The 2016 presidential primaries may forever be remembered for their insurgent candidates. Nearly one year after declaring his candidacy, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) platform of tuition-free public colleges and Wall Street reform has energized young and working class voters and placed him in a position to make a serious bid for the Democratic nomination. On the right, Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) promise to “rein in Washington” has attracted millions of women, evangelicals and older voters to his cause. In both cases, the candidates consistently accused “establishment” politicians of serving special interests and being unresponsive to the needs of the average citizen. The public has clearly proven it wants to change the nature of American politics, yet it continues to place its support behind radical politicians whose policies appear destined to retrench our government in political brinksmanship. This presidential election, Americans should support more centrist politicians, not partisan ideologues.
The notion of a “political revolution” is not new to American politics. A day after the 2008 presidential election, Politico suggested President Barack Obama’s victory had broken “the back of the modern Republican Party” and would bring about a “seismic change” in American politics. In reality, this was not the case, and merely two years later, the United States underwent another revolution resulting in the Republicans seizing control of the House of Representatives. In the years since, Congress has grinded to a halt as political brinksmanship undermined effective governance. Despite former House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) claims Republican incumbents could easily incorporate members of the Tea Party into their ranks, the Republican leadership has continuously struggled to compromise with members of the House Freedom Caucus and the Democratic minority. The result has been an inefficient Congress whose members — led by Cruz — preferred to shut down the government rather than pass a fiscal budget with bipartisan support. How can people buy into the idea of a “progressive revolution” when prior revolutions were quickly overturned in the next election cycle?
It is from this perspective that I cannot understand how ideologues such as Sanders or Cruz can attract so much public support. On the Democrats’ side, Sanders’ $1.38 trillion annual Medicare for All Program has already been criticized by prominent congressional Democrats for being politically infeasible. Sanders is certainly right in saying the United States spends disproportionately more on an inefficient healthcare system that still leaves approximately 33 million Americans uninsured; however the viability of such an ambitious program appears doubtful considering the Republican controlled House has attempted to overturn the Affordable Care Act 62 times. Given the fact that congressional incumbency reelection rates are 90 percent or higher in the majority of House elections, it’s doubtful the 2016 elections would grant Sanders the coalition needed to pass such ambitious legislation.
Cruz has also outlined a similarly ambitious platform, perhaps the most notable being his proposal to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. Under Cruz’s current plan, the United States would end amnesty for illegal immigrants, increase deportations and build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Putting costs aside, it’s unlikely such a proposal would pass the Senate. Cruz’s plan is unlikely to win the support of Senate Democrats and would likely be opposed by such influential Republicans as Sens. Mark Kirk (IL), Lindsey Graham (SC) and John McCain (AZ), all of whom favor a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Rather than elect a candidate whose policies promise to continue the current cycle of political infighting, voters should support moderate candidates willing to work with members on opposite sides of the aisle. Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) provides such an example, having a proven history of working with Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the Ohio legislature. Kasich has years of political experience and his centrist policies are likely more tolerable to to moderate Republicans and Democrats than any of his competitors. Similarly, former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) and Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY) have both praised Clinton’s bipartisan achievements, the latter of whom admitted he and several other Republicans considered Clinton be “reasonable” and willing to work with them on a variety of issues. Indeed, politicians such as Clinton and Kasich may be exactly what this country needs to break the political impasse that has been affecting our government.
If we ever expect to end the political impasse plaguing our country, we must support more centrist politicians who are willing to work across the aisle. From Social Security to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, our nation’s most revolutionary legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support. A true “political revolution” would constitute a return to this form of responsible governance. Indeed, we cannot hope to balance the budget, reform our broken immigration system or expand college affordability as long as this current political impasse remains.
Brandon Brooks is a Viewpoint writer.
Correction: A previous version of this article referred to the Republican senator from Illinois as Dick Turbin. Turbin is a Democrat; the senator in question is Mark Kirk.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 2 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 3 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
