04 November 2010
Politics Is Not a Zero-Sum Game
Both political parties were trounced by the voters in the November 2, 2010 election. What choice did they have for announcing their displeasure with Washington’s performance over the last two years—Stay at home or “Kick the bums out?”
Neither the President nor the leaders of Congress were elected to enact any “mandate;” they were elected to make government work. The way to accomplish that is not to adopt any ideologically pure agenda, at the expense of opposing ideologues. Fred Barnes’ OpEd in the November 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal wrongly assesses the effectiveness of President Obama’s response to Republican Scott Brown’s capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat last year by its effect on the Democratic Party. While I agree that moving his policies rightward would have been a wise step for the President, its importance would have come from achieving better results for citizens from government measures. Both parties would have come out of that adjustment with a better record of doing what benefits their constituents.
Once he’s elected, the President’s responsibility is to draw policy results from the factious Congress that advance the general welfare. The objective of the Republican Party should be to help Obama succeed in achieving that goal and not to limit him to one term. The same goes for the Democrats. Voters may decide they prefer the policies advocated by one party, the other one, or another source. But regardless, they should entrust their representatives with positions in Congress not as much because of their ideologies as because of their ability to get beneficial things done there.
Both political parties were trounced by the voters in the November 2, 2010 election. What choice did they have for announcing their displeasure with Washington’s performance over the last two years—Stay at home or “Kick the bums out?”
Neither the President nor the leaders of Congress were elected to enact any “mandate;” they were elected to make government work. The way to accomplish that is not to adopt any ideologically pure agenda, at the expense of opposing ideologues. Fred Barnes’ OpEd in the November 2, 2010 Wall Street Journal wrongly assesses the effectiveness of President Obama’s response to Republican Scott Brown’s capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat last year by its effect on the Democratic Party. While I agree that moving his policies rightward would have been a wise step for the President, its importance would have come from achieving better results for citizens from government measures. Both parties would have come out of that adjustment with a better record of doing what benefits their constituents.
Once he’s elected, the President’s responsibility is to draw policy results from the factious Congress that advance the general welfare. The objective of the Republican Party should be to help Obama succeed in achieving that goal and not to limit him to one term. The same goes for the Democrats. Voters may decide they prefer the policies advocated by one party, the other one, or another source. But regardless, they should entrust their representatives with positions in Congress not as much because of their ideologies as because of their ability to get beneficial things done there.
Comments:
Post a Comment
