What Happened to Bipartisanship?

There was a time when people were able to disagree without being disagreeable. There were no “lines in the sand”. People were able to reach accommodation and agreement for the common good. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill were two vastly different politicians who were usually on opposite sides of issues. Somehow, they always found a way to work together for the benefit of the country.  As Reagan famously said, “We’re always friends after six o’clock.” What happened to that ability to cooperate?

Just think about traditional marriage. It’s become set in stone that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of American society while divorce rates continue to skyrocket. So, what is important, a traditional marriage or a stable relationship?  Any relationship that provides people with a loving and supportive home life should be recognized as valuable.  Your choice of relationship does not affect me and should not be my business or the business of law.

There are no longer any gray areas. Let’s look at abortion. In the political realm you are either for abortion on demand or you’re opposed to a woman’s right to choose.  Most people are not that dogmatic in their personal lives, yet our political parties have staked out the extreme positions.

Why can’t we have a middle ground in politics? Why can’t people believe that abortion in the case of incest or rape is appropriate but that abortion as a birth control choice is not.  But more importantly, why do these issues of personal belief have to be enforced by law?

 I should be able to hold personal beliefs that don’t infringe on other people and at the same time they should recognize my right to those beliefs.  Religious or moral beliefs are difficult to quantify and vary greatly among different groups.  They are a poor basis for governing a diverse society.   

One thing that has been of long-term concern to me is gun control. Most of you who know me, know I was a Marine. I have no problem with gun ownership. I am a gun owner.  If gun owners are responsible citizens, their rights should be respected. Having said that, I believe that the unstable or the criminal have no right to own weapons. I also believe hunters or people concerned with home protection have no need for automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. These are weapons of war and have no place in a civil society.

The argument about the second amendment and the right to bear arms was appropriate in the 18^th century when there was a well-regulated militia. In today’s world no one brings their own weapon when they join the military. But this is an issue where little accommodation is made. The diehard supporters of the Second Amendment believe they should have the right to any type of weapon they so choose. At the same time, the opponents of guns not only wish to control ownership, but to confiscate all weapons as well. To fail to recognize the middle ground is to fail as a society.

If we’re going to ever move forward on these or many other issues, we need to find a middle ground that will benefit society while causing the least impact on those involved.  We need to do away with the mindset that if you are for it, I must be against it. No single issue is all good or all bad yet that has become our way of addressing any controversial problem.  The question we must ask ourselves is this: “Why do I feel the need to control your behavior?”  Until we can answer this question in a reasoned and dispassionate manner, we are doomed to failure.

I’m sure I’ve made nobody happy, left or right.  That, to me, means I’m probably in the right spot.  And that is my grumpy opinion.