From President Bush to CNN, and all the way out through the blogosphere, everyone seems to agree that Washington, D.C. is poisoned. Senators once enjoyed a fruitful spirit of cooperation and held friendships across the aisle despite political differences, but this has now been supplanted by partisanship. Everyone seems to know about it. Washington has united in agreeing that it is no longer united.
President Bush addressed this issue Jan. 31 in the State of the Union Address, proposing ave-nues for cooperation and reform. He made overtures to Democrats, asking for progress on a variety of issues and highlighting the necessity of bipartisan compromise to find effective solutions to our nation's problems.
On the blog of the Brown Democrats, Zach Rynar '06 wrote just before the State of the Union: "The Oil President is going to talk about how we're dependent on oil. The Abramoff party is going to stand and clap for reform. I don't know if I can watch."
Rynar's prejudgment is representative of how many Democrats felt about Bush's conciliatory tone in the State of the Union. From what I've heard on the "Blast the Right" podcast, a show which is more left-leaning than most, Bush is awful, awful and awful. He is so awful that anything he says is tainted by this awfulness and must be likewise insincere and awful. One need not bother dealing with the substance of new proposals in which he is involved. After all, if Bush made them, they must be awful.
But if cooperation has stagnated lately in Washington, how can anything get done? Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your side of the fence) for America, the inability of Republicans and Democrats to cooperate has not kept things from happening. Simply put, Republicans have used their monopoly of the legislative and executive branches to govern without cooperation. They've had some success: two Supreme Court Justices, continued tax cuts, an aggressive foreign policy and often-intrusive counter-terrorism measures have all been put in place in spite of vocal objections from Democrats.
A nuclear Iran, a terrorist (and democratic) Palestine, a health care system that doesn't work and an energy crisis are all looming ominously over the United States. Bush's recent health care failure and the continuation of America's energy crises in spite of Bush's comprehensive energy plan have shown that the Republicans cannot handle these domestic issues themselves. The changes they require are too great, and the solutions they nec-essitate too creative, to be pushed through without Democratic cooperation. And the United States must provide a united front if it is to lead, or even be a player in, dip-lomatic solutions to the problems with Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Supposedly, Wayne Gretzky once said that "you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take." His comments are applicable to many Democrats' views about cooperating with Bush. If Democrats refuse to remain open to the possibility of cooperation with the Bush administration, they guarantee it will not happen. There is no cost to remaining open to the idea. In fact, Democrats might appear more legitimate and less biased when criticizing him if they refrain from saying he's the Anti-christ. And, who knows? The cooperation might work. Even if you do think Bush is evil or an idiot, and that his calls in the State of the Union Address for cooperation were insincere, there is nothing to be gained by rejecting his ideas from the outset. Second to cooperation, what are the options? Fight angrily (and usually unsuccessfully) against Bush until his term is up, hoping that in 2009 whoever comes into office will bring a new way of doing things in Washington, D.C.?
If so, then taxpayers whom our inefficient health care system fails might have to wait three years for a solution. Iran and Hamas would no doubt be happy to wait three years for a united America to stick its nose in their plans. Exxon would love to enjoy three more years of record-setting profits. But what does it hurt the opposition to push aside the anger and leave itself open to the possibility of meaningful cooperation before 2009?
The Democrats can yell about Iraq, call for impeachment for wiretapping and shake their fists at Karl Rove all they like, but they should try to prevent their feelings on these issues from preventing them from cooperation elsewhere. Next time you hear a Bush proposal, try to consider it in light of its merit, not the person proposing it. There is little to lose and a great deal to gain.
Matthew Lawrence '06 knows that sharing equals caring.
