Dialectics: Partisanship and Bipartisanship

As the economic situation continues to beat down on our nation and the world, the politicians in Washington DC are wondering how best to handle and fix the problem. In this struggle to better our country, much conflict has arisen; Representatives, Senators, political parties are vying for their ideas to be heard and enacted. Since January 20th, the Democratic Party has controlled both chambers of the Congress as well as the White House. The Republican Party, with its members in the Senate numbering just enough to, when unified, stymie a bill's advancement, is now a definite minority party. Some might think that this seems easy, because the Democrats can just do whatever they want. But since the Democrats still need marginal Republican support in order to get things done, and since this is in fact a two party country, things get complicated. I'm wondering whether partisanship, sticking to party lines and disagreeing constantly with the other side, or bipartisanship and compromise are the way to go.

A major display of this dialectic between these two options occurred during the creation and negotiations surrounding the stimulus package that passed just less than a month ago. Obama introduced this package in order to create millions of jobs and get the economy back on track. The House Democrats then created an $825 billion package that was aimed at doing just that. Republicans immediately resisted because it contained too much spending and not enough tax cuts for their liking. As the bill made its way through committees and subcommittees, Republicans made their way to the TV shows to argue against the package. The Democrats, however, because of their majority, passed their bill without one Republican vote. The bill then went to the Senate, where it was introduced with slightly more tax cuts and slightly less spending, which ultimately brought three Republicans on board. That was enough, and the bill passed. President Obama, on February 17, signed the bill into law.

This whole process deeply troubled me, and continues to even today. The majority of Americans voted for Democrats on November 4, yet tens of millions voted instead for Republicans. It is sad then to see how little these votes end up counting when a Republican's voice doesn't get heard, and doesn't technically need to be. Yes, in the US, majority rules, but we must differentiate between that and a one party rule. Republicans come to DC with just as many ideas as Democrats do, and they deserve to be heard out and have a real impact in the outcome for our country.

Yet, at the same time, I saw that Republicans offered very unconvincing alternatives in the case of the stimulus. In the House, the Republican package was 100% tax cuts with no projected cost to the government. Not only is that fiscally irresponsible and economically dead-headed, it has been proven ineffective time and again over the last eight years. After all, there's a reason that Democrats gained huge support after the Bush years were over. The Republicans kind of screwed up. Not to mention that the Democrats were elected based on an agenda of change and progress, and they have a responsibility to keep that promise.

So I'm not really sure which way is the right way to go. My values tell me bipartisanship, because, as they say, two heads are better than one. Reason, on the other hand, tells me that, until the Republicans come up with some new and feasible ideas, an aggressive Democratic party must keep moving to get things done without hindrance. I hope, eventually, that the Republicans will come around and the Democrats will be there with open arms when they do so.