Partisan politics

Partisan politics
'Us v. them' politics lead to gridlock, not good government

July 28, 2001

Yesterday, the Associated Press released a story that began like this:

"Democrats aiming to regain control of Congress say they’re miffed that Republicans in the last election borrowed their most reliable issues like prescription drugs, patients’ rights and Social Security.

"Republicans counter they are only offering alternative policies."

That’s politics as usual in Washington, and it’s good strategy: If you can’t blame your opponent for torpedoing your good ideas, blame him for co-opting them. But it’s extremely frustrating to ordinary people in places like Colorado.

Most American citizens couldn’t care less who gets credit for prescription-drug affordability, protections for patients whose insurers refuse to fund important health-care costs, and Social Security for the nation’s work force. They simply want the problems fixed, and they believe — perhaps mistakenly — that they are paying their elected representatives to get the job done for them.

A similar situation exists in Colorado with regard to growth legislation. It’s clear that nearly everyone, from the governor on down, wants something done to regulate growth. It’s clear that most people do not want those controls to impinge on property rights. They want the General Assembly to sort out the problem for them, and it’s not getting done.

Partisan politics provides important safeguards for Americans. The public interest is best served when views are debated adversarially, so that everyone understands the issues involved. When the two major parties are as closely balanced as they are now, though, their actions can seem more like obstructionism than representation. Someone whose side cannot win a vote may be lured into believing that keeping the other side from winning as well is a valid goal.

Meanwhile, though, no one wins, and little gets accomplished. On these issues and many more, the American people like to see some progress.

It’s nonsensical to claim that an issue of interest to the public is a Democratic issue or a Republican one, that if its "ours" it can’t also be "yours." The point of legislative debate is to bring opponents into agreement about issues. It makes sense to capitalize on areas of agreement, rather than complaining about them. Yes, the GOP has a different view of what the ideal Patients’ Bill of Rights might look like than the Democratic Party initially did. They are far from agreement. On the bright side, the idea has undoubtedly benefited from the number of minds applied to it. Meanwhile, Republican moderates are peeling off to vote with the Democrats, and while that may not please the GOP, it does mean that they’re considering the issue at hand and their constituents’ interests in addition to their own loyalties.

That’s a good thing, because there are never — never — only two sides to an issue. There’s always more to learn, and there’s usually a middle ground that benefits everyone concerned. Gridlock accomplishes little.

We understand the necessity of campaigning on the issues. Once the election has been won, though, it’s time to stop squabbling over ownership and start making progress.