The fault lines in the Democratic-Republican debate over policy issues have been well demarcated. On social security the Democrats oppose private accounts and raising the retirement age while the Republicans oppose higher taxes to keep the entitlement program solvent. On abortion, the democrats support abortion rights while the republicans are either morally outraged or believe the states should decide the issue.

Over the whole spectrum of policy issues the Democratic and Republican parties have identified their policy ideas which are based on their philosophical approach to governing. The Democrats want government to help the sick, needy and old while the Republicans think this big government approach only increases the incentives for people to stay unhealthy and jobless. Republicans believe in a small federal government with states having rights on all issues that the constitution does not allocate to the federal government. Democrats feel that this approach undermines the concept of the United States of America.

Over the last 50 years both parties have strived to twist the important issues of the day to their own advantage in order to seek a bigger majority for their party. But congressional elections are held every two years and presidential elections every four; a President can not even serve more than two terms in office. This quick turnover rate makes continuity and consensus impossible on the important issues of the day. It just depends on which way the pendulum is swinging in a given generation, decade or electoral cycle. Therefore, the political process is only destined to half-measures and compromises that satisfy neither parties nor intellectuals on both sides. And neither political philosophy succeeds in establishing a system based on its own coherent principles and ideals.

No wonder the healthcare system is broken.
No wonder social security is bankrupt.
No wonder no one sees a better future for the war in Iraq or the ‘war’ against terror.

There is no consensus. If only the electorate would be mature enough to think long term. Does a liberal really think that drastically lower taxes will turn out worse than the current complicated tax regime? Does a conservative really believe that withdrawing from Iraq in the near future will cost more American and Iraqi lives than staying in Iraq for 100 years? Does a Republican really think that a government mandate for universal healthcare would be worse than the current broken system? Does a Democrat really believe that a free market innovation-oriented approach to solving climate change would be worse than the current muddled inaction? In the end, any coherent solution is better than the current situation or a muddled compromise.

Senator Obama calls for a ‘politics of common sense’. I’d rather people wise up to a politics of common sanity.

And that’s jus’ the tip.