Many are rightly content to bid farewell to 2016 this weekend.
The year that concludes Saturday proved to be a difficult one for America. Sharp divisions in our society created a more contentious environment than at any time since the Civil War, even dwarfing the unrest during the 60’s, when Civil Rights legislation and the Vietnam War roiled society. The positive results of that combative era a half-century ago included legislation to attack racial bias, and, after a decade of weakness, the election of an optimistic new president in 1980 who helped lead America into a safe and prosperous period in which it became the planet’s sole superpower.
While sharp differences between Democrats and Republicans and ideological camps continued in the closing decades of the 20th Century, there was, at least, a tacit agreement on the need for some unity to accomplish key goals, even if the preferred means to achieve them differed based on which school of thought or political party one ascribed to. Despite clashes, the Reagan Administration in the ‘80s and the Clinton Administration in the ‘90s found ways to work with political adversaries.
That period came crashing down following the turn of the millennium. The reaction to the war to oust Saddam Hussein provoked massive dissension on the Left, so extreme that many termed it “Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
Bush’s’ successor, Barack Obama, brought about a change in governing philosophy on the Left far more radical than Ronald Reagan did on the Right. Obama dismissed central tenets that had unified America since the end of the Second World War, including a belief in the necessity of a strong military and international presence, and abandoned principles that had been key far longer, including adherence to Constitutional procedures, especially regarding the separation of powers.
All of which appeared to come to a boiling point in 2016. Widespread dissatisfaction with the dismal results of business as usual in Washington led to the success in the Republican primary of an outsider candidate, Donald Trump. In sharp contrast, a deeply establishment candidate on the Democrat side, with the (some would say inappropriate) assistance of key party leaders, took that party’s nomination. The sharp contrast between the two galvanized the combatants on both sides of the sharp ideological, perhaps even cultural, divide.
However, excessive intake of this food item depresses testosterone levels in males. viagra in the uk There are ladies who suffer from serious hormonal changes and viagra canada cost negative results of various biochemical reactions ongoing within a body of lady. There are many kitchen appliances also that makes it easier to wash the product order tadalafil from india away after use. Many chiropractic offices have a massage therapist that can help improve your energy levels. best pharmacy store lowest cost viagra
As 2017 begins, the essential question is whether the nation can be brought together to tackle the unprecedented array of challenges that now confront it. Differences will always, and should always exist; they are a vital part of the governance of a free nation. But the way in which those differences are debated can either unify or dismantle the country. The political parties and ideological camps need to establish ground rules for their competition.
America would be well-served by a resolution to fight more fairly going forward. During the past eight years, the many attempts by the Left to gain an advantage over political adversaries by limiting their freedom of speech not only defied the Bill of Rights; it also, justifiably, enraged the opposition. Using excuses such as campaign finance reform, political correctness, “fake news prevention,” and “micro-aggressions,” The Obama Administration, college administrators and the establishment media sought to censor those they disagreed with.
A more comprehensive approach to discussing issues would also be effective in bringing together a fractious nation. Far too often, both the White House and its traditional and social media allies did not present a thorough review of the facts. The failure to include information that tended to cast doubts on their perspectives was, bluntly, dishonest. Examples included fudged scientific data concerning global warming, intentionally ignoring Russian and Chinese arms buildups, neglecting to honestly describe terrorist attacks, and the true unemployment situation, particularly regarding middle income jobs.
It is highly inappropriate to exclude the public from the intricacies of a legislative debate. This was best represented by the intentional obfuscation of the details of Obamacare, best represented by then-Speaker Pelosi’s “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” comment.
The give and take of differing viewpoints can produce a more valid approach to solving problems. But the debate must adhere to a commitment of intellectual honesty and the acceptance of fair play and Constitutionally acceptable guidelines if 2017 is to be more successful and congenial than its predecessor.