Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Phillip K Howard: "The Death Of Common Sense": What Happens When Talking Points Replace Facts
When we are dealing with problem solving, we have something thats not good for the country and we feel the need to fix it. For the good of the country and we feel we can not only fix the problem in a way, thats Cost Effective and won't hurt us in anyway. When it comes to solving these problems, it should be about just a few things, what's the problem, how serious it is, what's working and what's not and what we should do about it, if anything. Not finding a solution that works for everyone but where no one is completely satisfied but where all sides agree that its better then doing nothing. And you basically mush things together from both sides, whether those things work together or not but what's the problem and how's the best way to fix it. And if we can't get to whatever is the best solution to fixing the problem, because there isn't enough support to get it done. Then you look at, look I prefer Plan A, because thats the best course to take but we just can't get that done right now. So what's the best alternative to Plan A and then you look to others to find the next best thing but the next best thing that actually works.
You go to the next best thing after Plan A, when you aren't able to get accomplished what you actually want to do, what's you're first choice. And is it better then doing nothing because it actually works, not because its the next best thing available but because it actually works. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do, when you can't accomplish what you are actually trying to do, to to fix whatever the problem is. For example you have a Medical Condition and you end up taking the wrong medicine and end up making the problem worst. Had you just done nothing and waited to be able to take the right medicine. The wrong prescription unfortunately is commonplace in Congress, they see a problem that they believe they have to fix. And end up a lot of times making the problem worst, because their solution to the problem simply doesn't work.
Its commonplace to believe that there's too much Partisanship in Congress, well in sense thats true. But in another sense there isn't enough Partisanship, there's good Partisanship and there's bad Partisanship, elections by definition are partisan but do you know of anyone trying to outlaw elections. I mean lets get real here we need a certain level of Partisanship, in order to function as a Liberal Democracy or we would end up as a one party Authoritarian State. There's also good Bi Partisanship and bad Bi Partisanship, when you are talking about governing and doing it successfully, a lot of times it gets down to Common Sense. What's the problem and how to fix it, thats all you need to know, two parties working together just to be Bi Partisan. Isn't the solution if you have the White House and Congress and you have the votes to pass. What will solve the problem on you're own.
If you have the votes to get done what needs to be done, even if most if not all of the votes are within you're own party. Then its you're responsibility to pass the best program to solve whatever the problem is. Not to work with the opposition, just to work with them. Good Bi Partisanship, comes when neither side has the votes to pass what they believe will solve whatever the problem is on their own. This generally happens with Divided Government and the two sides come together to solve the problem together, combining the best ideas from both sides. That works in one package and solves whatever the problem is, thats an example of good Bi Partisanship. Bad Bi Partisanship would be where both sides come together and throw a bunch of things together, whether they can work well together or not, just to be Bi Partisan.