No Going Back!
Bipartisanism Means Compromising Your Beliefs
All this talk about consensus building, bipartisan cooperation, and reach across aisle sounds good, but maybe its not so good. Would it have been a good idea for Reagan Republicans to cooperate with democrats? The differences in thinking between republicans and democrats are fundamental differences, and to reach across the aisle and cooperate would also mean to compromise. Now why would anyone want to compromise their beliefs? Obamas wish to have bipartisan cooperation misses the fact that a true believer just doesnt compromise their beliefs.
Bipartisan cooperation occurs when neither said has the votes to get what they want, and so they negotiate with the opposition and compromise on some parts of their goal in order to at least get something.
Why would either party want to compromise their beliefs just to get something when they had the votes to get what they wanted? It seems stupid to get less than you want when you are in a position to get exactly what you want.
Some would say, What Max, if you cram stuff down the throat of Republicans, when they get back into power they will do the same to Democrats. Does anyone think that isnt going to happen anyway? The Republicans have cried fowl over the possibility that the Democrats might resort to Reconciliation, a way to by-pass their ability to filibuster bills important to the Democrats. The Republicans want Democrats to be fair, but not fair like they were, when they resorted to using reconciliation to thwart Democratic opposition to their bills. (See http://kerplop.com/Post456200-Explain-This-Filibuster-And-Reconciliation-Stuff-To-Me.htm)
Seriously, do you think Democrats compromising their beliefs now, is going to get Republicans to compromise on theirs? Yes, we might compromise on some issue that we dont care about, but why would a Republican compromise on tax cuts to the rich, or Right to Life? Why would a Democrat compromise on tax cuts for the middle class, access to health care, and Choice? It just makes no sense for either party to compromise their beliefs. Being too willing to compromise on your beliefs makes it seem like you didnt really believe your beliefs.
A conservative is not like a liberal/progressive, and vica versa. If you, or President Obama, or anyone else thinks that Republicans just have a different way of getting the same goal as the Democrat you dont know what either party stands for. Republicans dont have different ways of achieving our goals, Republicans have different goals.
All this consensus building, bipartisan cooperation, and reach across aisle stuff only works when there is no clear majority, or when both sides have similar goals. When goals are dramatically different, it is self-destructive to compromise, to cooperate, to reach across the aisle.
Republicans and Democrats not only have different approaches, and different goals, but Democrats and Republicans tend to have different attitudes, and dissimilar sensibilities. While both parties have their share of the fruits and nuts of humanity, and both parties have closed minded zealots, in general Republicans are just a little meaner than Democrats. Republicans opposed President Trumans call for a national health insurance because they didnt want black people to have access to that benefit. Republicans like Ronald Reagan ran for governor opposing the Fair Housing Act, and actually said that if you didnt want to sell to a black person you shouldnt have to, a statement that continues confining black families to their part of town. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) was mean enough to say in Congress that the murder of Mathew Shepard was not a hate crime against a gay college student, but was a hoax, because the crime was actually just a robbery. Oh, and this Republican said the death of Mathew Shepard was a hoax knowing that Mathews mother was sitting in the gallery. Republican icon Rush Limbaugh made fun of Michael Jay Fox because he twitched and jerks around making his Parkinson's disease look worse than it really was.
Those who call for compromise and cooperation miss the value of having an opposition. Opposition is what makes us free. When opposition exists, one side holds the other side in check. Having both pros and cons is vital to informed decision making. Having a two party system helps the voters find the middle. A two party system, especially when the majority changes hands from time to time tends to ensure a government less prone to revolutions, coups, or civil wars.
If only Republicans or only Democrats have ALL the power we do have an easier time getting bills passed, and things may seem stable, but it is a stability that runs rough shod over the electorate.
Article submitted Sunday, May 03, 2009 & read 1095 times.
Please log in to leave your comments.
» left by Robert Melaccio Sr. (2 years 280 days ago.)
Maxwell, good job but in my opinion your on the wrong site. You need to move over to Webgazine.
