A Plea for Party Loyalty

My Unrecognizable Democratic Party

The stakes are too high, please get serious about governing before it's too late.
By: Ted Van Dyke   http://online.wsj.com/article/

Topic: The article discusses how the democratic party has created a system in which bipartisanship is difficult and nearly impossible to achieve. The author, a life long democrat, alludes to the democratic party of the past and remembers when it was possible for parties to work against each other while moving forward. He believes that Obama was elected because of his persona and his willingness to move forward with a bipartisan agenda. However, the sequester and number of other recent examples suggest otherwise.Modern political history indicates that big midterm Democratic gains are unlikely, and presidential second terms are notably unproductive, most of all in their waning months. "He rejected proposals of his own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, which would have provided long-term deficit reduction and stabilized rapidly growing entitlement programs. He opted instead to demonize Republicans for their supposed hostility to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."   the author is not necessarily argueing against the democratic parties ability to achieve goals and move forward with legislation, but their inability to coordinate with the republicans, this is an interesting example of party realignment. If republicans were to be involved in legislation, it is possible that they would share in the blame and rewards that their constituents feel when bills or laws affect them. However, as republicans have failed to be included in bipartisan efforts, they cannot be held accountable.  The author states that Obama's victory wasn't based on public affirmation of his agenda. Instead, it was based on a four-year mobilization of core Democratic constituencies, and on fear campaigns in which Mitt Romney and the Republicans "were painted as waging a 'war on women,' being servants of the wealthy, and of being hostile toward Latinos, African Americans, gays and the middle class. I couldn't have imagined any one of the Democratic presidents or presidential candidates I served from 1960-92 using such down-on-all-fours tactics."

Opinion: While I do not agree with Dyke's dennounciation of his own party, I did find this article refreshing in message the author was attempting to get across. What the author believes in, is while the democratic party holds substantial power, and continues to be successful in its application, seeking bipartisanship will add valuable perspective and insight into legislation. An interesting examples the author refered to was in 1965, Lyndon Johnson had Democratic congressional majorities sufficient to pass any legislation he wanted. But he sought and received GOP congressional support for Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights, education and other Great Society legislation. He knew that in order to last, these initiatives needed consensus support. "He did not want them re-debated later, as ObamaCare is being re-debated now." Looking forward to the future is important, and that is one of the few issues that I can see with the policies and agendas of the Obama administration, the bills he is pushing forward are successful but are totally lacking the majority support of republicans. Therefore, it is easy to assume that when the chief executive is a republican, he or she will push forward an agenda and policy set that counter-act what obama has done in his administration, seeing as those bills do not hold an party-based influence.

Conclusion: The topic proposed in rather complex. While the republican's control the house, one would think that they would be able to dictate legislation. Howevever, it is clear that the most valued legislation has strays from the republican ideology. It is easy to assume that the congressmen who are voting in favor of the legislation being passed and introduced by democrats, their districts are receiving some form of direct or indirect benefit. I digress, The president must start considering the future implications of his and his party's actions. Dyke makes a valid argument. When a republican president is inevitabley elected, or even a democrat, it will be up to him to reverse the effects of the Obama administration by moving the parties back towards a bipartisan regime. Considering that this article comes Van Dyke, who has served in democratic national administrations and campaigns for several decades, it is fair to assume that this is a pressing issue that neither party is ignorant to.