Liberals for a strong, but intelligent, Republican party

The Republican party is in shambles, and I’m not happy about it—even though I’m an Obama supporter.
Sure, I take a certain pleasure in watching Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart roast Rush Limbaugh and his pigheaded attempts to become the GOP’s de facto leader. But when I seriously consider the current political situation in this country, I worry for the future of our democratic discourse.
Regardless of how much I loathed John McCain’s campaign—particularly when it deemed my home state of New York to be outside of the “real America,”—I appreciate and value the contribution that the Republican party has made to our democracy. Although I disagree with much of the Republican Party platform, without a viable opposition party, democracy ceases to exist.
A strong democracy has never been more important than it is right now, as the economic crisis calls into question some of the fundamental assumptions upon which American capitalism and the “American dream” are built—namely, that the market will fix everything and that every family deserves the opportunity to prosper and own a house. Given the severity of this economic and existential crisis, we need non-partisan discourse to identify the failures of the old system, formulate effective stimulus packages, and establish a permanent framework that will hopefully avert similar crises in the future.
I’m no idealist; I recognize that the prospect of constructing a fundamentally different economic system has sparked debates over core differences between the two parties; however, ideological differences between the parties don’t have to reduce the discussion to political bickering and deadlock.
Perhaps a much older example will help illustrate my point. Before Congress fussed over earmarks and filibusters, it worried about how it would operate. Some pretty fundamental issues arose in this debate that created deep rifts among the states. The states with larger populations wanted the number of congressional representatives for each state to be determined by population. The smaller states wanted each state to have two representatives, regardless of its population. That way, they wouldn’t be at the mercy of mean old Virginia and New York.
So how did our Founding Fathers solve this seemingly intractable problem? They brokered a compromise. Thus, the United States Congress became a bicameral legislative body, the Senate containing two representatives for each state and the House a number of representatives proportional to each state’s population.
If the Founding Fathers can compromise on an issue so fundamental to the workings of our government, why can’t the two parties engage in intelligent discourse that involves thoughtfully conceived options for pulling ourselves out of our economic quagmire?
Now, I’m fully aware of how traumatizing a landslide win can be for the losing party, and I’m not advocating a strong opposition party because I necessarily disagree with Obama’s policies. Instead, I’m advocating a civil, engaged debate over issues that are as fundamental to the future of our country as the formulation of our legislative body.
For now, nothing will change the fact that the Democrats hold enough of a majority in both houses to pass legislation largely without Republican support. But the least the Republicans can do is present viable alternative legislation and put the Democrats through their paces before allowing a vote.
So I’ve got a few words for both parties.
To RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh: By engaging in juvenile bickering on national television rather than encouraging the intelligent members of your party to draft a sensible alternative to Obama’s legislative efforts, you are deeply damaging your party, stripping away a little more of its legitimacy every time you open your rabble-rousing mouths.
To Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: Rather than encouraging political bickering by propagating the belief that Limbaugh is the de facto GOP leader, you’d be better served by actively encouraging the Republican party to substantively challenge your proposed legislation. Say that you’d love nothing more than to engage in intelligent discourse with the GOP in the name of the fundamental democratic belief that the best solutions are borne out of civil discourse and compromise.
Doing so might just shock Americans back into believing that our government is actually capable of fulfilling the task that Americans elected it to do, rather than becoming hopelessly caught up in the process of getting to the Hill in the first place. Because with politics, it’s not about the journey; it’s about what you do when you get there.