Bipartisanship— A House United or Divided?
Posted by Glenn SR | | Posted on 12:25 AM
by LeNora Bowles on Thursday, January 27, 2011
In response to a question posed to me in regard to bipartisanship, and my perspective about the events unfolding in the house, I decided it best to pour my thoughts and the little I remember about the subject matter into this note. I do not profess to be an expert on any topic, frankly some experts frighten me, because of their tendency to remain closed minded about discussion that may go against their interest, belief or experiences. Neither do I profess to special interest, or hidden agendas to trade off for a bill, legislation, earmark, or pork barrel spending. Perhaps I am reminded daily that I do, or should have a voice in a democracy, (I use the word loosely), often tainted with special interest groups along party lines, which may lean in the direction of partisanship orbipartisanship.
It should not come as a surprise that President Obama has been very consistent in his call for bipartisanship—from the campaign trail to the oval office, he has emphasized national unity. Therefore, in the spirit of moving this country forward in a manner of building upon the solid foundation of what was once perceived as the “The land of opportunity,” bipartisanship presents a strong argument. However on the flip side of the coin, just as there are strengths in the concept surrounding a unified party, there exist weaknesses that crumble the foundation from which the framers of the constitution may have envisioned for this country. I suppose bipartisanship taunts special interest groups and mocks those who revel in partisanship. Detractors of bipartisanship have stated that the most successful and innovative government programs were conceived from partisan causes. One argument is that voters may become confused on the policies of their candidates, which is why some individuals strongly criticize bipartisanship, by stating that it only obscures differences between parties—thus creating somewhat of a dilemma when voting for the candidate of their choice. However, the strength of bipartisanship in any political arena is about finding common ground, in terms of achieving political goals.
The concept of bipartisanship leans more into the direction of compromise, in the context of opposing parties, or a two-party system, to bring about ways to achieve goals. Being a numbers person, (accounting professional), and author, I prefer to use the analogy of a system of checks and balances, likened to trying to balance the scales of democracy relative to opposing parties by reconciliation of common ground. Just as the spirit of bipartisanship is needed to bring about a more prosperous America in 2011 and going forward, “We the People” residing in a technological and competitive climate on a local and global scale, all hope for a premise palatable toward innovation and a more prosperous future.
A glance back in time teaches us that in the early 60’s the Senate was said to have rallied and or supported legislation by President Johnson, with a spirit of bipartisanship, and also during Reagan’s era in the early 80’s. Just as previous leaders of this country have called for bipartisanship, President Obama’s vision is to merely put aside matters of party lines, for the good of the country. Switching gears to the State of the Union Address on last evening, in listening to President Obama deliver his speech, it was evident to me that he was laying out his vision, while focusing on how to Rebuild American, in addition to bringing about a sense ‘prosperity.’ Although I flatter myself in thinking that I am the sole recipient of emails generated from the White House, I realize the extent of my ego can be tricky at times, specifically when I consider myself the only name listed on a mass email distribution. I say all of that to say this—in an email received from the desk of President Obama this week, via the Blackberry, the message read as follows—
“We must out-educate, out-compete, and out-innovate the rest of the world. We must deal with our deficit and reform our government, and it will only happen if we come together.”
As a caveat to the quote taken from the email, one has to come to terms with where he or she positions him or herself in the political arena of thought, action and innovation, otherwise the antagonism spawned by subscribing to the ideologies may create more confusion if not clear on the aspirations of the party before affixing the label. To my understanding, a democracy should thrive off the will of the people, and although bipartisanship may appeal to some, there are others who do not choose party lines, because of the notion of bipartisanship throwing a smoke screen of obscurity into the path of accomplishment, particularly during a crisis situation. It may be possible that democracy from their world view is dependent upon partisanship, whereby parties are transparent in their policies or ideals, and that the people living in a democracy in its most original or natural state are entitled to the freedoms of making conscious decisions with regard to government. The concept of democracy is derived from of the inventive minds of the Greeks as a political and philosophical thought. A walk back in time teaches us that Plato (the philosopher), would apply his concept toward democracy as a system of “rule by the governed or people,” although alternative systems were in place such as that of monarchy (rule by the individual), timocracy, (ruling class of property owners), and last but not least, somewhat reminiscent to this discussion, oligarchy (rule by a small elite class).
