The Loyal Opposition
Younger people in the US have seen – and perhaps learned – that in order for the government to make significant decisions and/or make major, relevant moves in any direction, one political party must hold a congressional majority and the White House at the same time. It’s unfortunate that it seems to be the ‘lesson’ these days.
They’ve seen bills pass both chambers only when both are controlled by the same political party.
The media has learned this as well, reporting passage or vote failures of laws and appropriations by partisan voting only.
It’s come to be what’s expected.
A divided government describes one in which one party controls the White House, while another party controls one or both houses of the Congress.
It would seem that often, voters favor a divided government because they feel that nothing new will be added to the deficit. (I’m not sure about that theory.)
These days the leaders of both houses rarely even allow serious consideration, much less a vote on bills proposed by an opposing party member.
While more and more voters are registering as other than Democrat or Republican – namely as Independents – political parties have been exercising more leverage/power over party members and stiffened their congressional opposition to anything proposed by the other party.
Merriam-Webster defines loyal opposition as: a minority party especially in a legislative body whose opposition to the party in power is constructive, responsible, and bound by loyalty to fundamental interests and principles.
In recent years, we have not had loyal opposition by the party in the minority. We simply have a “take it or leave it” scenario. Compromise is neither expected nor pursued in Congress anymore, and that’s a major loss for democracy.
In a democracy, being able to compromise — and knowing how — is a core skill for governing. Shouting “No Compromise!” may fire up the crowd, but it’s a recipe for failure when it comes to getting things done in office.
Modern polarization has intensified due to several interconnected factors. These include the rise of mass media, the advent of social media, the globalization of economies, and the emergence of identity politics.
Pretty much every sentence in our Constitution was the product of compromise, crafted by people who felt passionate about the issues they confronted yet found a way to agree on language that would enable the country to function.
It is true that any legislative body needs members who set out the vision — the pure ideological party positions — as part of the public dialogue. But if they’re allowed to control or dominate the process, nothing gets done. When pushed, most politicians understand that cooperation and working together to build consensus should prevail in the end.
So why doesn’t it happen more? Because compromise is not easy, especially on issues of consequence, and especially today when the country is so deeply divided and polarized. Even the word itself causes disagreement. To some, it’s a way forward. To others, including a lot of voters, it’s a betrayal of principle.
Instances where compromise was crucial include the Civil Rights Act, the food stamp program, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.
Another that occurs to me is the Gang of 14 (Senators) – 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans – who in 2005 came together to agree that Democrats would not filibuster, and Republicans would not pursue the ‘nuclear option’ on Supreme Court nominees. While applied only to the 109th Congress, that agreement meant that there would be 62 votes for closure in the specified cases, ending those filibusters, and only 48 votes for the “nuclear option”, which would thereby be defeated.
Some of America’s most significant pieces of legislation have been the result of lawmakers reaching across the aisle and working alongside someone with whom they normally disagree. The examples cited show it can be done. There are many others in our history as well.
Some of the political divide today is based on propositions that the US is terrible country, governed by anti-rights racists. The 1619 Project and CRT teach the Constitution is in fact a document adopted to keep the proletariat and non-whites in lowly societal classes.
Today’s polarization affects every facet of our government, policymaking, and public discourse. As political affiliations become more entrenched, the divide not only hinders constructive dialogue but also threatens the cohesion of communities and the nation itself.
Are there any shared values in a country marked by different political ideologies?
Do we need another 9-11 to come together – to compromise?
***************
Have a great and prosperous week.
Hug somebody.
References:
https://stacker.com/stories/history/major-bipartisan-compromises-throughout-us-history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14
