To compromise, or not to compromise, that really is not the question in today's politics. In Washington, the issue comes down more frequently to whether or not there is some consensus on both sides of the aisle. Many politicians have come to accept the fact that unless there is some support from both parties, then a bill is not worth putting up to vote. There are many examples of perfectly legitimate bills not being put vote for due to a lack of support from the other party for some reason or another. This certainly could imply that the bill is extremely biased. Perhaps though, for some other reason the bill could not garner enough support from someone on the other side of the aisle for them to put their name on the bill. This does not mean that they would not vote for it.
Regardless of that however, the bill, without any consideration of its merits, will not go up for a vote because of that maxim. The real reason for this rule is enveloped in the idea that there must be support from both sides for a bill to have any chance of being passed. The truth comes down to whether or not politicians have that assurance, for without it they will be far less likely to use up their influence if they believe it cannot be passed. However, there are many problems with this maxim.
First, it dilutes the contents of a bill to whether or not someone from the other aisle has supported it. There is no consideration of what the bill may mean for the American people. It is just tossed aside because it did not follow a rule of thumb that may very well have no effect on whether or not the bill is passed. I would well assume that many wonderfully well-written bills, perfectly woven with enough support to be passed, have been disregarded for the simple reason that either a Republican or a Democrat did not support it.
Second, it just marginalizes the importance a bill regardless of whether or not it can be passed. Bills are not just words on paper. They affect people and change lives for the better or, hopefully not, for the worse. It is not something that is completely removed from reality and should not be treated as such.
The bipartisan rule clearly shows a strong disconnect between the politicians in Washington and their constituents at home. This is a clear example of an objective rule taken too far. The effect on people should not just be treated as an irrelevant detail that can be just swept under the rug. Politicians have trusted this rule for too long and too many people have been harmed in the process. Politics should not just be a numbers game; you have to think about the people you are affecting and how it will change their lives. Do think objectively, but not to the point that you completely forget the people you are trying to represent. It's not the bipartisanship of a bill that matters, but the content inside and its effect on the American people.
Be the first to comment on this article!