There is no doubt that in the rhetorical dispute between the Democrats and Republicans, the former have had the upper hand. The tactical difference between the GOP members that espoused ideology over politics as usual, and the ones that preferred results over pureness of thought would have not been detrimental if not for the war of words that was manifested. On the other hand, the Democrats in unison repeated their talking points with an extreme discipline, at times reducing them to a few words like “hostage”, “catastrophic”, and “default”.
Like recommended by their “guru” Sol Alinsky in his book Rules for Radicals, they refused to argue the merits of the philosophical differences, dedicating their efforts to demonizing the opponents and their ideas. Among this masters of deception stood our president Obama. In our system of divided government the disputes among political parties are not only encouraged, but necessary in order to maintain our Republic which is not a representative Democracy in which the majority rules and the minority could potentially be abused; “the dictatorship of the majority”.
Our founders based our unique approach in the guidance of laws based on a Constitution, and check and balances that made agreement difficult purposely, to guarantee minority rights and a limited central executive branch. In this scheme the “power of the purse” was granted to the Congress specifically to counteract an executive’s desire for power. Indeed, our longing for independence was a result of King George III’s refusal to allow representation in the parliament for the colonies in accord to their taxation. Much of our Constitution aimed to follow the British structure, while avoiding the possibility of another strong ruler.
Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania said, “It was a maxim that those who feel, can best judge. This end would . . . be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people.” Our President Obama, a declared constitutional scholar, seems to have forgotten this basic principle.
In his current dispute over our budget and debt ceiling, he accuses the opposing party for acting on “ideology” and not for the benefit of the people. What he is blatantly ignoring is that what he criticizes is exactly their role, which is to represent the majority of the population that is opposed to Obamacare.
The framers were unanimous that Congress in the House of Representatives, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the Senate, who could advise and propose changes, or the President who should obey and execute the law.
The demonizing of opponents to the extent of framing disagreements on the need for central control of our health needs as favoring illness, the encouragement to hurt an innocent population in order to make political gains, as exemplified when closing public parks and monuments, or refusing to accept some funds for programs benefiting the poor and military, the repeated refusal to make changes on a flawed law if these were suggested by congress, while doing so by executive power and other similar actions might have started a negative response.
At present when Obama’s approval rating is in a new low, and his desire of ruling by degree not by the sharing of power is becoming more evident, it seems that an agreement might be possible. Republicans, at last, appear to have united on an idea of negotiating above all else, painting democrats into the corner of intransigence. Time will tell if this action starts an era of appropriate governing and awakes the populace to the existing threat of a one party rule, led by a “King lite” President.
Fernando J Milanes MD
