By chance I tuned onto C-SPAN at the beginning of a women's' conference. Patty Murray, senator for the state of Washington, was the special guest. She answered questions, first by msnbc's Karen Finney, then from the audience, following her and Ms Finney's introductions.
The questions dealt mainly with women issues and those related with the inability of Democrats and Republicans to reach common ground on so many issues critical to our economy and the proper functioning of our form of government, including the result of the current deadlock leading to the latest shutdown of the government.
Most interesting to me, among the questions asked, was one by a lady who identified herself as representing an organization which was nonpartisan. Her question related to the fact that not all Democrats agree of all social issues. She pointed out that not all Democrats, for example, agree on the party's position on gay marriages. (She might also have added that not all Democrats agree on the Democratic party's positions on abortions and prayers in school.) She asked why the Democratic party does not attempt to find common ground within the party between progressive and conservative Democrats, such as on issues related to religion. The response was not a serious attempt to answer that question.
For serious people of faith, anything that conflicts with foundations and teachings of their religious faith cannot become bases for common ground. However, such opposition to gay marriages does not necessarily equate to opposition to the condition of gayness. But President Obama's eventual evolution from believing that civil unions were not a sufficient common ground for gays and lesbians and straights to a belief that they had Constitutional rights that superseded any conflict with the teaching of the Christian-Judaic faith. That belief that such marriage was appropriate is at the heart of conservative opposition to President Obama, along with several other things..
Now, how many within the Republican Party don't like either Obama, Obamacare or both? Probably not that many. Most who don't like Obamacare don't understand it. Most, if they knew and understood what the law provides--would like it, and will when the law is fully implemented and they become familiar with it. Those who don't like Obamacare include (1) those who just don't like President Obama because they believe the many negative things that have been said falsely about him, (2) those who just don't like minorities (especially African Americans), (3) those who have deep-seated religious faith which Democrats seem to take less seriously, and (4) those who have just been persuaded that the tea party movement is the right thing what ever they do or persue.
Of course, the best way to make one's religious faith attractive to others is to let lights of faith shine so that others see what faith does for you, how it cause you to feel about other, and what it causes you to do for others. You can't impose religion on others by using religious motives to hurt others, to oppress others, to deny others their rights and opportunities. Love is promoted by loving. Punishing the poor as a means of making the poor productive does not promote the teachings of religious faith. The common ground that Democrats and Republican seek rest in the common ground they have at the core of their religious mututal faith. But their problem is that both have staked out certain positions that are contrary to their faith while also taking positions that are consistent with their faith but not consistent with the practices or beliefs of the other party.
Resolving this problem of right and wrong is perhaps a long-term task.
But resolution of the present shutdown of government rests, I believe, in the President blinking first, and establishing a bipartisan commission to identify flaws in the ACA and implement them into legislation as flaws are identified and means of rectification them are developed.
The commission should consist of four conservative Democrats and four liberal Democrats, four tea party Republicans and four moderate Republicans. There should be two of each from the Senate and two of each from the House of Representatives. Each ideological group within the Senate and the House should select its own commission representatives.l Two weeks of deliberations would be provided for problems already recognized by Democrats and Republican to be pointed out for attention and rectified or resolved.
In exchange for allowing the bipartisan commission this opportunity to suggest immediate changes to provisions of Obamacare guidelines, Republicans--specifically Speaker John Boehner-- will allow the full House of Representative to vote on both the continuing resolution and extension of the debt limit during the same session. Failure to resolve differences will result in the law being imprimented as written, with revisions made later on a continuing basis as needed. All discussions during these deliberations should be conducted on C-SPAN
In conclusion, not all Republicans in Republican-gerrymandered districts are tea-party Republicans; hence; regular or moderate Republicans are free to vote either Republican or Democrat. Also, whatever number of Democrats there are within these gerrymandered districts, they can vote either Democratic or for whom they consider to be the right Republican. Moderate Republicans who voice their opposition to shutting down of the government will not necessarily lose their jobs during the next election for doing what most people in both parties know to be the right thing to do for the country.
Ronald
No comments:
Post a Comment