The Election is over, and it looks like the GOP has taken back the House of Representatives, but not the Senate. I know that many Republican supporters are very excited about this, but I would just like to add in a few thoughts about the next few years. First off, given that the Democrats still control (an albeit tiny) majority in the Senate, this means that Republicans will need to attempt at least a little bipartisanship if they wish to pass any real legislation. This means compromise. And as for those big pieces of legislation they've been talking about, namely repealing the Health Care Bill, I have just one word: veto. Basically, in order for the Republicans to get rid of the Health Care Bill, they would have to pass another Bill essentially canceling the first one out. And in order to do this, they would need not only cooperation from the Democrats, but the signature of the President.
I'm sure we can all imagine what Obama's reaction would be to an attempt to get rid of his prize piece of legislation.
On the flip side, the Democrats won't be able to get anything through that the Republicans don't like either. So what this means is that for at least the next two years, we're likely to see a whole lot of nothing coming out of Congress. Just food for thought.
1 comment:
I think this is good food for thought...it causes me to agree that nothing much will be able to be decided upon, but it also reminds me of how unique and beneficial it could be that our system of checks and balances really doesn't provide for one party or group to dominate the whole motion of the country's policy bar none.
Of course, though, we could accomplish SO much if as citizens, as humans, we could decide together what we want done for the good of all- and then make THAT happen with mutual consent, support, and efficiency of all parties involved. Currently untrue, hypothetically impossible, yes. But just imagine how much time, energy, resources, arguments, and money we could save, how many beneficial actions could actually come to ACTION.
If I may also bring up one more topic, my suggestion to “just imagine” brings up in my mind the topic of imagination, still in context of political and social improvement. Samuel Johnson in "History of Rasselass" argues that imagination is unproductive, foolish, and essentially wasteful because it diverts from reality. In Sir Philip Sidney's "Defense of Poesy," however, he urges that through imagination poets become the prophets and, in fact, creators of the future. They do this by proposing a BETTER reality and communicating a method clearly through the ageless mode of storytelling. So: is it futile to be an "idealistic dreamer"? Or, by the adjoining of what we imagine and how we live, could we actually become the poets who speak the words of fancy into the fabric of actuality?
Post a Comment