So people have been complaining lately about the government. Particularly the shutdown and the debt ceiling. People often say that they want Congress to come together compromise, talk, make deals and get things done. As if it were that easy.
People often forget that all members of Congress are democratically elected. Therefore, they were chosen to be in that position because they reflected the views and ideals of the majority of their respective constituencies. So therefore, isn't Congress simply reflecting the way we behave toward each other's ideals in today's society? I mean we are quick to say that we want them to make a deal, but if you go a little farther into that conversation then people will often propose a deal that is biased toward their ideals and would require the other side to lose more than they gain.
So that's where I believe we are now. We can all live together and be friends just fine. But when it comes to decisions we have become so entrenched in or views that we ourselves will refuse to give ground and instead want the other side to give up theirs. So here I say that the only true solution to these issues would be on a grassroots level where people actually talk "politics" to each other and sort things out themselves. It is much easier for common people to compromise and make unified plans based on the outcome of their debates, than it is for an elected official to do so with worries that they might lose their job if they give away too much if any.
So I want all you gun -totin', Bible-pundin', closed minded, oil-hungry, corporate-greedin', conservative Murican's to sit down with the Marxist, Islamic, welfare-bumin', tree-huggin', Big-gummint liberals. Have a chat on the questions that you've been avoiding. Get all your anger out at each other. Maybe have a drink or ten. And talk about finding a middle lane to hop on, then elect people who will do the same.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that this conflict is nothing more than a battle of egos--something that our elected officials are supposed to have no room to tolerate. I am all for compromise, but I believe with how highly polarizing this issues is, this might be too idealistic.
Cullen Cosco
It does seem to be a very ego-centric affair. What I find most interesting is that the real political maneuvering I've heard about concerns not finding a good solution per se, but finding a solution that allows each side to "save face." It seems absurd, but I think Smith would remind us that the way other people think about us and see us is always one of the most crucial determinants of our behavior. I wonder, though, if more women in politics might make a difference. These sorts of "pissing contents" seem to be a peculiarly male trait.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right that perhaps the root of the problem is not simply a lack of dialogue, but a lack of a need for dialogue. Gerrymandering means that politicians increasingly win elections in safe districts where they have no need to fear a loss in the general election, only in the primary election by a more ideologically pure candidate. There are a lot of thoughts about why this might be happening, but no one has a clear answer. Certainly we are not as polarized as during the Civil War! (A low bar, but still a small bright spot I suppose).