Bipartisan, Bifartisan!
By omb on Feb 11, 2009 in Congress
If I never hear the term bipartisan with respect to the two main political parties in Washington D.C again, it will be too soon. This overused term is often accompanied by other annoying statements such as ‘working together in order to get things done’, or ‘reaching across the aisle’, or even ‘coming together to serve the greater good’.
From where did this notion that our Representatives and Senators are sent to the nation’s capitol for the purpose of getting along with those who sit on the other side of the aisle? Since this is a representative republic, and not a democracy, we all can’t go to D.C. and have our voices heard individually. I don’t know about you, but when I vote for someone, it’s for the person whose stated beliefs are the closest to mine. This is so my views are represented – not compromised at first sign of confrontation with the opposition.
Congress is intended to be confrontational, with heated debate, and a verbal skewering of the weaknesses of the other side until they submit in defeat. This confrontational nature of the body ensures that on important issues, it can take years and years to resolve some issues, until significant majorities can be achieved. Why? Because it’s supposed to by design! That is what prevents hare brained legislation, in reaction to crisis, from impacting your life. Nothing is supposed to happen too fast through Congress. Which is a far cry from the way it is functioning at present.
At present, we have a majority party with a sympathetic media in their corner, to which they run with charges of partisanship and obstructionism on the part of the minority party at the first sign of dissent to the implementation of their agenda. Aside from the fact the minority’s role is exactly that – to attempt to obstruct or stall the agenda of the majority, the media dutifully beats them over the head with the hammer of partisanship, as if to object is somehow less than patriotic.
This conjures up visions of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid saying they supported the troops but not the mission and that dissent is patriotic, blah, blah, blah. And they were right – dissent, in and of itself, is not unpatriotic, but engaging in that which is not patriotic, i.e. treasonous acts that offer aid and comfort to the enemy, is unpatriotic. So, I draw a clear distinction here. I happen to think that most- well, hell, all of the Democratic leadership, are a bunch of loony Marxists, but that doesn’t mean I think that they have to agree with my representatives. In fact, when I see things like McCain-Feingold, (not that McCain is any kind of a Conservative in my book), I know that I’m going to get screwed.
The fact is, that at present, the House, and especially the Senate, function like a big country club. Most of what we see is a show – they argue for the cameras and go to the Senate and House cafeterias for their tax payer subsidized $4 steak lunches, happily eating side by side, trading favors the cost of which our children and grandchildren will bear, contemplating ways to ensure that they get a look at the menu after November.
Partisanship is good. Partisanship is healthy and prevents whipsaw reactions to events and the creation of unnecessary laws. I want my representatives to argue my views and stand on our shared principles to the very end. I want my beliefs represented and not compromised– even if the eventual cost is defeat. That is what you should demand from your Representatives and Senators.
-omb
Excellent post.
It is so often said that our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what was going on right now, but its true.
I have no care for political parties, they seem to hurt our political system more than help.
If anything we need a third party to wedge in and break things up a bit, libertarian perhaps?
Dylan | Feb 11, 2009 | Reply
Another term to add to your plethora of annoying statements is “being a maverick” or also “Mavericky”.
Turd Furgeson | Feb 11, 2009 | Reply
Turd!
Dare I mention ‘meaningful campaign finance reform’. Maverick = Opportunistically Socialistic
omb | Feb 12, 2009 | Reply
Dylan,
Thanks for posting! I believe that additional parties are not the answer. Reagan addressed this directly in the 70′s when asked about third parties, he said something to the effect of: Instead of a third party, how about a re-invigorated Republican party, true to the original principles upon which it was founded.
omb | Feb 12, 2009 | Reply
You would like The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization by Anthony Esolen, especially his discussion of healthy debate within the Roman Senate. It was also eye-opening for me to see a perspective on the positive impact that Christianity has had on the world. The checks and balances of our government are fading away behind the shadow of imperial presidents acting like they run a show.
D dub Ya | Feb 12, 2009 | Reply
D dub Ya,
Thanks for your comment. I am not as well read on this topic as I would like to be. I will add your book suggestion to my reading list and get on it. My relative ignorance aside, I still believe that the parallels are amazing. I think what really gets me is that people have become so arrogant and so self absorbed that they believe that what they are experiencing is unique and has never been seen by any society before. Hence, the discounting of any historical events as a guide to the future. True, the Romans and Greeks did not carry blackberrys, however, they did deal with their own set of political and social problems. Many of the problems are the same, it’s the distractions and circumstances surrounding them that are different.
omb | Feb 12, 2009 | Reply
A timely topic to launch your blog. It will be interesting to see if some liberals join the discussion to defend their position and let it be tested against simple logic (A=A).
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” T Jefferson
J Galt
J Galt | Feb 12, 2009 | Reply
J Galt!
An Ayn Rand disciple! I read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ at 16 – everyone should read this book!
Left and right alike are welcome to post. TJ had it right. Please visit again soon!
omb | Feb 12, 2009 | Reply
To: omb
I enjoyed your comments, and agree with you, politically.
We worked hard, lived below our means, and never had credit card debt. Fortunately, we saved our money, got out of the stock market, before it crashed, and plan to have a great retirement, like we are having right now.
The keywords words are, LIVE BELOW YOUR MEANS !!!!!
Andrea Goodson | Feb 13, 2009 | Reply
Andrea,
Thanks for commeting! I’m glad you are secure and enjoying your retirement – live every day! There will be more posts going up soon, so check in often.
-OMB
omb | Feb 13, 2009 | Reply
I can agree with you about the nature of our representatives serving as checks and balances within their respective houses. Ideas should be debated in a healthy way. Legislation should actually be read before being passed! (i.e., the Patriot Act.)I doubt the Founders agreed among themselves, much less with the Puritanical colonists.
In my opinion there is too much media…T.V., radio, bloggers…out there name-calling and labeling each other in terms designed to cause divisiveness. Many do it for profit. To perpetuate this “left-right” “red-blue” “fascist-neocon”…”my way or the highway” or whatever attitude is counter-productive to the success of this country as one nation. We are all in this together. Why not act like it?
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes” –
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Fluffy | Feb 14, 2009 | Reply
Fluffy,
Personally, I’d rather that debates in either house end in fisticuffs, with the Sgt. At Arms needing drag our distinguished gentleman/ladies from each other’s throats, prior to every vote. I honestly would prefer that they not ‘get along’. We’re I serving, I’d get a seat by the aisle so I could trip members of the opposition as the came down the aisle.
I agree that legislation should be read and a couple of weeks matters little, in most cases. In the case of The Patriot Act much has been made of the fact that no one had read the bill at the time of the vote. In my opinion, the vote on the bill itself was largely ceremonial, i.e. giving Congress an opportunity to get onboard with what was going to happen anyway. I believe this was indicated by the vote in the Senate, which was 98-1 in favor. The lone dissenter, Russ Feingold of WI, offered several amendments to the bill- all of which were adopted into the final language, then voted against it. (By the way, the House margin of passage was 357-66). I contend that the en-action of bill’s provisions was inevitable, regardless of the vote in the Congress, because the President would have been well within his historical Constitutional powers to enact all facets of that legislation, unilaterally.
As to your concerns of too much name calling, I completely disagree. In fact, I wish there was more of it. Have you ever read any articles from time of The Civil War, or the Revolution for that matter? Talk about name calling and polarization!
Anyway, thanks for your comments, Comrade
omb | Feb 14, 2009 | Reply
Please enlighten me as to those historical Constitutional powers. Unilaterally means one party. Didn’t we have a revolution as not to be ruled by kings? What would be the point of discussion if your purpose is to beat the opposition to a bloody pulp? Your ideas do not speak to me of democracy. It seems you would prefer one-party rule if it were your party of choice.
I don’t think the Civil War was one of this Country’s shining moments. I’d hate to repeat it.
I don’t understand the purpose of calling me “comrade”. It implies that we are allies, or colleagues. In the French, it means citizen.
That’s me, one of “We the People”!
Fluffy | Feb 14, 2009 | Reply
Sure. As written, in times of national emergency, allows the Executive branch has, and has exercised, dictatorial powers. This dates back to Jackson, though Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were probably the most egregious offenders. There has never been a successful Supreme Court challenge to these ‘Executive’ actions- and ‘Executive’ is one of the key words used in defense of this. This is why there was a ‘War Powers Act’ in the 70′s – the natural instinct of Congress trying to push back against Executive power. (This has not been tested by the Supreme Court either.)
Actually, in context, unilaterally means alone, or by oneself.
The Revolution was about the loosing the bonds of tyranny, though at the time, the Constitution didn’t exist. Many assumed that Washington would be declared President for life, or King, for all practical purposes. This, clearly, is what the Court of St. James thought would happen.
The point of bloodying the opposition, is that for that to happen, either side would have to take a stand on principle. It’s the ideas that I want defeated, or at least I want my ideas represented and heard without compromise. I’m not in favor of a Democracy, I subscribe to the design of the representative Republic as set up by the founders- not what we have right now. I’ll be posting more on that soon.
You are right, The Civil War was not a pleasant time. It is interesting to look at the various polarizations that led up to its occurrence. There is much to be learned from this and I also have a post on which I’m working that studies this.
Ok, lastly, yes, Comrade is French. It’s interesting how much of Marx’s theories come straight out of the French Revolution. If you didn’t notice the ‘;)’ after the ‘Comrade’ label, I was just sarcastically pulling your chain on the topic of labeling that you had brought up in your original post. That’s how it was intended, if you took it any other way, I offer my sincere apology.
As this is ‘The Liberty Bunker’, freedom of speech is the rule here. Your comments and viewpoints are welcome and appreciated.
-OMB
omb | Feb 14, 2009 | Reply
This is fun, and could go on for days. I took no offense at your remark, and would expect nothing less than for you to pull my chain! You may call me “Comrade”. By the very nature of the word you put us on the same side.(wink)
Enjoy your day!
Fluffy | Feb 14, 2009 | Reply