Sick of partisan bickering?

People who claim to be "sick of partisan bickering" have only a superficial understanding of the lines of thought that led our Founding Fathers to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Our Founding Fathers did not think in lock-step. As our nation took shape, it became clear that there were differing ideas about how our Constitutional framework should be applied to concrete situations. Two lines of thought, like Jacob and Esau, struggled in the womb.

Then and now, "partisan bickering" is an accompaniment to the necessary struggle between those who advocate limiting government and those who advocate expanding government. It is a struggle that is at the heart of American political life, for it is a struggle between the champions of the self-reliant individual and the advocates of command and control.

During President George Washington's first term, a number of legislative proposals were brought forward. There also arose situations requiring military action. As Congress began to function, factions formed along the lines of how to interpret the Constitution: either a strict interpretation or an acceptance of implied powers.

And was there "bickering?"

According to biographer James Flexner, when President Washington went to "the Senate chamber to be present at the debate concerning a proposed treaty . . . So much time was wasted . . . by what he considered inconsequential bickering that, as he left the chamber, he was overheard to say that he would 'be damned if he ever went there again!'" [Washington: The Indispensable Man, James Flexner (1969), page 221]

In addition to allowing for open conflict of ideas and all of the frailties of human emotion that go along with it, our system of government requires a continual effort to strike a balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branch of government.

It is interesting to note [again I refer to Flexner's biography, page 221] that George Washington did not attempt to influence Congressional legislative debates. He did this out of respect for the separation of powers and because he did not want to establish a Monarch-Presidency [This brings to mind the actions of Charles I of England ,who dissolved Parlaiment and imprisoned his critics].

Contrast the respect George Washington had for the separation of powers with the overweening presumption Barak Obama has for command and control.*

This month, the partisan media organ CNN tells us: "Two-thirds of Americans think that the Republicans in Congress are not doing enough to cooperate with President Obama . . . According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the government in this country is broken, but the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed." [Tingle: the audacity of hope . . . .]

The partisan bickering is not America's problem.

America's problem is a President who would be King.

*see six snippets below from: "Obama calls for end to partisan bickering on jobs, health care"  (ASSOCIATED PRESS: February 9, 2010)

1. President Obama is: "Appealing for bipartisanship."
2. “'The people who sent us here expect a seriousness of purpose that transcends petty politics,' Obama said"
3. “'We can’t afford grandstanding at the expense of actually getting something done,' Obama said. 'What I won’t consider is doing nothing.'”[see snippet 6]
4. “'I won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won’t hesitate to condemn ... what I consider to be obstinacy,' Obama said."
5. "He also threatened to act unilaterally to install his choices for several government vacancies that normally would require Senate confirmation, if his nominees continue to be held up."[did President Bush do this when the Senate held up his confirmations?]
6. On the infamous health care bill: "Obama said he’s willing to start from scratch but that both sides must give ground. He also said that the final bill must meet his goals, such as ending abusive insurance industry practices, reducing costs and expanding the affordability of and access to coverage."