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
Play The Objective 