The Next Four Years

 

 

 

Largely, a close race has resulted in the election of Barack Obama to a second term in the White House.  While many celebrate and many vocalize displeasure, one must ask what this means to us, the constituents that have decided on another four years.

Unfortunately, obstructionism will most likely run rampant, so the results of this election will likely result in less than hoped for.  The percentages of the popular vote are very close, indicating no clear preference between the Democrat’s and Republican’s views on how to approach the problems facing the country.  The House remains firmly in Republican control, while the Democrats retain the Senate, with no massive majorities in either.  This means that the party of “no” maintains the capability to stall movement, if so desired.

And why not?  Generally, the Republican Party has opposed the vast majority of Democratic propositions (the list is actually quite fantastic), and with Obama not worrying about reelection he can more actively pursue issues (his only concern being his legacy, which is already fairly cemented, in my opinion).  Due to Obama’s ability to be more cavalier in his pursuit of legislation, it would follow suit that the Republican Party would become proportionally more obstructionist.  However, this may not be the case.

It’s easy to forget that both parties are truly looking out for America’s future and only want to make America an even greater nation; they just have different ideas about how to go about ensuring America’s place in the globe’s future.  To pretend that either party is doing otherwise is discounting the whole premise of a two party system.  This is important, as the election of Obama is an affirmation of more liberal ideologies (albeit by a smaller margin), so the burden of change ultimately lies in the conservative camp.  Yes, the status quo could be maintained (obstructionism, and hoping that the next four years do not treat Obama and the U.S. well), but that would be betting on the United States’ failure, essentially, and would run counter to any Republican desire to actually better this great nation.  Because of this, the conservative party faces a choice: gamble on obstructionism for the next four years, hoping that the difficulties facing the nation vindicate such a stance, or bring options to the table and cooperatively work with the Democratic Party.

Honestly, if I was faced with such a choice, a degree of bipartisanship would seem like the most reasonable idea.  If anything, it would more positively affect the dismal way Congress is viewed, make the Republican Party more of a party of ideas and give them more of a footing in 2016, and just generally help the U.S. move forward in these rapidly evolving times.  Sure, you could just stay the course and keep saying no, but let’s be honest, that’s fractious even within the Republican Party, and the populous wants results, not promises.

On the other side of the aisle, however, lies Obama’s schedule.  Emboldened by both his reelection and no longer being hindered by worrying about it, can have a more aggressive strategy.  This does not mean he should, however; this would be counterintuitive.  Yes, larger issues can be addressed, but they need to be approached for the sake of the nation, not a Democratic Party checklist.  Being overly aggressive will only force the conservative party’s hand and will result in the slowing of the legislative process.  Bipartisanship is more important now, then ever.

So what lies in the future for the next four years?  Granted, I have no insider knowledge here, but if I was given a choice of what to focus on, the foremost area of focus would be the economy.  Most likely a combination of lowering some taxes and raising others on business, as well closing tax loopholes, coupled with increased governmental spending, will be pursued to stimulate the economy.  Social issues, while exigent, are unnecessarily divisive, and should wait until more pressing matters are resolved (why divide Congress on abortion and such while the U.S. misses chances to accelerate its growth?).  The deficit, while an important issue, should be conquered with a strong economy, and should be approached at a later date.

All in all, it could go two ways.  This could be a very important time in American history, or it could end up being largely irrelevant and frustrating.  Only time will tell.

Any thoughts?  Let me know.

–MP

Honesty and Politics

Fact checking politicians seems like a normal course of action now.  The procedure is simple: watch or listen to the individual, take in the information presented to you with a grain of salt, then learn about all the reported inaccuracies presented by the individual.  I have been nearly overwhelmed by the topic of honesty and accuracy in politics lately, in every medium I read.  Apparently politicians are wrong or misrepresenting information quite frequently lately (either that or we have just not been paying attention previously, which is a scary thought).  Most likely due to a highly politically polarized nation, this election has called a lot of attention to accuracy and honesty.

With Obama and Romney both bending truths and misconstruing facts, who should we view this?  Surely, a politician’s willingness to deceive has an adverse affect on how their persona is viewed; the nation does not want a liar as a leader.  But how negatively should we allow our views on these politicians to be affected?  Is the question even relevant?  What does this say about our current state of politics?

Personally, I feel like half the problem is that we don’t know enough about the subject matter being stretched in the first place.  Really, if, collectively, we all have a very firm grasp on most of the matters, it would make misrepresenting them much more difficult; political discussions regarding the current financial situation would  be hard to represent if we are all familiar with how things operate in the first place, for example.  The same goes for any subject.  Granted, this does not excuse politicians and put the burden of honesty solely on the populus, but rather encourages more of an engaged discourse regarding our country’s future in the first place.  While I don’t have the time to become an expert on tax code, I can get a better idea and have a firmer basis to evaluate answers (like what income brackets are affected more significantly, and so forth).  Essentially, people better informed of the issues would force politicians to refine their answers or face even greater scrutiny.

The politicians themselves, however, need to change their course of action, as well.  The deliberate misconstruing of facts, while common practice, is misleading.  This is reflective of the candidates themselves.  It doesn’t matter how close the race is; don’t deceive your constituents.  Some information and statistics are inherently hard to extrapolate off of, or it is possible to interpret them in different ways, but it is possible to represent them appropriately (and if it isn’t possible, they really don’t serve a purpose).  Honestly, candidates should be forced to provide access to the material they are quoting.  Every other profession provides citations, so why should politics be much different?  Tell me how you arrived at that conclusion and where you derived those numbers from.  If your logic is sound, it will survive analytical scrutiny.  The American people are more than capable of understanding these concepts, so stop arbitrarily espousing the conclusion of your thought process and show us how you arrived at it.

It is a scary thought, thinking about how the two, currently, most prominent politicians are getting things wrong and then wondering about how often other politicians are.  If the two individuals in the spotlight feel compelled to do so and face scrutiny, how about the other members of our government who face less attention?  I’ve read some statements from members who sit on science committees which are quite frightening (especially since they control governmental funds responsible for financing science related endeavors).  So we can just take Obama and Romney as illustrating a larger issue.

A cure-all is, unfortunately, not possible overnight.  However, discourse based on qualitative analysis would lend itself to more empirical and definable resolutions in our government.  This would also cause a shift away from unnecessarily lofty rhetoric and would decrease divisiveness, as the focus would be on finding answers to the problems that face the U.S., as opposed to defining voting lines.  Unfortunately, it is too late to punish either Obama or Romney for their lack of honesty, but it’s a perfect time to start asking our politicians “how did you get to your proposed solution?”.  They are our elected representatives, after all.

–MP