Yes it's important for all members of the Senate and House to work hard to make the best policy for the American people. But the reason we have parties in the first place is to give a basic set of ideals for a politician to ascribe to simplify the choice for the voter. The two major parties we have now were created individually by a group of people that felt a particular way and wanted those ideals to be used to direct policy and law. Those parties changed and altered their policies and beliefs according to the times and changes of their constituency, coupled with the response of media reporting that labeled them this way or that. I'm trying to be super brief here in just pointing out that in the United States of America, as with many governments that utilize party politics, it isn't ever necessary for those parties to have similar ideals, policies, methods, actions, etc, etc. It isn't necessary becuase that's what defines the party.
People that want to elect politicians whose underlying purpose is to decrease government influence on business, increase it's role in social policy and make sure that the upper level of the economic spectrum is served are Republicans. People that want politicians who want to use government programs to improve the overall well being of the lower economic spectrum, decrease government's role in private lives and protect the budget with a balanced tax and spend policy are Democrats. Folks that think they're both full of shit and are just trying to make more rich people richer are independants or belong to the Green party. Folks that have more specific agendas have their own small parties not recognized on a grand scale by the media thanks to the constant push towards false hopes like bi-partisanship.
They have to work together, they don't have to agree. If they agreed on everything, we'd lose the concept of choice. If both parties acted on the same behalf on a regular basis, you wouldn't be able to choose a candidate that pairs closer to your opinions because those opinions would be made up, held and utilized by the same animal with 2 faces. Already in our political world too much emphasis is given to large businesses or small business owners and not the actual wage earners. This is a flaw of both parties and something that Obama's change seems to promise. Whether or not his policies will actually help the wage class and lower earners has yet to be proven, but the fact is that we live in a bicameral world, not a bipartisan one.
Were we to make our government better, and politicians better and at the end policies better, the only way for that to happen in our current system is by point and counterpoint perspectives that bring about new ideas. Instead of constantly thumping that "experts agree", we should be looking for our leaders to say, "we've come up with a new idea".
If we keep forcing people to think in a bipartisan way, we eliminate the possiblity for any third party or any new party to arise. In our history a new political party has meant a new chapter in American policy. It's brought change from the old ways of viewing government, spending, economies, etc. and that's a good thing. Especially given that the world we live in is now developing at a rate where students are learning skills for jobs that don't exist yet, it is vital to the existence of this government body that new ideas constantly be ushered in and debates by differing points of view. To think the opposite is not only elitist and dogmatic, but it opens the door to a government that doesn't really care at all what people vote for or what is necessary for individuals be they states, cities, or people. It means that we expect that every person we send to Washington wears the same hat of arrogance that the way they dictate is the only way. That my friends is not democracy, not a republic and certainly not a government that represents the people of this perpetually undecided nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment