I don't know if you can get broad consensus for your agenda or not. But for large symbolic changes - like ACA, like the border wall - shoving something through with slim, partisan support benefits no one. It just leaves a pissed off minority who will undercut whatever you're trying to accomplish as soon as they're back in power. It's senseless thrashing. Even if it's only a few things, wouldn't it be better to pursue changes that (most) everyone can agree on?Life isn't either/or, one or the other, binary. Maybe there's another way.
.
I'm not sure our political infrastructure is capable of producing it, but there has never been a better time for a party that actually seeks consensus, rather than a narrow majority, when formulating policy goals.
How can we reach general agreement with a party that wants us to have no southern border and import a million illegal aliens a year to vote for their socialist agenda?
Look at Social Security. Regardless of what we might think of it (I'm not a fan), it's been a "successful" government program. In as much as it has never been under any real threat, and still has the broad support of voters. Now look at the vote totals: House: 372/33 Senate: 77/6 with the wide majority of Republicans voting in favor in both houses.
There is common ground to be had. It won't be your ideal. I'm sure it won't be mine. But it might be something we can live with, without leaving behind a bevy of angry partisans ready to undo it all on the next election cycle.
Comparing the ACA, which is socialism, with the wall is insane for two reasons. The ACA is socialism, the wall is security. Redistribution of wealth and protecting us from criminals and poor people draining our educational and medical system and filling our jails is a false equivalency.
Second, "border security" polls highly, it's not a slim margin. The wall has been stigmatized as a political issue by Democrats and people are afraid to be for it lest they be called a racist. But if you look at what the wall does, it has broad support. It's hard to see that there's going to be an issue when it is built (fingers crossed) and works.
Social Security is again socialism. It's armed robbery regardless of who supports it. You'd get that if you were a libertarian
Affordable health care is WAY more security than a stupid wall that can be tunneled under.
Okay guys - let's back up and return to the point of my comments, which apparently went right over your heads. I'm not advocating for any of these things (The wall, social security, ACA). I'm merely making observations about the mistake of trying to force fundamental change on society without consensus. Social security, like it or not, had that consensus and still does. ACA never did, which is why it's being dismantled. The wall would be no different. Both parties need to understand that forcing change on the basis of slim, partisan support is a mistake.
Last edited: