Agreeing to Disagree Can Be a Good Thing

So besides the fact that the infamous site WikiLeaks continues to leak 'sensitive' or potentially 'explosive' information to the public one of the other stories to rock American politics these days is the fact that the House of Representatives voted to approve war funding in Afghanistan, this despite the fact that that over a hundred Democrats voted against the bill. Why is this a good thing? Well while some choose to look at it as Democrats abandoning the efforts of a Democratic President (Obama), I prefer to look at it as a prime of example of how politics should be handled. All too often lately we see politicians not voting their conscience but rather voting along party lines which isn't always the best option. Sure you can make the argument that most of these Democrats likely did it to garner favor with their constituents (after all the November elections in many states are just around the corner). I mean job security isn't necessarily a guaranteed thing, even with long-standing politicians.

So why do I believe that this action by Democrats in the House is a good thing? Well as I said, it proves that politics can be free of mindless support just because the President happens to be from your party. Certainly there are reasons for non-support as well; for example the fact that approval has been given in the House version of the bill to support the development of an alternate engine for the F-35 fighter, something Obama has steadfastly promised to veto should it be included in a bill that comes up for his signature. Perhaps you could argue that the Democrats voted against the bill for that very reason then perhaps it could be said that parties continue to play party politics, but is that always the case?

In the years following 9/11, we often heard the adage that "if you aren't with us then you're against us". That was applied as often to fellow American politicians as it was to terrorists across the globe. Our collective national fervor to avoid being labeled a traitor to our nation was likely what inspired many to support bills they otherwise wouldn't have. I remember hearing discussions among politicians in the early days of the war in which they said that they didn't agree with the war in Iraq but that it was the right thing to do given the evidence that was given at the time. To me that was a clear case of covering your ass. No matter the outcome you were covered to show you were on the 'right side' of the decision. If the war went well then you could say that you supported the war from the outset. However, if the war went bad then you could still say that you didn't support it but that given the evidence that was put forward you were duped...er... convinced.

In the subsequent years, our collective memories have dimmed to a large degree and now our memories of the reasons for the wars are a bit hazy so it's up to politicians (who are always great for a soundbite... even if their facts are wrong) to remind the public why we should or shouldn't support forthcoming legislation. It sometimes feels that the politicians in Congress don't always take into account the will of the people who they represent but rather promote their ideas to the people they represent in a complete reversal of how the system is meant to work. Certainly not everyone has the insight into all issues to necessarily draw any opposing viewpoints so they accept Congressional opinion at face value which was a bad thing when partisan politics ran rampant. But if the vote by House Democrats is a true sign that at the very least the Democrats no longer feel obligated to 'tow the company line' then perhaps change really is coming to Washington.