Call it America's second civil war

By

LeRoy Goldman

BlueRidgeNow

April 17, 2016

Do you remember President John F. Kennedy’s call for diversity in his commencement address at American University on June 10, 1963? Kennedy proposed new talks with the Soviet Union aimed at reducing nuclear testing. He said, “And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.”

Today we could benefit by applying the lessons of Kennedy’s call for diversity and tolerance to the corrosive polarization that grips American society and government. The Pew Research Center has been meticulously documenting this growing schism for years.

Pew’s research shows that more Americans than ever hold intensely partisan political views. These partisans believe the opposing party’s policies are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being. The 2016 race for the White House doubles down on this counterproductive and dangerous partisanship.

Let’s start with a notion that many will find really hard to accept, especially those who are entrenched Republican conservatives and those who are entrenched Democratic liberals.

Take a deep breath and open your mind. Do you realize that Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz are far more alike than they are different from one another? They are. The next president, no matter which of the four, will have no real chance of successfully implementing his or her agenda, and that assumes the winner even has a coherent agenda. So far, all we have are vacuous slogans like “Fighting For Us” from Clinton and “Make America Great Again” from Trump.

The similarity among these four Tweedledees and Tweedledums is real and disqualifying. They all assume you and I are stupid enough to not notice that they have no specific set of achievable policy proposals to address the nation’s many domestic and international security challenges.

And worst of all, each of them seeks the presidency for personal gain rather than for the opportunity it gives them to serve us. Were it otherwise, they would be in overdrive telling us in detail what they plan to do for us and, more importantly, how they would achieve it in stalemated Washington.

None of them deserves our vote.

None of them will run a campaign that reaches out broadly to America. The Democrats will attempt to win by relying upon their stalwarts in Blue Missile Silo America — single women, African-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims and LGBTs. The Republicans will rely on their stalwarts in Red Missile Silo America — white men, married women, the tea party and evangelicals. We have become a warring nation riven by gender and race. It’s America’s second civil war.

If Clinton or Sanders wins this November, the GOP-controlled House will be the graveyard of major legislation sent to the Hill. If Trump or Cruz wins, the Senate filibuster will produce the same deadly result.

It’s vital to remember that this long-standing stalemate in Washington is not inevitable. It’s not due to any fundamental flaw in the Constitution. It can be fixed, but the fix must come from us, not these Washington slugs.

Come back with me now to the '70s, a time when Washington worked. I had the privilege then to work in the Senate, so I can speak firsthand. At the time, Congress was controlled by large Democratic majorities. Prior to the 1976 election, we had to deal with Republican presidents, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

And guess what? The Senate worked together with them cooperatively on both domestic and foreign policy issues: clean air and water, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the war on cancer, health manpower, the opening to China, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and ending the Vietnam War.

How did this happen? For openers, both parties on the Hill were heterogeneous, not homogenous. While most Democrats in the Senate were liberal, for every Kennedy and Walter Mondale there was a conservative like John Stennis of Mississippi. While most Republicans were conservative, for every Bob Dole and Barry Goldwater, there was a liberal like Jack Javits of New York.

That intraparty diversity made an enormous and beneficial difference. It necessarily bred trust and compromise that transcended blind party loyalty.

Moreover, our standard operating procedure on all legislation was to work hand in hand with the Republicans. Amendments they proposed in committee or on the Senate floor that improved the legislation were willingly accepted. Amendments that we could not accept were ones the GOP was nonetheless permitted to offer during floor debate. Thus, use of the Senate filibuster to block legislation was rare. It was never employed on a health care bill out of my committee.

Simply repeating what we’ve done for the past 20 years and expecting a better outcome is madness. Americans must summon the courage to reject their blue and red safe spaces before it’s too late.

This is my opinion ---- what do you think ?

Please contact me at:  EmailMe