Some pundits and the national media have attempted to cast the debate over the nation’s debt ceiling as a philosophical difference in how the two political parties view the role of government in the U.S. In short, the prolonged and bitterly partisan debate over raising the debt ceiling was rooted in conservative or liberal principles about the nation’s economic governance. Baloney!
What we have all witnessed over the past weeks was nothing more than the worst kind of childish and petty political partisanship. The loins share of this divisive behavior was on full display among many Republicans in the House of Representatives who refused to budge (at all) on the issue of including tax increases in any agreed upon debt-reduction plan. Their entrenched opposition was not only out of step with most leading economists; it ran counter to the views of a majority of Americans who, to their credit, sensibly acknowledged that both revenue increases and spending cuts were needed to resolve the debt crisis.
No matter what the political composition of our U.S. Congress at any given time, legislating is often difficult and will always require compromise to get things accomplished. Ideological intransigence is the very antithesis of sensible compromise.
The reality is that no matter what one’s ideological views -- conservative or liberal -- leaders must always be cognizant of their responsibility to act in the collective public interest. This means that sometimes strongly held ideological views must yield to the higher purpose of working cooperatively "for the greater good" to solve serious problems. The very definition of compromise means that all parties at the negotiation table won’t get everything they desire, but walk away with something.
It would be rather convenient for politicians to hide their base partisan antics under the guise of philosophical principle. But such transparent distortions of political reality don’t fly, and shame on the media for thinking they would.
