I've been listening to a lot of victory and concession speeches, and one thing that's prevalent in all of them bugs me. Its the now obligatory "I cant wait to talk to the guy I just beat and work with him"/"I anxiously await to talk to the person who just beat me about my ideas" part that all politicians regardless of party say.
I mean I get the point is to sound bipartisan, but honestly I think it does much more harm then good. See the idea a republic is that majority rules and that you win some you lose some. But with everyone just bending over backwards to appear to kiss their opponents asses I think people lose track of that.
See the way I figure when someone like say President Obama says "I also look forward to sitting down with Gov. Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward." what too many people (at least out of those who voted for Romney) hear is "Hey what do you know, Obama's open to listen to Romney's ideas, which of course are the better and more sensible ones, its why I supported Romney and I can't wait for Governor Romney to bring President Obama around to our way of thinking." So they actually think even though they lost they still have a chance of getting their entire ideological agenda passed.
And that's just not the way things work. If the Democrat's win we as a country will be, and should be advancing a Democratic agenda. And if the Republicans win we as a country will be and should be advancing a Republican agenda. Now to be fair this is not to say its impossible for the other side to have good ideas. Every political ideology has good ideas and really bad ones as well. So it is good for any politician to have an open mind to an opposing ideology, and of course, they are supposed to be Representative of the whole country, not just the part that elected them. Ignoring the minority totally is at least as bad, if not worse then blatantly pandering to them after you win. All I'm saying is there has to be a better way.
Cause we already know the outcome of the blatant pander, you get comments like John Boehner's first post election statement where he said in short that he agreed with the president on the need for compromise and working together and the american people expect a balanced approach to the deficit, that looks at both cutting spending and raising revenues, through closing Tax loop holes and not raising taxes.
And yes if that sounds familiar it should. Thats the Romney plan. You know the plan that just lost in the election? yea that's Boehners opening position: "well president said he was willing to listen to our ideas so lets push the same idea that just lost, clearly he and american people will see the wisdom of it cause they said they were willing to listen." Now 2 things in Boehner's defense 1) if the Republicans had lost, I have no doubt Harry Reid would be doing the same thing in the senate with the Obama plan (Reid already said as much), because my guess is Romney would have included the same kind of "I want to hear Obama's idea lines" and 2) as Speaker of course Boehner has an obligation to advance his parties ideas.
All I'm saying is it would be nice to see him do that without just assuming the President will accept the plan that just lost, due to the president bending over backwards to kiss up to Romney and his ideas in his victory speech in the name of so called "bi-partisanship", cause all it does is encourage a full presentation of the losing platform and an opening to attack the other side on not being willing to compromise and creates gridlock.
Oddly I think the person who showed bi-partisanship correctly after the last election was Romney. All he said about the president was this:
"I have just called President Obama to congratulate him on his victory. His supporters and his campaign also deserve congratulations. I wish all of them well, but particularly the president, the first lady, and their daughters. This is a time of great challenges for America, and I pray that the president will be successful in guiding our nation." and then on bi-partisanship he added later "The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to occasion.[...]We're counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward, and we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.[...] I so wish ... I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader, and so Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him and for this great nation. Thank you and God bless America. You guys are the best. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks, guys."
Notice towards the end there, he acknowledges he lost and the country will be moving in a different direction, but at the same time calls for reaching across the aisle and over coming political differences in the new direction that the country is heading, which will not be his. And note as well the total lack of an expectation that Obama will show any real interest in talking to him.
And that I think is the tone all losing politicians should take, dont expect to be consulted or to get your agenda fully supported by the person who just beat you, its not gonna happen. Instead accept that the country (or your state or district or what have you) is moving in the direction of the victorious candidate and just call on people to maybe at least try to moderate that by being willing to listen to ideas, not a full agenda, from the other side.
See back to my earlier example, Romney did have at least one good idea, capping the tax deductions of many of the uber wealthy and huge businesses that dont need them, and personally I'm hoping Obama/the democrats include it. But I'd be willing to bet it would be a lot more likely to have included it if it had presented as one of a group of ideas from the republicans, and not as part of a take it or leave it full ideological agenda you either take 100% or 0% as it seems to be heading. And it is a republican idea, and its one Boehner could present and fairly be accused only of doing his job presenting and trying to get as many republicans ideas included in the final democratic package as he could.
But he's, or any other "loser" in future elections, Republican or Democrat only going to do that if they arnt continually fed this BS line that the guys who beat them (again no matter what the party that wins) actually could be convinced to swallow their entire agenda instead of just a fistful of ideas. Which means in my opinion we need to stop the pretending that the person who won gives a damn about the agenda of the person who lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment