Understanding Partisan Politics

Despite all that anyone may see - that is, about "professional" politicians and "career" politicians - in my eyes there are only two types of politicians: ones that get things done and ones that don't. Now, we must understand, there are a million, if not more, forces that drive policymaking and, therefore, escalate or deescalate gridlock, and, among these forces, there is one that has been criticized over and over again, but no other president, or even American politician, has ever taken such a strong stance against it before Barack Obama: partisanship.

In support of what has become of this once-raving now-unpopular Institution, I could quote Alexander Hamilton (as in "those who stand for nothing, fall for anything") or convey his intention and the meaning of his Federalist Paper #10, but, if I were to take such arcane and distant examples to hand, then the question at hand would not be a question of good or evil, but rather a question of how the old system relates to the current system, an argument which can only be delved into by a scholar versed in today's politics, early American politics and everything in between; therefore - as the number of humans who fit this category is, at most, a single digit - I am not qualified to make that sort of comparison. Thus, I will not make a comparison, at all, but will comment on the flaws of our current Congressional system based on this esteemed system of growing bipartisanism and, in doing so, I will cover the reasons as to why the Democratic party under Mr. Obama has seemed to crumble under a rigid Republican fixture.

In midst of this recent "debt ceiling" crisis, the President made a statement - whose exact words have escaped from my short-lived memory of that certain Obama press conference - but in this statement, he made, if anything, one thing clear: centralism is ideal and any sort of rigid ideology is going to stall agreements. While this may be true, such bold and over-the-top statements undermine any sort of Democratic principle that may still be lurking in Washington.

The way our Congress works is based on a theory called "representative democracy" or the idea of Republican government. The ideal sort of practical implications of a Republican government that best addresses the intention of a "representative government" - that is to mediate the public opinion as to avoid short-lived passions, yet carry on the name and desires of the public - is a certain phenomenon called pluralism, by which compromises are resolved through the culmination of a wide and numerous array of interests, so much as to avoid a monopoly. That said, a system with multiple parties, each with rigid ideologies and right to debate, is required for a long-lasting and successful Republic as, without it, ideological stagnation would result and, with it, a collapse in the most vital of Democratic pillars: Liberalism.

Nevertheless, despite all these theoretical truths, there are the practical implications of Republican Government that must be taken into account with situations that even the most masterful of theorists fail to see. Such situations cannot be illustrated by anything nearly as well as our current economic turmoil, punctuated by the recent Eleventh-hour compromise and the ongoing "debt ceiling" debates.

To tackle these issues, the once this-is-how-Democracy-works Barack Obama has evolved into a crazy centrist. The reason for this is to hammer out a compromise as soon as possible, one that would satisfy both sides of Congress, but, as recent as Universal Healthcare, the Democrats have wanted to "get things done" rather than to "get thing done right" and THIS is the difference between a bad and a good Republican system, which is all about bickering back and forth so much as to get the voice of the American people across moreso than to hold gentlemanly manners and meetings with gold-rimmed glasses of tea, whereas the Republicans have held onto a rigid agenda, by which their followers could easily understand and even affect with minimal, if any, confusion.

To me this idea of centrism and compromise as an ideology seems more like trying to wing a test - as in the policymaking process or the agreements meetings - than trying to prepare for it.  And if it is a compromise they want, why don't those who consider themselves centrists resign their seats as Congressman so those who actually take their time to make informed opinions and to garner support can do their job. After all, at least this way, it can be a little more blatant as to how well our "representative Democracy" really represents our people.