UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. – It has been just three weeks now for the new Democrat-controlled Congress, but here’s hoping they can work better in the spirit of bipartisanship than the previous Republican Congress. I’m certainly rooting for the Democrats, and, had my absentee ballot actually arrived before the election, I would have voted for them as well. But just because I fall primarily on one side of the isle doesn’t mean that I think the Democrats are always right.
Two weeks ago in a The New York Times column, John Tierney wrote about the forthcoming “do nothing” Congress. The idea is that both Congress and public opinion are so nearly split on most issues that we won’t see any real progress for the next couple of years. There is most certainly some truth to this, but the optimist in me wants to hope that the Democrats will do a better job. After six years of a do-whatever-the-president-wants Congress, could they really do any worse? With the public so evenly split on many issues, shouldn’t the rational response be a bipartisan Congress?
The red state-blue state partitioning of American thought only serves to reinforce the idea of strict divisions in political ideals, and it is not helping at all. This country isn’t one big happy middle ground, though. The Northeast is rather solidly liberal, just as the South is solidly conservative. Yet, if you look at a map of the results from the last election, you will quickly see that the majority of the country is a deep shade of purple.
My home state of Pennsylvania is consistently in the red state category even though it continues to re-elect the Democratic governor and also voted down a ban on same-sex marriage. I’m currently living in a very blue state that has had a Republican governor for the past several years. The election results only enforce this duality. There are now 15 states where the two Senate seats are split between the parties, and those states also typically have very close vote counts.
Because the country is so closely split, at least in terms of two-party voting, it is not unreasonable to want the two halves of Congress to work together. The Democrats have a majority, so they get to call the shots, but they won’t actually accomplish anything without some votes from the Republican camp. So, unless they really want to do nothing, they had best learn to compromise.
The spirit of compromise starts with not alienating the other party just so you can puff up your chest in front of your constituents. The Republicans did a terrible job of this, especially after winning the presidency. President Bush, despite not having a majority of the popular vote in 2000, maintained that the election had given him a wealth of political capital and a mandate from the people. This sort of divisive talk is part of the reason the media has latched onto the idea of a harshly divided nation.
Shortly after the election, a number of Democrats went on record to say that the president would not be impeached. Some of the Democratic base likely cringed when they heard that, but compromise also means not unduly angering the other side. While some Democrats definitely want to see the president impeached, political reality says this has no chance of occurring. So, rather than angering Republicans for no reason, it is best to move on.
At this point so soon after the election, it is hard to say how strongly the public wants action on issues raised during the campaign. The big exception, of course, is the war in Iraq. Would voters be content with Congress as long as the next two years pass without any major scandal, provided progress is made in withdrawing from Iraq? I hope not.
Voters must make it known that change is necessary. Though the war will likely shape much of the political discourse in the near future, issues such as medical and immigration reform shouldn’t be left on the shelf.
The Democrats are perhaps concerned that any legislation they can muster enough votes on will be vetoed by the president. Stronger bipartisan support on a bill can help mitigate that and can make gathering enough votes far easier. And even if the president does veto a bill, that’s just the way the game is played. It’s about time he dusted off his veto stamp.
-This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to letters@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed – include your full name, major and year in school.
