When does ideological disagreement constitute “obstruction”? Apparently, when one party does not approve of the policy and agenda of the opposing party who happens to be in power and supported by the media. This used to be called political discourse and was considered healthy in our country’s founding and maturity.
Now it seems that if one party cannot seem to agree to a certain position based on moral or ideological grounds they are obstructing or blocking the sitting president’s agenda to solve the nation’s problems. Resisting something that is fundamentally wrong is not obstruction, it’s common sense. I live in a diverse family. When one of us disagrees on certain grounds, I don’t consider that obstructing. I consider that reasoned debate and I appreciate their perspective. I won’t demagogue them in the public arena; that is grandstanding and wrong. Reasoned debate is not only righteous but its what we are obligated to do.
Our country has had a long-standing preference in lawmaking that prevents major policy designed to encourage preferences. We have had amendments and laws that help ensure the government does not pick winners and losers. At this point, the majority don’t support the president’s positions on several fronts. How is this obstruction? Maybe if the media was not so loyal to a political party they would do their job and actually report on such acts. Maybe the apathetic population needs to assert itself and send those who are crying “obstruction” home to find real jobs where they have to make decisions on payroll, health care for their employees and other such real life decisions instead of living in Candy Land, where life is a fantasy? November is coming. Its time to show why “obstruction” is completely warranted and their jobs are the next thing we will obstruct.