Which is better, the intraparty debate within the Democratic Party to pass legislation, or if there was real bipartisanship that brought true discussions between the parties?
I support the current format right now. The Democratic party has a broad coalition that represents much of America. I wish we had more free market thinkers and those who truly supported smaller government but our diversity is impressive.
Look at the health care bill, the Speaker has to negotiate between pro-life democrats who don't want any public funding for abortion whatsoever versus an overall pro-choice caucus. There is a Hispanic caucus that wants illegal immigrants included while blue dogs have to be against that for political reasons if not policy. There are issues about reimbursement rates for rural areas and whether formulas benefit Urban areas more. Of course most of our caucus is based in the big cities and suburbs.
The reason this is better than inter-party debate is that Speaker Pelosi is going to be accountable for success or failure. If this was debate and negotiation between the parties then if the process breaks down or fails in one way or another it could be argued who to blame.
Not so within the Democratic Party. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and President Obama are in charge. They will rise or fall together as one unit. As it should be.
Republicans should oppose the bill and take it to the people. If they convince the people, then they will be in charge. Though that would be a bad situation because then Obama can blame a Republican congress, and they can blame the administration.
All in all. Democrats are doing the political process and nation well.
I will continue to detail their shortcomings and where policy could be improved.
But ulitimately as a person, a party, and a nation we should be optimistic and determine what it is we stand for.
Pass health care after this internal debate and continue to be the governing party.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment