Almost
everybody who follows public affairs knows American government has been virtually
immobilized by the deep division between conservative Republicans and liberal
Democrats.
Conservatives
believe the fault lies with the control over previous decades by big-spending
Democrats. Liberals believe the fault
lies with obstructionist conservatives, who want to dismantle most government
services.
These beliefs
have deepened during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
turning into self-fulfilling facts of political life.
Despite such
attitudes, the supposed polarization has not prevented each side from gaining
some of its major objectives.
Obama
supporters point to health care reform.
Though many Republicans would like to repeal the Affordable Care Act, it
has clearly begin to take root. Repeal
or even a broad revision is becoming increasingly unlikely as more people and
insurers sign up.
Surveys show
a majority want government action on climate change. Recent Obama action to get the Environmental
Protection Agency to limit emissions from coal-burning power plants is popular.
And, in the
aftermath of the financial crisis, there have been some reforms intended to
punish those responsible and make future collapse less likely.
On the other
side, government spending has been reined in.
While it would be a good idea to have a federal budget, stopgap measures
have provided some satisfaction to conservatives who believe government has
been doing too much at too high a cost.
But there are
some obvious problems that grow worse.
Congress
formerly backed the president on foreign policy, because Americans believed we
must present a single, unified position to the world. Now, Republicans seek to dictate policy the
minute a crisis emerges, and they second-guess each move by Obama on a daily
basis.
No sooner did
ISIS rebels challenge the Iraq government than some GOP leaders were calling
for immediate military action. The
President was not given even a little room to consider an American response,
before it became obvious that anything he proposed would be attacked.
While Obama
does not project the kind of strong leadership style many Americans and even
people elsewhere would like, he is entitled to a degree of deference he does
not get. The combination of his style
and instant GOP opposition weakens the U.S. in the world.
Then, there
is a policy failure on immigration reform.
Members of both parties accept the need to deal with the millions of
illegal immigrants now in the country and new arrivals.
But House
Republicans block the passage of any reform measures. It’s obvious they believe a new immigration
law would help the Democrats in the November elections. So nothing happens.
It is possible
the prolonged discussion about allowing the children of illegal immigrants now
in the country to become citizens has served to encourage the new and sharply
increased influx of Latino children now under way. They have certainly been misled and given
false hope.
And agreement
on a badly needed comprehensive energy policy, dealing with both fossil fuels
and renewable resources, is so remote it is not even discussed any longer.
Whether even
more conservative and unyielding forces will gain power in the Republican Party
is now an open question. The elections
this fall could provide a good indication of the answer.
Meanwhile, some
liberals believe Obama can promote their agenda without GOP support. That could turn out to be true only in the
short run.
What about
people in the middle? The latest
national NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll shows 39 percent consider themselves
moderate, 36 percent conservative, and 22 percent liberal. The rest don’t know.
The moderates
say they want a government producing results based on compromises between the
two sides. That can yield more positive
action, longer-lasting policies, and the image of a stronger country.
Liberal
columnist Paul Krugman, who seems to think a well-deserved Nobel Prize in
Economics makes him a sage on everything, writes: “Who cares what the centrists
think?” He is satisfied Obama is
accomplishing some of his goals now and shrugs off the need for bipartisan
policy mainly because he thinks the GOP makes it impossible.
Krugman fails
to understand the purpose of a country governed on behalf of its people is action
in line with popular sentiment. It is
not acceptable to sneer at those who want compromise.
Perhaps, as
he believes, the conservatives will insist on their goals, even to the point of
undermining government. But the other
side adopts the same tactics at its own risk, when it might win elections by
pursuing bipartisan policies, however fruitless that effort in the short term.
No comments:
Post a Comment