Nels Ackerson, candidate for Indiana’s 4th Congressional District, has an opinion column in the Martinsville Reporter-Times pointing out that the failure to override Bush’s veto of the Children’s Health Program is a defeat for bipartisanship and a blow to families and children.
This issue will probably be important to Mr. Ackerson on a number of levels. First, he knows he will be representing a conservative district and, as such, wants to build consensus between Republican views and Democratic views. At this point, I’ll make a brief aside. Two of my best friends are die-hard, Republican conservatives. I know I sound like the guy who tries to prove he’s not racist by saying that some of his best friends are black. But, no. I mean these guys are in the inner-circle, 2 of maybe 4 really good friends. Anyway, back in 2003, we were in Denver drinking at a Rockies game. Then, we were out and about in downtown Denver continuing the drunkfest. The topic turned to politics. It got ugly. (Wait, how did Nels Ackerson get dragged into one of my drinking stories?) We were yelling and generally getting pissed off at each other talking about Republicans, fascists, and theocrats this; Democrats, Ted Kennedy, communists that. But a funny thing happened when we sobered up. Not wanting to poison the relationship, when talking politics with these guys, I took to talking more about specific problems and specific ideas for solutions rather than throwing around labels. We don’t always agree about everything, but we agree about far more than we disagree about. And where we disagree the acrimony is at a minimum.
We have a similar thing with SCHIP. As Mr. Ackerson points out, this was a program that was approved by two thirds of the Senate, nearly two thirds of the House, 43 governors and almost three fourths of the American people. This was not a divisive bill. Most people agreed that it was a pretty good policy. But, because Bush and a relative handful of his supporters in the House — Ackerson’s opponent Steve Buyer among them — dug in their heels to oppose the program, this relatively agreeable policy is going to turn into a political hate-fest. Democrats will now try to tar all Republicans as hating children, and Republicans will try to brand Democrats as socialized-medicine loving, free market-hating communists.
In his column, Ackerson makes a few points about why the Children’s Healthcare Insurance Program is a good idea for Hoosier children: First, Indiana is near the tail end of the country in terms of per capita income growth over the past decade. Hoosier income has remained stagnant while health insurance premiums have been going up at double digit rates. Second:
The cruel irony is that huge federal deficits passed in the past six years have plunged us into an ocean of debt in which our children and grandchildren will have to swim or drown. The least we can do is to provide them with life jackets of adequate health care. Those who created the largest federal deficits in our nation’s history, and now call SCHIP supporters the big spenders, are neither fiscally conservative nor responsible. Their conduct in the midst of a health care crisis for their constituents is the equivalent of a food fight on the Titanic.
Opponents of this bill seem, by and large, o.k. with spending our childrens’ money, just so long as our children don’t actually benefit from the expenditure. On this issue, as so many others, Steve Buyer is AWOL, leaving his constituents to fend for themselves.
A Concern I have never quite understood. And using you and your friends exchange as an example—why is it that recognizing legitimate difference of philosophy/opinion can be grounds for distain/ridicule/etc. rather than dialogue and seeking to understand that honest difference can exist. Each of us come to each point of thinking by way of introspect, life’s experiences, and education (formal and informal) thus if one is conservative or liberal should not simply render their stance as acceptable or ignorant. A recent article quoting a well recognized national legislator who is noted as generally extremely liberal –saying basically sometimes too much is simply too much (regardless of which “side” is advocating it.)
I think the problem is pre-conditions that each side,but especially the ‘pure-thinking’ Repubs assume must be in place before negotiating starts.It does seem that SCHIP was truly bi-partisan but still a few hard-nosed zealots were able to kill it.It takes a lot of diverse legislators to vote together to override a presidential veto. With SCHIP it was assumed that only private enterprise would handle funding,and if not, then kill it.It’s the same with public education in general.Get rid of teachers’ unions, assure vouchers to private schools,and cut taxes,and then we’re ready to start negotiating .People are ignored,academics are excluded til some later time that rarely comes, kids fall through the cracks,and all in the name of some belief system of what government should be.I’m obviously coming from the liberal side,but it does seem to me that liberal-types have always been willing to compromise,but with no pre-conditions. Democracy requires compromise and good will to be successful. Compromise needs to start with both sides at ground zero.My take is that when Dems were in control from FDR to recent times compromise moved legislation,and that seems logical considering Dems ranged from very liberal to the Blue Dog Democrats ( the roots of today’s Republican leadership cadre from the South).
It reminds me of a comment made by some Shiite tribal leader some time ago. ‘We Shiites are 60% of Iraq,so Democracy will give us everything we want’. He’s probably been somewhat enlightened in the interim.
Agreed—but is it always possible to negotiate away from one’s position? Examples:
a) absolutely for whatever reason against abortion
b) strong religous belief according to your understanding of the tenets of your faith
c) believe in God or do not believe in God–which can negotiate on faith-based or evolution
d)100% free market economist thinking
e) 100% belief that socialism is the way
f) or any absolute belief/value system one has
Which side of the issue can give in without feeling very great sense of betrayal to their value system.
Yes, negotiations is the most basic requirement for a society with persons of varying beliefs–but each member may find at some times an action simply goes too far or is too extreme. Look around the world and identify the truly negotiated governments working effectively and efficiently and with overwhelming majority very satisfied.
One problem is that if your party is Democrat or Republican (or whatever) you are expected to toe the line with whatever those with the podium say is the right thing. Perhaps this is why local government is often more responsive because labels of Democrat/Republican or Conservative/Liberal, etc. simply usually does not dictate every vote by members of whatever identified party.