Fast-forward to 21st century. . .Although bipartisanship hinges on the balance of party lines, and possibly the thoughts of Americans on a local and global scale, I have to admit that I am somewhat torn on the dynamics involved in terms of bipartisanship. Whether one chooses to walk the path of the liberal or conservative, finding common ground, is more often than less debatable, bringing about the frown or grimace upon the face of those who have to decide upon a bill, resolution, or act, in which political parties may not be in agreement. In the wake of the tragic shooting in Tucson, a call for bipartisanship was heightened, as emotions tethered on just how vulnerable and forgiving a people are in a time of crisis, during which party lines are not as significant. My thoughts and prayers remain with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and other victims of this senseless attack with the hopes of healing and unification among the American people.
In closing—as in anything or matters of political motivation, bipartisanship and partisanship have their pros and cons, and should not be approached with any preconceived notion of thinking that a house united, is a panacea for what ails this country. And yet, a house divided surely cannot withstand a shaky foundation. In the spirit of working toward a more competitive and stronger nation, “divided we stand, and divided we fall, surely has merit. The race to the top as Obama alluded to in his State of the Union address begins with you!
***Disclaimer: The views and opinions posted on this network, are those of the writer, and not necessarily the views and opinions of FB friends and family. ***
Divided, I hope!
Steve, I see you are a man of little words!
this is very well stated. thank you LeNora for including me in this note.
LeNora... Thank you for sharing heartfelt thoughts...
Your remark " It should not come as a surprise that President Obama has been very consistent in his call for bipartisanship—from the campaign trail to the oval office," Is certainly concept that Obama shared with us early on...Thanks for the reminder... Bipartisanship certainly comes with compromises that we may not like, from "both" sides to unite 'US' as *ONE* (a concept that works well in a marriage or relationship) Great Nation to move fwd through the 21st Century with inordinate success!
Steve, just curious, what do you mean by "Divided"?
I would like to see men and women of strong convictions stand their ground. Too often politicians cave under pressure via a bribe for a future gain or benefit, for selling out their constituents, how fast they forget that the represent the people, not their own interest. Bipartisan is code word for 'I am still in control even though the people voted against us/me'. This land will remain divided until the people uphold values and ethics, this also means that our representatives tend to reflect popular culture or easy choices, this is the weakness.
Thanks for including me in this discussion
i think the issue of bipartisanship at this time is a ruse.
at no point have the republicans, the current elected politicians of the right, including the libertarian folk, showed any actual effort at bipartisanship...but they have no trouble repeating the word to their advantage.
i think the left, if you will, has to accept the current reality that the right wing consists of factions who are at war with the secular and "liberal" aspects of society. the courts and the economy are the current prize.
so there is no such thing as compromise in the current political situation. sure we like to dream...but it is not our common ground that is the issue right now. it is what differentiates us that is the issue. free-market theory is untenable and a myth. obama is a fool or a closet republican to buy the current attempt to dismantle social security. and to many thinkers and observers, the liberal class is already dead anyway. steve said it right..."compromise is code for i am still in control..." from the right wing. that is the current battle we must acknowledge to move forward. obama has to play the game though, i understand that. even with what he managed from 2008-10 he was labeled as socialist too left of center. the right wing keeps moving the center...defining the center, somehow. they get away with it. they are operating under a sociopathic ideology that values wealth and property more than human life. we should never compromise with that type of ideology.
"man cannot follow God and mammon.
It seems that the only one who is interested in "bipartisanship" is the President. Interesting during the lame duck session, it seems like things got done by "force" compromise. Do you think that's the President's strategy through 2012?
