Obstinacy, Moderation and a Political Crisis
Many of my friends want to know how I feel about the recent political war in America. I don’t think we should panic. I’m certainly not a prophet of any kind, but I believe there are lessons to be learned from similar crises that have unfolded in the past, which happened under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. It’s useful to take the drama out of the situation. I think they will find a way to communicate, but it’s a shame that stubbornness has taken the place of moderation.
There’s no winner here. It’s also not the first time I'm witnessing a shutdown of the federal government here in Washington. I clearly remember the winter of 1995 to 1996, when a similar point was reached. It’s an institutional blockage caused by the lack of political compromise between the two parties and between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Eventually, they will have to come up with a way to cooperate, in the form of a functional budget. For now, however, radicalism seems to be guiding everything. Obama’s adversaries are accusing him of not accepting dialogue — which is actually not far from the truth. The president claims to have the people’s vote on his side, but it’s arguable whether or not his election was really just a referendum on health care reform.
In this case, we’re dealing with an incompatibility between the vision of one of the most influential groups of the Republican Party on one side and the Obama administration, supported by the leadership of the Democratic Party, on the other. In the end, I am confident that the moderate politicians of both parties will manage to find a common language.
At stake is Obamacare, the new, drastic medical insurance system reform act, which many Republicans — and Democrats less radical than, say, Nancy Pelosi — see as incomplete and having serious problems that have generated major public discontent. I’m not an expert in the matter, so I won’t give a hasty verdict. It wouldn’t be a tragedy to postpone the act for a year, as it would actually allow discussions to continue about the act’s most controversial points and give politicians time to maybe make some adjustments. That is the point of the Republicans’ proposal.
For the time being, the government is shut down, with the exception of vital institutions. This shutdown could last for a few days, a week or even a few weeks. But, for now, I don’t see any dramatic consequences where the economy is concerned; however, they might arise if the situation is extended for too long. I honestly doubt that America’s image will suffer because of a situation with familiar precedents. It’s not bankruptcy; it’s a communication crisis resulting in temporary political paralysis.
There’s no winner here. It’s also not the first time I'm witnessing a shutdown of the federal government here in Washington. I clearly remember the winter of 1995 to 1996, when a similar point was reached. It’s an institutional blockage caused by the lack of political compromise between the two parties and between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Eventually, they will have to come up with a way to cooperate, in the form of a functional budget. For now, however, radicalism seems to be guiding everything. Obama’s adversaries are accusing him of not accepting dialogue — which is actually not far from the truth. The president claims to have the people’s vote on his side, but it’s arguable whether or not his election was really just a referendum on health care reform.
In this case, we’re dealing with an incompatibility between the vision of one of the most influential groups of the Republican Party on one side and the Obama administration, supported by the leadership of the Democratic Party, on the other. In the end, I am confident that the moderate politicians of both parties will manage to find a common language.
At stake is Obamacare, the new, drastic medical insurance system reform act, which many Republicans — and Democrats less radical than, say, Nancy Pelosi — see as incomplete and having serious problems that have generated major public discontent. I’m not an expert in the matter, so I won’t give a hasty verdict. It wouldn’t be a tragedy to postpone the act for a year, as it would actually allow discussions to continue about the act’s most controversial points and give politicians time to maybe make some adjustments. That is the point of the Republicans’ proposal.
For the time being, the government is shut down, with the exception of vital institutions. This shutdown could last for a few days, a week or even a few weeks. But, for now, I don’t see any dramatic consequences where the economy is concerned; however, they might arise if the situation is extended for too long. I honestly doubt that America’s image will suffer because of a situation with familiar precedents. It’s not bankruptcy; it’s a communication crisis resulting in temporary political paralysis.
Previous article![]( "Shutdown States of America")
