Last week I wrote about partisanship- why it’s not only good and proper but quite necessary for a healthy democracy. I certainly thought I put myself out on a limb by writing it but writing about it is one thing; practicing it is something entirely different. That same week, President Obama’s excessive and expensive economic “stimulus” bill met staunch and unanimous opposition from every single House Republican (and several Democrats as well). The move was brazen, unexpected and badly needed.
Perhaps what was most beautiful about the Republicans’ unanimous opposition was that it seemed to stem from what I believe is proper partisanship, or partisanship based upon core beliefs, philosophy and bedrock principles- not merely Party affiliation (which is improper partisanship). Republicans saw this bill for what it really is:
• A waist of tax payer money
• An inefficient way to stimulate the economy
• A restriction of American economic and financial liberty
• A total embrace of ill-conceived Keynesian economics and
• Generational thievery
The list of negatives could go on and on, but these seem to me to be the five most important issues with the stimulus package.
Now why do I say that the Republican vote seems to be in line with proper partisanship? Mainly because when their opposition to the stimulus bill is coupled with other votes they have made, it becomes clear that this particular vote was not about Party but about philosophy. The House Republicans have already backed several Democratic/Obama proposals but yet found it impossible to back this horrendous stimulus package. If their partisanship were really based upon Party, then they would also be rejecting every other proposal made by the opposition, but the fact is that they haven’t.
I am keenly aware that the difference between proper partisanship and improper is not always clear, nor should it be though. Ideally, a particular philosophy aligns with a particular Party. In our American case, capitalism, individual freedom, smaller government (conservatism) with the Republicans; increased government spending and regulation, socialism and a greater trust in the role of government (modern American liberalism) with the Democrats. These lines are not always clearly demarcated, but with the election of one of if not the most liberal candidate ever to the White House and the loss of almost every moderate Republican in the House, the two major Parties seem to be more closely aligned with their traditionally associated philosophies than at any time I can remember.
Although proper partisanship itself is good, it is also somewhat scary to see the stark and very real differences between the Democrats and Republicans. The debate is no longer about bigger government or smaller government (an idea put forth by President Obama himself) but about competing economic and social systems. On the one hand we have a President and Congress who believe in “spreading the wealth” (read: a Robin Hood system of taxation) and on the other an opposition Party which finds wisdom in the knowledge and beliefs of our Founding Fathers and therefore our nation’s founding principles. It is perhaps such stark differences that make healthy and robust conservative and Republican partisanship so vitally important to our Republic.
But what is it about this stimulus bill that is so offensive to Republican philosophy? Perhaps it’s the fact that at one point it was proposed that ACORN (the “community organizing” group associated with Obama and under federal investigation) receive billions of tax payer dollars. Or maybe it’s the $200 million allocated to spruce up the national Mall along with the $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (this creates jobs how?). Then there’s the $100 million to reduce the threat of lead paint (I’d rather spend that on reducing the threat of Iran) as well as the billions of other dollars that will do nothing to spur economic growth and that will simply have to be paid back with interest by the tax payers (read: you and me) in the future.
I think one of the reasons so many average citizens do not support this stimulus measure is because they realize, correctly so, that it will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Dolling out billions of dollars to special interest groups and projects does nothing but increase our already criminal levels of debt and weaken the United States long term.
Thank God some members of Congress understand this.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
In Defense of Partisanship
With the recent election and inauguration of President Obama, there has been a good deal of talk and misplaced calls for bi-partisanship and “putting our differences aside”. Perhaps what is most interesting about all of this is that the calls have not just come from majority Democrats (whom one could expect this from simply so they don’t have to deal with too much Republican opposition) but from minority Republicans as well. Just this past week Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican minority leader, was quoted as saying, “Republicans will choose bipartisan solutions over partisan failures every single time.”
I wish I knew what this meant, Senator. Does it mean choosing to back a supposed “stimulus” package that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to while simultaneously dumping your conservative and capitalist values, or does it mean eschewing your responsibility to be the loyal opposition as so far Congressional Republicans have successfully done? The fact is that in the name of bi-partisanship and “coming together”, Congressional Republicans have lost their backbone and are letting far too many Democratic proposals either skate on by with their tacit consent or worse yet, have actively backed them in fairly staunch opposition to the values they supposedly stand for as well as the constituents who elected them.
Perhaps the worst of these cave-ins was President Bush, in the last few weeks of his administration, putting his stamp of approval on Federal bailouts and anti-capitalist policies more reminiscent of liberal Democrats than the conservative Republican he originally ran as. The Republican turncoats have continued with their whimsical approvals of Obama’s cabinet appointees- appointees who include a tax-dodging treasury secretary and a terrorist-associated attorney general. All of this has been done in the name of bipartisanship.
But despite the bad wrap that partisanship gets from critics both left and right, it seems to me that if anything, our nation would be better served with more partisanship, not less. In his farewell address to the House of Representatives, former Congressman and Republican leader Tom Delay made a stirring defense of partisanship. In the speech he said, “…partisanship…properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength…”
He continued, “You show me a nation without partisanship, and I’ll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.”
Delay made himself famous for his partisanship, a partisanship based upon two core principles: human freedom and human dignity. There could be no compromise on such fundamental matters, he believed, as “…compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles.”
What Delay and other partisans- both right-wing and left-wing- are trying to get at, is that regardless of what one’s politics happen to be, one should and must posses a strongly-held set of core beliefs which dictate subsequent policy and therefore action and upon which one so strongly believes in their rightness and soundness that they form a foundation and bedrock. Without such a foundation, men are prone to fall for anything that comes their way. One day they will vote in favor of bailouts and the next day in favor of balancing the budget. Then they will vote in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act but also lend their support to lifting the Mexico City policy (which bans the use of American dollars being spent on abortions and abortion-supporting activities overseas).
In the past decade or so of American politics there has been a strong demand for a “nicer” politics, one not so marred by the acrimony of partisanship. Many politicians tried to deliver this, and it was mostly these same bi-partisan politicians who lost their Congressional seats this past year and the election before that. Congressmen like Christopher Shays from Connecticut, a long-time member of the House and a man famous for compromise and bi-partisanship, lost his seat after 21 years in office because he could not resist the flood of voters who wanted fundamental change (read: not muddled moderatism, but bold policy).
Certainly Americans want to see their Democratic and Republican leaders work together to solve our nations problems- and it goes without saying that this is what our leaders should be doing- but what staunch liberal wishes to see President Obama cave-in to Republican demands for more tax cuts and what staunch conservative wished to see President Bush throw our capitalist philosophy to the side with the bailouts?
If it so happens that a particular philosophy does not actually solve our problems when it is tested- whether that philosophy be on the left or right side of the political spectrum- then it is not compromise that is needed but a new philosophy. No amount of compromise will fix bad policies or bad philosophy and in fact will actually only cover up the true effects of one policy or another.
In the words of Mr. Delay, “Indeed, whatever role partisanship may have played in my own retirement today or in the unfriendliness heaped upon other leaders in other times, Republican or Democrat, however unjust, all we can say is that partisanship is the worst means of settling fundamental political differences—except for all the others.”
I wish I knew what this meant, Senator. Does it mean choosing to back a supposed “stimulus” package that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to while simultaneously dumping your conservative and capitalist values, or does it mean eschewing your responsibility to be the loyal opposition as so far Congressional Republicans have successfully done? The fact is that in the name of bi-partisanship and “coming together”, Congressional Republicans have lost their backbone and are letting far too many Democratic proposals either skate on by with their tacit consent or worse yet, have actively backed them in fairly staunch opposition to the values they supposedly stand for as well as the constituents who elected them.
Perhaps the worst of these cave-ins was President Bush, in the last few weeks of his administration, putting his stamp of approval on Federal bailouts and anti-capitalist policies more reminiscent of liberal Democrats than the conservative Republican he originally ran as. The Republican turncoats have continued with their whimsical approvals of Obama’s cabinet appointees- appointees who include a tax-dodging treasury secretary and a terrorist-associated attorney general. All of this has been done in the name of bipartisanship.
But despite the bad wrap that partisanship gets from critics both left and right, it seems to me that if anything, our nation would be better served with more partisanship, not less. In his farewell address to the House of Representatives, former Congressman and Republican leader Tom Delay made a stirring defense of partisanship. In the speech he said, “…partisanship…properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength…”
He continued, “You show me a nation without partisanship, and I’ll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.”
Delay made himself famous for his partisanship, a partisanship based upon two core principles: human freedom and human dignity. There could be no compromise on such fundamental matters, he believed, as “…compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles.”
What Delay and other partisans- both right-wing and left-wing- are trying to get at, is that regardless of what one’s politics happen to be, one should and must posses a strongly-held set of core beliefs which dictate subsequent policy and therefore action and upon which one so strongly believes in their rightness and soundness that they form a foundation and bedrock. Without such a foundation, men are prone to fall for anything that comes their way. One day they will vote in favor of bailouts and the next day in favor of balancing the budget. Then they will vote in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act but also lend their support to lifting the Mexico City policy (which bans the use of American dollars being spent on abortions and abortion-supporting activities overseas).
In the past decade or so of American politics there has been a strong demand for a “nicer” politics, one not so marred by the acrimony of partisanship. Many politicians tried to deliver this, and it was mostly these same bi-partisan politicians who lost their Congressional seats this past year and the election before that. Congressmen like Christopher Shays from Connecticut, a long-time member of the House and a man famous for compromise and bi-partisanship, lost his seat after 21 years in office because he could not resist the flood of voters who wanted fundamental change (read: not muddled moderatism, but bold policy).
Certainly Americans want to see their Democratic and Republican leaders work together to solve our nations problems- and it goes without saying that this is what our leaders should be doing- but what staunch liberal wishes to see President Obama cave-in to Republican demands for more tax cuts and what staunch conservative wished to see President Bush throw our capitalist philosophy to the side with the bailouts?
If it so happens that a particular philosophy does not actually solve our problems when it is tested- whether that philosophy be on the left or right side of the political spectrum- then it is not compromise that is needed but a new philosophy. No amount of compromise will fix bad policies or bad philosophy and in fact will actually only cover up the true effects of one policy or another.
In the words of Mr. Delay, “Indeed, whatever role partisanship may have played in my own retirement today or in the unfriendliness heaped upon other leaders in other times, Republican or Democrat, however unjust, all we can say is that partisanship is the worst means of settling fundamental political differences—except for all the others.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)