In addition, if the leadership in either political party is unable to convince enough members within their party to vote for a proposal, you start to question the leadership within congress and begin to wonder, if the leadership of either parties has been adopting the right strategy and leadership approach in managing the rank and file among congressional lawmakers. It is probably wise to ask that the process and culture of negotiations that are more result-oriented be adopted by either leadership of the political parties. Further, adopting this result-oriented approach in support of deliberations over a bill in congress is the ethos of good leadership and one that will have beneficial results for either party leadership. Holding firmly to myopic ideological stance as identified with the Tea-baggers within Republican Party, is not only selfish; it is also a probable disaster for a nation holding down to a quarter of the world’s gross domestic product.
Much as the temptation is to remain in complete compliance with the respective party’s ethos and identity, there is still the need for a give-and-take dynamics that are very essential for reaching accords on provisions in a bill that may end up as a law. Since when has it been the order of the day in congress to farm out legislative responsibility to a super congressional group, one nominated probably by a few insiders in either political party? Is this not undemocratic in the first place? Does it not call into question the right of the people to choose their legislators without an abridgement of same rights by those same lawmakers who have failed to appreciate their roles and responsibility in addressing a concern and or, passing a bill, like one meant to trim the excesses in the national budget? To resolve the stalemate and challenges that leaders in both parties have not been able to agree to, party leaders have now chosen their preferential membership to a super congressional group to resolve challenges that the party leadership in congress have not been able to resolve. Is this truly democratic or are we watching the dreams of our fore-fathers being scuttled, because some few, who hardly understand the essence of the democratic process, have decided to hold the whole country, ransom?
While it seems like the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party has usurped some of the party’s leadership, political observers of the party, describe the dynamics of the group within the Republican Party, as probably destructive or unwholesome for the new image of inclusiveness that the Republican leadership has been seeking among minorities. How can Republicans foster inclusiveness, if all they are seeking is to cut social security to the elderly, slash Medicare support for the vulnerable among us and demand or insists forbearance from the middle class and the poor, while safeguarding the interests of the rich? How can Republicans increase participation of minorities in their party when all they care about is safeguarding the interest of the rich at the expense of the poor; and or, relegating real problems of job creation for the millions out of work to a secondary status, to having tax cuts for billionaires?
At the same time that Republicans are inflating the contributions of the corporations to this nation in taxes, they are marginalizing the unions, students, teachers, bus drivers, and the elderly. Just as Republicans are delivering on their avowed commitments to the needs of the rich, they are bumping off children off subsidized state health care programs. To avoid further conflict, Republican leadership must now rain in the extremists in their party, scrutinize their demands and make them understand that this America is for all of us, the rich, the poor, widows, fatherless and the motherless; none of whom deserve to be marginalized on the grounds of narrow ideological ground.