David Boren On KRMG

[Conan71]

Did anyone else happen to hear David Boren on KRMG this morning?  He's got a new book out he was touting, "A Letter To America" or a title very close to that.  He was brilliant in his comments.

He was very thoughtful on ending sharp partisanship which is keeping America from moving forward.  According to him, (I gotta agree) all either party seems capable of anymore is pointing the finger at the other instead of working together as they used to when he was in D.C.

Instead of weekly party caucuses, he said they need to come up with bi-partisan work-groups to meet every 7 to 10 days.

I've always admired the guy.  He had very high popularity amongst Republicans when he was Governor and a U.S. Senator.  He's also been the ideal president for OU.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Did anyone else happen to hear David Boren on KRMG this morning?  He's got a new book out he was touting, "A Letter To America" or a title very close to that.  He was brilliant in his comments.

He was very thoughtful on ending sharp partisanship which is keeping America from moving forward.  According to him, (I gotta agree) all either party seems capable of anymore is pointing the finger at the other instead of working together as they used to when he was in D.C.

Instead of weekly party caucuses, he said they need to come up with bi-partisan work-groups to meet every 7 to 10 days.

I've always admired the guy.  He had very high popularity amongst Republicans when he was Governor and a U.S. Senator.  He's also been the ideal president for OU.

I heard the interview this morning as well. He is a very impressive man.

[YoungTulsan]

What a genius.  I have never, ever before heard it said that the two parties just need to work together and stop fighting with each other.  Brilliant man!

Here are some problems with that, in my opinion:

We have a two party system, meaning we get a whole TWO choices on whom to elect to an office in most instances.  That is ONE more choice than communism.  Now, imagine that both parties start agreeing on everything.  Hence, which way you vote matters less and less as they agree more and more.

I also think of it like this.  When the two parties compromise on matters like spending, they usually just agree to spend money on both the democrat and republican ideas.

We need MORE parties and MORE choices, not watered down principles and minuscule differences.

I didn't listen to Boren, but I imagine the point of your post was as to how eloquent and intelligent he sounded on this issue.  He probably framed it in the context of getting things done for the betterment of all Americans.  That is great.  I just don't see the bunch we have elected to Washington, when they work together, doing so for the average American.  These two parties that are in Washington today, FRIGHTEN me when they get together and agree on just about anything.

[Conan71]

YT- I appreciate your cynicism and I do share a fair amount of that with you.  

Boren approaches this from the unique perspective of being a U.S. Senator who saw bi-partisanship in action when he served in the Senate from the waning days of the Carter admin through the first couple of years of the Clinton administration.  

There is absolutely no way the economic recovery Reagan presided over after Carter's "stagflation" could have happened without bi-partisan effort in the Congress and Senate.  

The shrill partisanship on both sides which has evolved over the last 14 to 16 years in Washington is what happens when power and control becomes more important than what is best for the constituents.  We wind up with a "broken government".

I don't have near enough time to contrast the vast differences in cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of government and of the political parties of near 30 years ago to what it is today.  Suffice to say that Boren served in the Senate during an era of bi-partisanship which promoted growth and unity.

Today, Congress wastes time and money on circle-jerk investigations of the executive branch and coveted earmarks for their own districts.

[we vs us]

I think bipartisanship is a laudable goal, but I don't have the foggiest idea about how to achieve that.  We're not just talking about individual members of Congress mucking up the machinery, but there're lots of mechanisms that reinforce and thrive on partisanship and disagreement.  I'm thinking of certain media outlets, certain religious concerns, certain industries, certain interest groups and lobbies, etc.  In some cases, conflict is directly tied to profit making.  Negativity sells.  Hating the other guy sells. In other cases, preserving the status quo means that pressing issues get ignored or never fixed.

And we're gonna inevitably run up against a perception problem.  I'm a Democrat and I feel like most of the partisanship in Washington can be directly traced back to the current class of Republican Congressfolk and to the abysmal standards set by Newtie Gingrich in the early '90s. The last 7 years have pushed me further leftwards than I might otherwise be. It seems obvious to me where the problem lies, but then, that's a Democrat's perception.  Scratch a Republican and you'll pretty reliably find someone incensed at "obstructionist liberals."

[rwarn17588]

Bipartisanship sounds good in theory.

Except for the fact it's pretty obvious that the Constitution's founders wanted partisanship. Having the Congress, the president and the Supreme Court battling against each other is a nice check-and-balance.

The framers didn't want a monarchy system of government. So the push-pull between the current three houses of government (and the opposing political parties) helps keep one from having too much power over the other.

It's a pretty nice system, actually.