I
f there ever was a week to showcase the divide in thinking that defines our two-party system, last week was the one. Two debates and the State of the Union showed to those watching that there is not only a serious need for change in the American political structure, but with no context provided, these two parties seem to live in completely different countries.
The message from President Obama was one of reflection — showing optimism and progress in a District of Columbia characterized by gridlock. The Democratic debate showed three candidates having a discussion on policy that was constructive and empathetic. Emotional responses of anger and fear were not utilized as an attempt to push certain policies, and no minority groups were persecuted to gain supporters. Instead, there was understanding of the issues at hand and reasonable solutions to these problems. Altogether, there was a feeling similar to that of the president: Things are getting better, but more needs to be done.
And then we have the Republican debate. The view emphasized by Republicans during the debate was the polar opposite of that of the Democrats on Sunday or Obama last Tuesday. To the Republican Party, the country and the world are in flames. Granted, there are sizable issues when it comes to foreign policy — ISIS being the most prominent in the minds of most Americans — but Republicans are attempting to utilize fear and anger over events abroad to stoke more anger and garner support for their campaign. This is despite the fact the U.S. and the Iranian government have had a successful prisoner swap, and most international organizations have deemed that Iran’s nuclear program can no longer be weaponized. But foreign policy successes only serve to hurt the Republican message, so instead, viewers can enjoy hearing candidates like Dr. Ben Carson discuss EMPs going off in the atmosphere and shutting down the electrical grid. You know, just the things terrorists have been known to do.
On economic issues, the country is the weakest it has ever been according to Republicans, who seem to have forgotten that the Great Recession happened under their watch less than eight years ago.
Any glimmers of real policy were tough to find between the jokes and insults about the ever-present liberal specters of Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. All of the candidates seemed anxious to step up to the plate when it came to primary season critiques, but it will be interesting to see how the tables will turn when most of the candidates’ resumes pale in comparison with Clinton’s.
When they were not busy attacking people who were not in the room, the candidates attacked one another. The classic battle over “New York values” (whatever the hell that means) took center stage for a short time as Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz’s bromance seemed close to imploding. The better attack of the night, in my opinion, was that of Sen. Marco Rubio’s against Cruz, which left Cruz stumbling to find an answer. Other candidates called to stop the infighting: an unlikely proposition.
But this is the state of our union, where political parties with the same information reach totally different conclusions. It has become political suicide for anybody in a conservative primary race to agree with the success of a president if that president is a Democrat. This need for a distinct duality is killing our ability to compromise with one another. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a monopoly on correct policymaking. With that said, at least the Democrats are exhibiting candidates that have clear desires to compromise, something that cannot be said on the opposite side; that side can, however, claim to have Donald Trump cracking jokes and answering in vague platitudes for two hours. The state of our union, when it comes to compromise, is not strong.
Kevin Foster is a UF political science senior. His column appears on Thursdays.