Steve, I appreciate your feedback, which I enjoyed reading. As I read your post, particularly, "This land will remain divided until the people uphold values and ethics, I was reminded of how difficult it is to legislate morality, (values & ethics), and how perceptions play a role in popular culture. I especially was drawn to your thinking relative to Bipartisan, and the code word for "I am still in control, etc." Once again perceptions work as an anesthesia to numb the senses to think one way, although the current state of affairs may not warrant representation or change. I beg the question, relative to the discussion. . . How can anything be divided, that is not together? In order to understand the plight or thoughts of others, one approach is to start with not just looking at differences, but to also look at sameness. It may be possible to at least meet halfway on the goal each one is trying to reach. Words do often get in the way of what is truly important. Once again, very interesting feedback. . . Thanks!
Glenn, interesting point, "force compromise" which is somewhat of a paradox. . . would you not agree? I'd like to hear more!
Mark, thanks for the feedback, I'm reading through your post in order to respond. . .
Mark, what can I say, you left me speechless! In keeping with what I was taught in journalism, I will remain as objective as possible, although I may have my own theories, this discussion is not so much about what I think, as it is about your feedback! One observation however I'd like to touch on. . ., you referred to President Obama as a 'fool' or 'closet republican'. . . and you end your post with scripture. . . What are your thoughts on separation of church and state? BTW, I appreciate your feedback. . .Thanks
BTW, I added my disclaimer on my note. . . if you all thought alike nothing would get done!!!
i believe strongly in the separation of church and state. but i can say that i have always been a 'spiritual' person.
i think the bible quote about mammon is one of the most relevant to our times. i think it is that line between God and mammon we are dealing with and i think it is one of the least quoted by christians. i also think the deeper meaning of jesus throwing the money changers form the temple is relevant per our current situation. the temple is the sacred...these symbols resonate with me strongly.
but i have learned alot from atheist thinkers too. it was actually a book by alan dershowitz, 'blasphemy', where i really connnected the human/historical to our rights rather than "from God". and i think it is this meaning of rights that makes america unique and the ideal we are supposed to fight for. that we know through reason that totalitarianism in all its forms is 'bad' or the least good form of society. etc...etc...
i think this assault on social security is just the anti-new dealers biggest wish. and now becasue of the 'tax holiday' they allowed as part of their tax-hostage situation for the rich is depleting social security (plus the effects of high unemployment)...justifying the claim of "fixing" social security. so if obama goes along with it...he forces us to wonder about his intent. sidney blumenthal, in "rise of the counter establishment" brings up a really interesting point about pragmatism...a good question. i thought of obama when i read it...that the pragmatist is always waiting for the other to stake out a position, then responds to that. does the pragmatist then have an ideal or principle other than pragmatism? in a state of war the pragmatist will lose...and like i said, i think we are indeed in a war for society. what form of society do we want? other writers have asked if liberals need to regain ideals...and i think that is relevant as well.
i would appreciate your less objective thoughts. i see no grounds for compromise with those who are busy working to drag society back to the 18th century...or the 1920s even. it is bad for the majority of people to be reduced to a commodity. that is the inhuman...sociopathic flavor of these we are supposed to embrace as fellow american.
i think i am rambling. and i think to know God one should consider all the world's traditions...esoteric. i also study guerdjieff so will include the need to 'know thyself'.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but you... once believed you were called to preach, however, sought solace within to discover that you had much more to learn about this thing called religion and spirituality."
that is a rather interesting reading. it does not match my conscious experience or memory of choices but does describe a kind of trajectory. i did entertain the idea of going to seminary at a point in life...but did not. perhaps i sensed then no priest school would have a place big enough for my closet? in college i ended up studying art which may have been "solace within".
i have to go now...but will finish this later.
Melissa, thanks for stopping by! : - )
Mark, the Trajectory is what I sensed in reading your post! BTW, I forgot to tell you that I am very intuitive. . . passed on by my mother!