1
As a member of the Democratic National Committee and the 1st Vice Chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party I am attending the Winter Meeting of the Association of Democratic Chairs and the Executive Committee of the DNC. We are going to spend our time together analyzing what went wrong and determining a new way forward. I have my opinions but something completely unexpected happened, my 19 year old son was so disturbed by the outcome of the election and the calls for bipartisanship that he wrote an essay (without any prompting) that I think expresses the views of his generation. He is a Democrat from birth but if we don't listen he may choose his own path. Therefore I am providing 50 copies of his essay to the DNC and my colleagues on the ASDC. I believe he is spot-on in his analysis and provides our party with a clear path forward.
WHY OBAMA NEEDS TO STOP BEING BIPARTISAN
-- William Adams, A Concerned Citizens
In the face of last Tuesday"s incredible loss, it is clear that Americans are fed up with the job President Obama and the democrats are doing in Washington. Now we have a republican controlled House, and a strengthened republican minority in the Senate. To most observers, political pundits, and analysts this seems to mean that the President will now have to make concessions to the republicans, and try to be more bipartisan in order to make any progress in Washington. I, on the other hand, think this is the wrong way to go. President Obama has been talking about and advocating for bipartisanship since his inauguration. However if this election tells us anything it is that the people do not like the way the democrats are playing politics ,and they want a change. Clearly before the election the President was trying to be bipartisan and because of that everything he tried to push for was held up. The republicans use the president's good faith to politically hold his policies down from healthcare to financial reform. That is why I am calling for an end to the fallacy called bipartisanship.
The first reason the President should not pursue bipartisanship is that republic control of the House does not mean the end of his agenda. People will say that the president has to reach across the aisle because the republicans have control over the House, and without them nothing can get done. The truth is this problem is only as big as we make it. The democrats still control the Senate, and republicans do not have a two thirds majority in the house. This means that republicans cannot move any piece of legislation, or change existing legislation without democratic support. I know this sounds like the political gridlock everyone is talking about, but in truth that would benefit democrats more so than republicans. The thing people forget when talking about a potential gridlock is all of the policies and bills President Obama has already gotten through. Both healthcare reform and financial reform are bills that really start to benefit us further down the line, and with a gridlocked government these bills can slowly benefit without the intrusion of lobbyists and corporations. The President just needs to keep an eye on all of the new agencies and policies the bills created, and enforce the good they do.
This of course leads to the second big reason people we say the President needs to be bipartisan. Republicans are threatening to pull funds. This threat is considerable, but conceding to the republicans does not get rid of it. What President Obama and the democrats need to realize is that the republicans do not care about bipartisanship. They care only about elections. Listen to what republican Senator Mitch McConnell said:
"Some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office, b ut the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill, to end the bailouts, cut spending, and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things."
Listen to what he saying there: "The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things?" The next presidential election is two years from now in 2012! These guys are not interested in playing ball with anyone. They just want to hurt the democrats enough to win the next election. There will be no give on their side, only take. It is best to leave bipartisanship alone. Let's face facts bipartisanship got President Obama where he is today. The healthcare bill took the President over a year to get through because he kept trying to appease the republicans who were determined to see him fail. This is evident by the unanimous "no" votes from republicans in both the House and the Senate on healthcare reform, despite all the concessions the President gave them. Even now, with all those concessions the President gave in the spring the first thing the republicans want to do is repeal Obama's healthcare plan. Representative John Boehner said Obama's healthcare bill is killing jobs and is going to bankrupt the country so it needs to be repealed and replaced by a bill that will lower the cost of healthcare.
The third reason why President Obama cannot be bipartisan is the republicans have nothing constructive to offer. I would not have issues with republicans if they actually had any solutions to America's problems. The truth however is they don't have a solution for anything. That may sound a little harsh, and it may sound like an exaggeration, but let me ask you a few questions.
1. What do the republicans plan to do about the War in Afghanistan?
2. What do republicans plan to do about education?
3. What do republicans plan to do in order to create jobs beyond the jobs bill Obama signed?
4. Where are the republicans going to cut spending? Healthcare? Social Security? Education?
5. How do you pay for tax cuts and save money?
6. And what are the republicans going to do if they repeal the healthcare and financial reform laws. Are they going to go back to the way things were and pretend there wasn't a problem before?
These are important questions that we should already have answers to, and the fact that the republicans were elected without these questions being answered just shows that this election was more about being upset with democrats then actually thinking republicans were going to improve things.
1 | 2
