I first discovered Scott Brown while watching local news. The last few weeks, I have been blitzkrieged by an outrageous number of commercials. I liked his style, his seeming independence from Washington, and his fresh perspectives. Tonight, Republican Scott Brown very surprisingly defeated Democrat Martha Coakley to replace the late Ted Kennedy. I am happy Brown won because it will improve the quality of our government.
One of the beauties of our government is actually its bureaucratic nature. For reform to happen, it requires compromises from multiple parties and multiple interests. Through these compromises, our government is a better machine as it ensures that the majority of people are happy with its leadership. It makes sure that the majority is not complacent and isn't trampling on the feet of minorities. This past year, I couldn't help but feel like Democrats have wielded their super-majority dominion in a trampling manner.
I am not that old, but I cannot remember another Congress that passed bills with such unanimous opposition. At first I thought it was the Republicans being cute. They had lost big in 2008 and they needed to show their constituents that they were willing to stand up to Obama. But after a year of these unanimous votes taking place, it gives the layperson the impression that Congress is just ramming bills through as fast as they can. For how much Obama talked about the olden days when there was comradery in the House and Senate and how he wished for those days to return, it didn't make sense to me how little the president attempted to reach across the aisle. With so many important issues, I believe that we need at least some inkling of support from the other party. In the alternative, maybe I am just really naive and this is how politics works. But I really cannot remember a time when one party was so unanimously against the other party.
Anyway, Scott Brown is now going to end this year of ramming. I hope that it will encourage more deliberation, more compromises, and better-quality bills. My goal, and maybe this is unrealistic, is to have at least one Republican vote for a bill in regards to issues that are important to all of us: climate change, health care, and financial regulation.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You read my mind, when you wrote this post! I am soo glad he won. It makes me upset, that most Americans (including many democrat, and independent voters) are so violently opposed to the healthcare reform bill, yet the democrat congress is trying to ram it through anyway with tactics such as holding a vote on Christmas Eve. It speaks volumes to me, that in such a democrat state, that a repulican won. I sure hope this puts an end to all the nonsense that has gone on this last year. I could go on for hours about this...It just boils my blood.
I definitely agree that government would be so much better if it truely were democratic in the sense that you are talking about. However, I think it's a logical fallacy to assume that there will be more comradery and compromise now that there is one more republican in office and no chance of a filibuster. It will still be the same politics as usual but now there will be no hope for health care reform. I could taste the changes about to happen and I was really excited about the health care bill but it feels like we are back at square one now that Scott Brown won. It seems like this country is so powerless when it comes to the money and influence of pharmaceutical and insurance companies. And it does seem like the government is even more polarized than ever before. But I don't get the feeling that that is going to change now that Scott Brown was elected. I could be wrong though.
Instead of passing gargantuan, pork filled bills based on their immediate emergency need, "our representatives" -and I use that term loosely - need to produce short, straight-forward, universally applicable laws. Common sense things that fit on a page or two.
The voluminous US code and individual state laws continually constrict us to the point where arbitrary mistakes or long forgotten poor judgment result in little to no freedom. Criminalizing the failure to pay for health care (which will go up in price with a government mandate)is just one more example of forcing everyone to act and believe as the political and corporate elites of this country want us to.
Kristen, I would be very interested in hearing about your perspective since you deal with health care so directly. What are some ways that we can improve the current system?
Michelle, thanks for your thoughts. Some people have speculated that this change in the Senate means that a health care bill will not pass in Obama's presidency and that we'll have to wait another 15 years or so. I hope this is not the case. I've heard a lot of people characterize the resistance to health care reform as the "influence of pharmaceutical and insurance companies." I'm not doubting they are playing a role in the resistance, but it's counter productive to lump everyone who doesn't agree with the current bill as such.
SpeckK, I don't agree with you. The reason why laws and codes are so long and complex stems from a rich history of case law and an increasingly diverse and heterogeneous population. Sure it could probably be simplified to a degree, but it is naive I think to think that we could get a health reform bill written in a page or two.
I have a feeling SpecKK isn't a law student... I could be wrong.
Its just so hard to say.
What if I said I'm ANGRY Scott Brown won? (I'm not, I'm just wondering.)
Vermont is all for a public option and lots of other things about that bill. I think you know how I feel about that... >:{
Renny, if you said you were MAD about Brown getting elected, I would be very skeptical indeed. Unless there was a libertarian candidate that was running against him and you really wanted her to win.
Post a Comment