Political monopoly leads to bad government

Byron Williams writes:

I realize that the 109th Congress has not been at it long, but I do not feel it premature to question whether we have the makings of bad government.

Since the 109th Congress convened in January, they have passed tort reform legislation that clearly places the interest of multi-national corporations over those of the wrongfully injured or killed. The tort reform passed by this Congress is nothing more than a limitation on the rights of victims.

The recent bankruptcy bill, again passed by the 109th Congress, would make it harder for individuals to file under Chapter 7, which usually allows some debt-forgiveness.

This legislation, which was supported by the banking and credit card industries, will prohibit many Americans from the financial option to get back on their feet that was recently utilized by Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, the majority of studies indicate that it is major catastrophe, such as the inability to pay medical expenses, rather than financial chicanery that leads to bankruptcy.

It would be easy to conclude that my raising the question is based on my disagreement with the aforementioned policies enacted. Perhaps. But I question whether political monopoly, regardless of party, is good for the country.

[...]

But the existing political climate for George W. Bush may be more formidable than that of even Roosevelt during the New Deal or Johnson during the Great Society.

Bush benefits more from an ideologically unified party. This is contrary to Roosevelt and Johnson, who had to meander past the block of powerful southern Democrats, especially on civil rights.

Though perhaps appearing to be a strength, the ideological lockstep that links the current Republican-led Congress with the president creates philosophical cataracts that render them unable to see the shortcomings of self.

Are Republicans prepared to suggest that investigations would not be underway if a Democratic administration presided over Abu Ghraib? Why don't we see the Monica Lewinsky-type outrage at the mere possibility of children being the victims of US-sponsored torture?

The outrage was certainly there during the 11-hour hearings to uncover baseball's use of steroids. It was there as Congress held a rare weekend session to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo.

It is, indeed, bad government when Congress holds a weekend session for one person, trapped in an unimaginable hell, so that they can claim the political moral high ground.

How is this not government intrusion run amok? The Schiavo legislation momentarily became a higher national priority than the war, the budget, the deficit, or Social Security.

The Schiavo case joins Bush v. Gore as asterisk-bearing exceptions to the deeply held conviction of federalism that conservatives in particular love to espouse.

But cynicism abounds. The Associated Press released a Republican memo calling the debate over Schiavo legislation "a great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base.

[...]

No political party can be trusted to inherently do the right thing if given absolute power, especially if we the people are not prepared to hold them accountable.

 

Democrats.com's DictatorshipIsEasier.us reports on a changing America under George W. Bush.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" -- George W. Bush, December 18, 2000