Cooperation or conflict?
By Jim Surber 
September  25, 2011 

Just three weeks ago, communities throughout the nation were holding observances of the events of September 11, 2001. This event also marked the onset of cooperation that existed for a short time among the leaders in Congress. In quick response to the attack, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security that represented the largest restructuring of the U.S. government in contemporary history. It also passed the USA Patriot Act, stating it would help detect and prosecute terrorism and other crimes. The country was experiencing crisis, and actions and legislation, good or bad, were quickly taken and passed in response. Of course, cooperation didn’t last long and soon it was back to political business as usual; but the event did provide an example of how leaders can pull together if they feel action is demanded, or if they feel forced into cooperation by the people. 

It is very doubtful that the same degree of cooperation will be resurrected to deal with what has become known as the current economic crisis. According to a recent US census report, one in six Americans is living below the poverty level. We have lost many traditional middle class jobs and people are out of work with little or no expectations of improvement. Unemployment now heads the list of the nation’s hardest problems to fix, ahead of crime, health care, retirement security and failing schools. 

Americans are in a gloomy mood. Fifty-four percent think the economy is getting worse, seventy-eight percent blame the situation on politicians’ lack of will, and ninety-one percent believe politicians have failed to address the nation’s major problems. Voters have lost confidence in Washington and in its ability to do anything. 

This is understandable, since what we have observed in past months is a government that helps to drive people apart rather than to unite them; and sometimes simply ceases to function in any reasonable fashion. This has been attributed, quite accurately, to the triumph of conflict over cooperation. The new proposal of the President, the American Jobs Act, is the most recent case in point.  

The President wants Congress to pass a package that includes an array of tax cuts, aid to businesses and individuals, public works, and tax increases. As expected, GOP leaders say there is little common ground in the $447 billion package, suggesting that the chance of passage as proposed is slim to none.  

According to Time magazine, 89% of the President’s plan will be funded by restoring pre-2001 income tax rates to the nation’s top earners. This seems, by far, to be the biggest obstacle for the GOP, as we recently witnessed in the debt ceiling debates. But is there a much more formidable obstacle, in the form of the 2012 election? 

Most Republican lawmakers naturally dislike and distrust the current President, but many people question if their primary allegiance is to the American people, or more to the defeat of the current occupant of the White House. Concurrently, it can be argued that the President and his Congressional allies know that this plan is impossible to pass politically, but are putting it forth to an expected defeat to be used in the upcoming campaign to blame the GOP for its failure to help the economy and the people. If both propositions are true, and they likely are, then we the people are certainly destined to lose again. 

Cooperation is good for economics, and conflict can be good for politics. Cooperation is good for the people, but conflict is good for the politicians. Rather than cooperate to reach common ground, our leaders, political pundits, and the talking heads of the airwaves would rather continue to breed conflict among the citizenry. Conflict earns a lot of money for its practitioners in the media and helps elect many candidates. 

Many new lawmakers got to Washington by utilizing conflict. We may argue the validity of the reasoning that put them there, but how can we expect them to immediately compromise the wishes of those who voted them into office? 

Americans today simply want the problems “fixed,” and they want action now.  While there are no easy solutions, it is apparent that the greatest challenge will be to somehow create many new jobs for this “new economy” that is now world-wide. To accomplish this will require cooperation, and sacrifices, from all of us. Staunch ideologies on both sides of the political spectrum will have to give. It is never intelligent to be happy if the other side of the boat is sinking, when we are all in the same boat. Maintaining the conflict will only sink “We the people” deeper than was possible before. 

Americans are waiting for Congressional action. (Yes, I know that is an oxymoron.) Do Congressional leaders judge our current economic situation to be a crisis that demands their mutual cooperation? Are they more intent on seeing the failure of the other side than in making life better for millions of people? 

It is becoming clear that if a reasonable degree of cooperation is not begun soon, we may realize late next year that one side of the aisle unsuccessfully demanded increased taxes on millionaires to create a successful mechanism for re-election, or that the other side kept millions of people unemployed in order to put one millionaire out of a job.