Tuesday, December 16, 2003

democracy

Democracy works best when we recognize what it is not. In America, we often are wary of the winner-take-all approach to politics. When one party or one point of view is never successfully questioned or challenged, and when folk in power begin to feel that they own the place (government), then we as a society loose out. Our inept way of doing things, at least in the past, doesn't allow for lots of rapid innovation, but it also means that more of us have a piece of the pie. To me, compromise is good. I am always a little nervous of purists (who want everything).

A friend who is Republican used to argue with me during the Clinton Administration that the difference between Clinton and the Republicans wasn't so great, policy wise, but it was precisely because they were so close that Republicans were so vicious in their battling against him. Clinton agreed to welfare reform. He abandoned healthcare coverage, his court appointees were mostly moderate and bland, he balanced the budget.

My Republican friend thought they had already won the bigger battle (limited government, balanced budget, less liberal judicial appointees).

I think most partisan folk have in their head their worst fears list about the other side. For me, as a Democrat, I am nervous about the social right. Jesse Helms was right out of Central Casting for what I didn't like about the Republican Party.

I care about commitment to public education, fairness and accessibility to all our people. I care about public safety, about economic vitality. Republicans worry about these issues, too, although in different ways.

For a lifetime of reasons, I am much more comfortable sitting on the Democratic side of the aisle. And frankly, I am beginning to worry that the country is moving toward one party, much the way Texas was in my youth and then has happened again now. Who will keep the other side honest?

No comments: