What is it about party politics that have so consumed politicians to make them forget the fragile egg they hold in their hand? Is it power in and of itself or is it group-think at it's peak? Is it money, exasperation, or self preservation? Is it none of these or some? I don't have the answers but I can pose a simple question: Is it more important to be loyal to party or loyal to Democracy and the Separation of Powers doctrine?

I am sure that laid out in a vacuum almost anyone would answer this the same way in that it is more important to protect democracy and the 3 branches of equal government but perhaps it's not quite so simple as that. Could one argue that the advent of the 2 party system, no matter how dysfunctional it is, forces a team atmosphere that trumps the thoughts regarding the Legislature's responsibility to be an equal part of this 3 sided see-saw? Perhaps, but would that be negligent to the future of our country.

You'll hear people from the left mumble under their breath about "King George" but is that fair? I have been accused of being a lefty and find myself agreeing with them more often than I do the right but I differ in some ways. I do believe that George believes he is doing what is "right" and who knows, 50 years from now we may say he was a Nostradamus on many an issue. It is unfair to the idea of democracy, however, to not have a powerful Legislative branch (and Judicial for that matter) to be an equal measure. Without the branches existence and true authority to act as that balance than the constitutional framework falters.

The crux of this article is to wonder with candor as to why it is that the individual politician falls into the same rhetoric that comes out from the party politic which in turn gives other branches full reign to act without consideration? I truly believe that it is that equal balance that will allow debate to exist with the possibility of coming to conclusions that result from it. Without the possibility of affect than debate or discussion is an effort in futility and a waste of time.

What I mean is, if the Congress has the authority to approve a nominee of a position than it is not enough to approve or disapprove them based on party lines. This has happened a lot in the past most recently with some of the Supreme Court Justices. I point to Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings. Leading up to that public debate there was much discord and rancor about his nomination but it almost always ended with a statement that he would eventually be confirmed anyways. I say that that is an injustice to democracy in and of itself. If the ability to use the power to turn down a nominee doesn't exist than the check and balance is gone.

How do the legs of tripod get on equal grounds? Im not sure that I know the answer but I will say this. If a Democrat wins the White House next year and the current congress acts as those from the opposing party did while Bush has owned the house then we will continue to have much discord among the populace.

I believe that it is this disintegration of the Separation of Powers doctrine that could be said is a major ingredient for much of the problems our country faces today. Name the issue...was there any forethought at all that one of the other branches would fight for equal rights? Those times are few and far between although they do occur. I'll give you the most recent immigration reform debate however I'll reiterate the point that it would be ignorant of us to believe that having a Democrat in the Executive Branch and a Democrat in the Legislative Branch is any better than Right and Right unless the branches themselves start thinking about themselves as the home team.

Learn more about this author, Howard Flaschen.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Checks and balances: The lost art of separating powers for balanced government?
We want to hear your view. Write now!