thanks for the good comment. I’m learning a lot.
Strong opinions are the best kind of opinions! I’m glad to see you’re developing some. Let me know if you ever want to argue about policy. It’s a great way to sharpen your mind and identify weaknesses in your positions.