Election 2012 is finally over and the results are in: four more years of total gridlock in Washington.
Anyone who reads my column regularly will not be surprised that I am very happy that President Obama was re-elected for another term as our president, and relieved that the Democrats will continue to be the majority party in the U.S. Senate.
I am saddened, however, that Republicans will continue to control the U.S. House of Representatives.
All of this adds up to precisely the same split in our government that we have had for the last two years, and for the last two years the extremely conservative, tea party wing of the Republican Party in the House, has held up legislation from being enacted and in many cases from even being voted on.
I have chalked this up to the fact that House Republicans were afraid that if the President’s policies were implemented, they would turn around the economy, essentially guaranteeing Obama another term.
My hope is now that is not an issue. The House Republicans will be more willing to compromise with House Democrats on important national issues, but somehow I have a feeling that will still not be the case.
The willingness (or lack thereof) to compromise is what most of the issues in our government seem to boil down to.
That is one of the main reasons that I identify myself as a Democrat. I feel like Democrats are more willing to compromise than are Republicans.
Many Republicans will look at the first part of my column and point out that the Democrats had control of both house of Congress and the presidency during the first two years of President Obama’s administration and ask why Democrats did not accomplish more during those two years.
The answer is compromise.
President Obama ran in 2008 partially on his ability to compromise with Republicans in Congress and when he was elected and his party held control of the Congress, he tried to fulfill his promise of bipartisanship.
He didn’t want to just ram legislation through like his predecessor had when his party held the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.
Because of Obama’s attempts at compromise, not as much was accomplished as everyone had hoped would be, and Republicans basically laughed at the offer to work together that Obama was trying to extend.
This was evidenced again later in President Obama’s term when the debate about raising the nation’s debt ceiling was going on.
Democrats wanted to primarily raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans while Republicans primarily wanted to cut federal spending on social programs like Medicaid and food stamps. Obama said he would meet in the middle; raise taxes on the rich a little and cut spending a little, but Republicans would not compromise.
The result is nothing was settled and our government is getting ready to essentially have the same debate all over again.
We here in northwest Ohio had the chance to have a congressperson who believes fully in compromise for the betterment of all, but unfortunately she lost to incumbent Bob Latta who is one of the most uncompromising (and most conservative) members of Congress.
The ideological divide in our country is wide and deep and I am reminded of Bill Maher saying something to the effect of: How can Republicans and Democrats agree on legislation when they can’t even agree on what is reality?
I think that it is an excellent point.
For example, when two parties debate climate change, the debate is not about different approaches that can be taken to curb climate change.
The debate is about whether climate change is happening — it is happening according to 97 percent of scientists according to National Public Radio.
The fact that a significant number of scientists believe that according to quantitative data global climate change is occurring should pretty much end the “Is it real?” portion of the debate.
After all, how can they ever agree on the answers if they can’t even agree on what the questions are?
Respond to Matthew at
