The Evolution of Bipartisanship
Since the beginning of our nation, there has been turmoil between the Federalist (Democratic) party and the Republican party. Disagreement between the two has always been inevitable due to different fundamental beliefs, but now more than ever we are at the brink of irreversible separation. Throughout time, American government has learned to work together and value the needs of the country over the motives of each party. Now, evident in the 2016 election, we have reached a point where if you are not far right or far left, you are not successful.
America was built upon the idea that bipartisanism would provide a proper, balanced view to every decision made, that the appointed officers of government would have loyalty to mixed parties so that one was never overpowering of the other. Until about now, that has worked. This weekend John Kasich gave a press conference at the White House on partisan relations. Kasich practically predicted the downfall of the American political system if we cannot change the widening bipartisan gap that exists and grows as this election year continues. He expressed anger and frustration in candidates, as well as existing employees of the American government, because they continue to put politics over progress. The effect of this hyper loyalty leaves Congress divided between two extremes, with no room in the middle for agreement.
People must stop thinking that they can’t stand behind a policy that they personally agree with, just because their party doesn’t support it.
Kasich poses a valid concern that if government continues this way, there will come a time—an event horizon—a point of no return, that we will no longer be able to sew up the vast chasm existing between our parties. As apocalyptic as this may sound, there will come a day when we can no longer bridge the gap of bipartisanism. Republicans and Democrats must start working together, or else we will cling to one side and we will never be able to return to our original design.
People must stop thinking that they can’t stand behind a policy that they personally agree with, just because their party doesn’t support it. It’s okay for Democrats to agree with Republicans, and for Republicans to agree with Democrats. Think about it—no one is losing in this situation. This is a free country by design, so politicians should be allowed to have moderate ideals without being mistrusted.
Our government could solve their problems so much more effectively if our parties would actually fuse and collaborate as one. Differing perspective and opinion is essential in government (and really in any successful representative system,) and that is why abolishment of bipartisanism all together is not the answer. To fill the gap been Democrats and Republicans right now, we can all try to broaden our perspectives and see a country for our future that employs this collaborative style. We can work back towards an even partisan representation in Congress, elect a president with more moderate views who knows how to negotiate, and go back to a more balanced judicial branch.And so therefore I support a more moderate candidate, someone who has a grounded platform, but is wise enough to be able to see both sides of an argument. It is why I never truly believed in the success of Sanders or Trump, because they both lean so heavily on the walls of their parties that they lose perspective on the wholeness of issues. Both of them at the same time theoretically would work, but we can only elect one president. I prefer a leader who can negotiate.
As Kasich put so well, “When partisanship trumps country, we drift.” I would like to amend his statement to this: when partisanship trumps country, we break. Let’s keep our pieces intact, America.