Bipartisanship? Can the Gap be Bridged?

Over the past week, I happened upon a column by a local left leaner that bemoaned the recent Republican power play on tax cuts for the wealthy. According to the columnist, the Republicans agreed to the lifting of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision, as well as other concessions, only after tax cuts were extended for the richest Americans. The implication of the column was that the right has no other motivation than in keeping the top 1% of the population obscenely wealthy. The upshot of that sentiment is that the right has no soul, no conviction. How could they abandon their narrow-minded hatred of homosexuals so casually or quickly, so long as the rich got richer.

I commented on the column using the newspapaer's comment feature, and the coulmnist, surprisingly, responded. What ensued was an interesting dialogue that I think is instructional.

Though the 'professional' was initially disrespectful and condescending in his response to my challenges, he ultimately engaged in a thoughtful exchange of information with me.

What I discovered is that although we will continue to disagree on the most compelling principles, we do have areas for agreement. For instance, we both object to the reprehensible money grab that the CEO's - the top 1% mentioned previously - engaged in after the completion of the multitudinous government bailouts. For him, the tax cut extensions recently approved served as validation for the greedy bastards. That the congressman were willing to swallow their principles for the other - rather than greater - good, was troublesome to the columnist.

I, on the other hand, have less trouble with the tax cut extensions, even though the greediness of the top 1% bothers me as well. You see, I suspect that the driving force,otherwise known as arm-twisting, wasn't attributable nearly so much to the top 1% as it was to the people in the top 2 or 3%. Those who are reporting incomes in the millions are less effected by the proposed increase than the people who stand at the $250,000, and higher range. Consequently, a tax increase for that slightly upper echelon is more significant. The tax increase won't necessarily change the lifestyle decisions of these wealthy people. It will, however, strongly influence their ability to build their wealth.

The larger point is this one: my right side point of view objects to the excesses as much as the columnist's left side point of view. We will not bridge the gap on the solution to the problem on a global scale, since he has faith that father government can effectively redistribute the wealth. I, on the other side, distrust the notion that the governemnt can ever do such a thing, nor even that they should.

What we can agree on is the principle that destructive greed of the kind exhibited by the CEO's should not be supported by law. I certainly don't think that the solution is to have all the people who have maximized their income foot the bill for those who cannot or will not adopt a work ethic that will allow them to manage their lives.

The other bridge-able gap, in my opinion, is the picture of the down-trodden that the columnist holds. He sees them, I think incorrectly, as victims of a system that denies them access to opportunities. I see many of them as lazy bastards who rely on the safety nets that we already provide. The truth lies somewhere, and I think rules, laws, and regualtions, can prevent my picture from being the true one, just as well as rules, laws, and regualtions can prevent his vision from being the true one.

So, can the people in charge similarly reach acress the aisle?