STALEMATE: The US Congress
"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional." -Thomas E. Mann & Norman J. Ornstein
"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional." -Thomas E. Mann & Norman J. Ornstein
By Kirith Ahluwalia
Now we've had this before; a Congress divided by political party interests, because two sides simply cannot grasp the concept of having to work together, even though they are both in government. So why is it that this is the first time in 17 years such a situation has brought the seemingly powerful United States of America to a government shut-down? Well, I'm not surprised, for one, and I have my theories...
As many of us here in the UK can agree, looking at US politics as an outsider makes the whole system seem crazy (albeit very cool at the same time), and it is this perspective specifically that also makes the Republicans seem crazy. Why? Well, what's wrong with national healthcare for everyone for starters? And reducing the deficit does in fact require tax payers money - I'm sorry but you are not going to clear your debts simply by reducing your monthly outgoings (an issue quite close to home). You've got to get a sufficient supply of money from somewhere TEA Partyers (that's a whole other blog post). Republican ideals and principles stem from an age old American belief of being autonomous: completely self-sufficient, which certainly puts things into perspective, but doesn't explain why the Democrats seem to be more level-headed when it boils down to governance. It doesn't mean that the Democrats are un-American or unconstitutional, as they are so often accused of being by their opponents, it simply means that they seem to be genuinely concerned about the well-being of the citizens of the United States. Help from the Federal government with welfare is needed as not everyone is given the goods required to achieve the American Dream of wealth and self-sufficiency. Poorer and working classes need a helping hand. These groups make up the a large proportion of the population and, if they are not helped, then the economy doesn't get much help either. Just look at Detroit, for example, the 'Motor City' declared bankruptcy earlier this year because of "poorly considered and expensive government employee union contracts" and "a shrinking population." Add to that a corrupt government, low tax revenue, and an ever-declining population, and you've definitely got a recipe for disaster. Detroit should be seen as an example of the possible future of America if more incompetence from Congress is to continue. Resistance to cooperation is a result of ignorance and a need to appear powerful and victorious on the Republicans' part, which have seemingly flawed their ability to focus on what's best for the citizens of the great United States. Here lies my first theory then: that a bitter, right-wing group, who have lost out to that sensible black Democratic man, time and time again, want to throw their toys at the pram in order to demonstrate their power and lack of respect for America's acting President. And I'm not the only one with this opinion of the Republicans, just have a read of Thomas E Mann and Norman J. Ornnstein's article on the Washington Post website: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/opinions/35453898_1_republican-party-party-moves-democratic-party and this article on the PolicyMic website: http://www.policymic.com/articles/6709/president-obama-is-disrespected-by-the-gop-only-because-he-is-black
And, yes, the Republicans do in fact have power. They still hold 50% of government. So why don't they see it as a win-win, 'let's work together to make America seriously powerful and exemplary to all other nations like we set out to do,' kind of situation? Because in all honesty, how much power does the President really hold? The answer is not much really! Not unless it's his party sitting in both houses of Congress, or a grave crisis arises causing him to invoke his role as Commander in chief (FDR during the Great Depression).
On to theory number 2; that a shift in focus from bettering life at home to helping other nations achieve a better life for their citizens on the Obama Administration's part has lead to Foreign Policy becoming priority 1 when Domestic policy right now, given the current state of America (I mean really, how many times has the US been in the headlines internationally over this past year?), should be taking that spot. Take the issue with the debt ceiling, for example, it just keeps being pushed back. Why? Because the two houses of Congress can't agree on a solution (and because the Republicans want so desperately to be rid of Obamacare... and Obama). A default on America's debt would send an economic shock-wave throughout the rest of the world (though, according to the 14th Amendment, the US is not allowed to default on its debt), but, as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew suggests, a raise of the current debt ceiling would be more beneficial for the American economy. Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling; they seem to be convinced of the idea that the US can simply make more cuts in spending (really, more?? what is it with right-wing politicians and spending cuts!), whereas President Obama has made it clear that he will not be negotiating on this. So we're back to watching two annoying children sulk and fight, but that's just one issue. America's unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan harmed its reputation "for judgement and competance," and failed to produce any results which would compensate for the "human, military, and economic costs" (Richard Haass - Foreign Policy begins at Home). The US has been ignoring issues at home in order to be the first to take place centre-stage when a global crisis surfaces: just look at Syria for example, which took priority only to lead the US to a government shut-down. Now I'm not saying the two are closely linked, what I am saying is that foreign policy directly affects domestic prosperity, something American Diplomat Richard Haass emphasises in his book 'Foreign Policy begins at Home.' A focus on external challenges have already started crippling America in more ways than one; "including a burgeoning deļ¬cit and debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-class schools, an outdated immigration system, and the prospect for a prolonged period of low economic growth" (Richard Haass - Foreign Policy begins at Home). What America doesn't seem to realise is that this focus on global involvement puts the country's prosperity in a vicious cycle by deteriorating conditions at home, which in turn damage America's ability to be more involved on the global stage. Is that what you want America?
On to theory number 2; that a shift in focus from bettering life at home to helping other nations achieve a better life for their citizens on the Obama Administration's part has lead to Foreign Policy becoming priority 1 when Domestic policy right now, given the current state of America (I mean really, how many times has the US been in the headlines internationally over this past year?), should be taking that spot. Take the issue with the debt ceiling, for example, it just keeps being pushed back. Why? Because the two houses of Congress can't agree on a solution (and because the Republicans want so desperately to be rid of Obamacare... and Obama). A default on America's debt would send an economic shock-wave throughout the rest of the world (though, according to the 14th Amendment, the US is not allowed to default on its debt), but, as Treasury Secretary Jack Lew suggests, a raise of the current debt ceiling would be more beneficial for the American economy. Republicans don't want to raise the debt ceiling; they seem to be convinced of the idea that the US can simply make more cuts in spending (really, more?? what is it with right-wing politicians and spending cuts!), whereas President Obama has made it clear that he will not be negotiating on this. So we're back to watching two annoying children sulk and fight, but that's just one issue. America's unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan harmed its reputation "for judgement and competance," and failed to produce any results which would compensate for the "human, military, and economic costs" (Richard Haass - Foreign Policy begins at Home). The US has been ignoring issues at home in order to be the first to take place centre-stage when a global crisis surfaces: just look at Syria for example, which took priority only to lead the US to a government shut-down. Now I'm not saying the two are closely linked, what I am saying is that foreign policy directly affects domestic prosperity, something American Diplomat Richard Haass emphasises in his book 'Foreign Policy begins at Home.' A focus on external challenges have already started crippling America in more ways than one; "including a burgeoning deļ¬cit and debt, crumbling infrastructure, second-class schools, an outdated immigration system, and the prospect for a prolonged period of low economic growth" (Richard Haass - Foreign Policy begins at Home). What America doesn't seem to realise is that this focus on global involvement puts the country's prosperity in a vicious cycle by deteriorating conditions at home, which in turn damage America's ability to be more involved on the global stage. Is that what you want America?
So here's my advice Congress, put those differences aside, stop delaying the issue of national debt and growing economic problems, and sort it out America. The city on the hill isn't quite shining like it used to and, until you start to fix your domestic issues, there's no point trying to fix everyone else's problems. Maybe take a leaf out of Eisenhower's book and take the back seat for a while? Although I can't quite see an Isolationist America functioning well when the world always wants to know what the US is going to do about a foreign crisis.
For more on these issues, see the links included in the article.
For more on these issues, see the links included in the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment