|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Netflix DVD Rentals. NO LATE FEES; 30,000+ titles. Try for FREE! January 23, 2005 What is the Deal with Loyal Opposition? By Jan A. Larson In countries with parliamentary systems of government, the term "loyal opposition" refers to the party or parties that are currently out of power. While the out of power parties may oppose the party or parties in power, they remain loyal in that they do not advocate the overthrow of the government and stand ready to provide alternative viewpoints. In America today, the Democratic Party would be considered the "loyal opposition" except for one thing - many Democrats tend to overly emphasize the "oppose" part over the "loyalty" part. I don't suspect there are too many Democrats, at least the elected Democrats, that would champion an overthrow of the government, but it seems there are plenty that are more than willing to oppose whatever policies, appointments or programs that are offered by the administration, if for no other reason than they are offered by the administration. I'm somewhat reminded of the episode of Seinfeld in which George decides to do the exact opposite of everything that he believes is the right thing to do. No thought, no analysis. Just decide what might be the right course of action and do the opposite. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has had a couple of recent "George moments." First, she decided to challenge the results of Ohio's presidential election. Why Ohio and not any of several other states that had closer results? Simple. John Kerry won those other closely contested states and the President is on the "other side." Second, Boxer made a fool of herself in the confirmation hearing for Secretary of State nominee Dr. Condoleezza Rice, insisting that the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on "WMD, period." The Senator knows better and so did everyone listening. Why then the insistence that WMD was the sole reason for going into Iraq? To oppose the administration and to oppose Rice, of course. There are some Democrats that are staunchly opposed to privatizing or making any changes to Social Security. There is absolutely no question that changes must be made. The mathematics don't work for today's younger workers and there will be absolutely no way for the government to meet its obligations to future generations without changes. Yet some would prefer to bury their heads in the sand and do nothing. Why? Because the President insists that the Social Security program must be changed and they must oppose the President. We are now in the midst of a period, 1981-2008, in which Republicans will control the White House for 20 of 28 years. The Democratic Party, once the party that advocated change and "progress" has now become the party of obstructionism and resistance. Fix the outdated, bloated, unwieldy tax code? Against it. Secure Social Security for generations to come? Opposed. Provide Americans more control over their lives and their futures? Nope. The people of South Dakota sent a strong message that they were tired of opposition for the opposition's sake when they ousted former Senator Tom Daschle from his cushy job in Washington. Daschle, along with his House of Representatives counterpart, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, epitomized opposition during the 108th Congress. If the President proposed that the sky was blue, Daschle and Pelosi would insist it was red. Unfortunately, saying the sky is red does not make it so. Neither does blindly opposing policies, nominees or programs whether they are good or not simply because they are from an administration controlled by the other party solve America's problems. Make no mistake; "opposition" does not solely reside in the domain of the Democrats. Republicans can be every bit as irrational in their zeal to oppose anything advocated by the other side. Honest debate is one thing and we must have honest debate and alternative solutions for our government to function, but blind opposition to anything and everything that comes along under the guise of honest debate serves no one. The election of 2004 should have provided some clues that the American people want the country to move forward both domestically and with respect to foreign policy, but as long as the Democrats offer nothing but dissent with no alternatives, the term "loyal opposition" ultimately lose its meaning in this country. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
