GOP Makes Bipartisan a Dirty Word
Mike Hashimoto, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, argues that bipartisanship isn't all it's cracked up to be.
"Elections have consequences. Democrats have enough votes in both houses and the White House. Pass your bill. Take all the credit -- or the consequences. Same for the GOP: This works, you become the Whig Party; it doesn't, voters will listen next time."There are two problems with this analysis. First, neither side can pass legislation alone. Second, the best solution rarely comes out of either party alone.
In our system of government, Democrats don't have enough votes to pass legislation. It takes a supermajority in the Senate. Some Republican support is essential for Democrats to move any bill. And lots of Democratic support would be needed for the minority Republicans to get their preferences passed. In the debate over spending versus tax cuts, only a tiny minority seem to be arguing in favor of doing nothing. But that's just what we'll get without some bipartisanship.
Hashimoto quotes Jonah Goldberg: "Yes, yes, sometimes the middle position is the correct one. But there is no rule that says it must be." True enough, but there's also no rule that says either of the extremes is the correct position, either. History shows the extreme positions often turn out to be disasters, for one very important reason. In a democracy, the position most likely to succeed is the one that the largest number of people will actively support and work to accomplish, not sit on the sidelines or work to sabotage. The tyranny of the majority can get legislation passed, but compromise between the extremes garners the support needed for successful implementation of the legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment