Frustrating as it is with the US government shutdown since October 1 that nobody wants, there's nothing better to do than retrospect what has caused this fiasco.
Seems like the opposition Republican party is being held hostage by the conservative right to take a hardline stand. And the party seems to be willing to even commit harakiri to appease this bloc, rather than negotiate a compromise with the ruling Democrat party.
A situation like this happens when you are in the defensive. I believe the loss by that huge a margin in the Presidential election is directly responsible for this. The Republicans realize that they are being perceived as out-of-touch by the majority of Americans. There is a PR exercise being carried out to improve the party's overall image in their weakest areas, the Latino and African-American population. This is primarily being done by propping up leaders from those races in their own party-structure. But while those measures will take time, they want to at least hold-on to their voting base.
Obviously, this is where the conservatives come in. This group launched the Tea-Party some years back with the very intent to not yield or compromise, as the two parties have traditionally been. And the Tea Party's candidates began winning primaries and candidatures in the regions with a conservative leaning, sometimes even beating the party's preferred nominee.
What this extreme fails to realize is that a failure to compromise is not in the bigger interest of the party or the country. The conservatives need to learn that if they are to really be able to exert influence at the national stage, they should be willing to reach across the aisle. Either that, or the Republican establishment should be willing to risk a short term loss of support among extreme conservatives, with the bigger goal in sight (Presidential, Senate victories).
On the ground, I've seen how the shutdown has disappointed people across the aisle alike. The general talk among supporters of both parties is "Everybody knows what's happening", and the blame for the shutdown being squarely placed on the Republicans. This generation is more networked, and less easily influenced by party-leader talk. There seems to be a clear consensus that the Republicans were wrong in shutting down government because they did not like one law. If they truly believe in democracy, they should have let the issue settle after the mandate of repealing Affordable Healthcare failed during the Presidential elections.
Sooner or later otherwise, there will be a bigger backlash which will see the party wiped out of both houses, which is not in the interest of the party or the country. The hardline approach is the exact opposite of what should have been taken, during this crisis of lack of popularity.
The vast majority agree with the need for fiscal tightening, but going after the Affordable Health Care is conveying the wrong message.
The Democrat marketing machine made the mistake of calling this law "Obamacare". If the law were only touted with its actual name "Affordable Health Care" law, there would have been more acceptance. The common masses, from either party, could have been swayed by the appeal in the name itself.
Seems like the opposition Republican party is being held hostage by the conservative right to take a hardline stand. And the party seems to be willing to even commit harakiri to appease this bloc, rather than negotiate a compromise with the ruling Democrat party.
A situation like this happens when you are in the defensive. I believe the loss by that huge a margin in the Presidential election is directly responsible for this. The Republicans realize that they are being perceived as out-of-touch by the majority of Americans. There is a PR exercise being carried out to improve the party's overall image in their weakest areas, the Latino and African-American population. This is primarily being done by propping up leaders from those races in their own party-structure. But while those measures will take time, they want to at least hold-on to their voting base.
Obviously, this is where the conservatives come in. This group launched the Tea-Party some years back with the very intent to not yield or compromise, as the two parties have traditionally been. And the Tea Party's candidates began winning primaries and candidatures in the regions with a conservative leaning, sometimes even beating the party's preferred nominee.
What this extreme fails to realize is that a failure to compromise is not in the bigger interest of the party or the country. The conservatives need to learn that if they are to really be able to exert influence at the national stage, they should be willing to reach across the aisle. Either that, or the Republican establishment should be willing to risk a short term loss of support among extreme conservatives, with the bigger goal in sight (Presidential, Senate victories).
On the ground, I've seen how the shutdown has disappointed people across the aisle alike. The general talk among supporters of both parties is "Everybody knows what's happening", and the blame for the shutdown being squarely placed on the Republicans. This generation is more networked, and less easily influenced by party-leader talk. There seems to be a clear consensus that the Republicans were wrong in shutting down government because they did not like one law. If they truly believe in democracy, they should have let the issue settle after the mandate of repealing Affordable Healthcare failed during the Presidential elections.
Sooner or later otherwise, there will be a bigger backlash which will see the party wiped out of both houses, which is not in the interest of the party or the country. The hardline approach is the exact opposite of what should have been taken, during this crisis of lack of popularity.
The vast majority agree with the need for fiscal tightening, but going after the Affordable Health Care is conveying the wrong message.
The Democrat marketing machine made the mistake of calling this law "Obamacare". If the law were only touted with its actual name "Affordable Health Care" law, there would have been more acceptance. The common masses, from either party, could have been swayed by the appeal in the name itself.
