Letter: Checking power means holding both parties accountable

I agree with Julie Melchior on one important point in her recent letter, “Use your vote to check one-party power”; concentrating political power in the hands of one party can be unhealthy for our democracy. Where we differ is in her apparent belief that the problems confronting America can largely be attributed to Republican leadership, wealthy individuals, and their influence.

I have been registered to vote throughout my adult life as a voter with no party affiliation. Although my views are more conservative on many issues, particularly fiscal matters, I do not believe either political party has a monopoly on good ideas, bad policies, corruption, or political extremism. Neither party should receive a free pass, and neither should be judged solely by its label.

Ms. Melchior writes that one-party rule leads to authoritarian government and ultimately tyranny. Concentrated power certainly presents risks, but the existence of a single-party majority does not, by itself, establish that a government is authoritarian. The more important questions are whether constitutional limits are respected, courts remain independent, the press can operate freely, elections are fair, and elected officials are held accountable.

I agree that compromise is essential to representative government. Divided government can encourage negotiation, moderate extreme proposals, and require lawmakers to consider opposing viewpoints. It can also produce gridlock. Nevertheless, the possibility of gridlock is not a reason to dismiss the value of checks and balances. Our founders understood that power should not rest unchecked in any one set of hands.

I also question the letter’s sweeping portrayal of wealthy Americans as the driving force behind our nation’s problems. Wealth can buy access and influence, and that deserves scrutiny. But wealth alone does not establish wrongdoing, just as limited wealth does not guarantee virtue. Our economic and social challenges have multiple causes, including government decisions, business practices, changing economic conditions, and individual choices. Blaming one group for so many complex problems oversimplifies the issues and discourages meaningful discussion.

The claim that America has the “largest income inequality in history” also deserves scrutiny. Inequality is a legitimate concern, but a claim about the largest in history requires historical evidence and a clearly defined measure. The Census Bureau’s comparable household-income series begins in 1967. We should be careful not to turn a measurable economic trend into a sweeping historical conclusion without establishing the basis for it.

There is another inconsistency worth considering. Ms. Melchior criticizes political leaders for using fear, deception, and manipulation, yet describes the current Republican leadership in sweeping, highly charged terms. Strong criticism is legitimate, but it should be supported by specific evidence and applied by the same standard to both parties. Otherwise, a call for balance risks becoming another partisan argument.

In November 2009, as Congress debated health-care reform, a Gallup poll found that 61% of Americans preferred maintaining a system based mostly on private health insurance, while 32% favored replacing it with a government-run system. The concern was not necessarily opposition to all health-care reform, but resistance to replacing the existing system with government-run care. Congress ultimately enacted the Affordable Care Act, which retained private insurance but also imposed new federal requirements, including a mandate to maintain qualifying coverage or pay a penalty at the time. This raises a legitimate question about how elected officials should weigh substantial public opposition when advancing major legislation. The Mid-States Corridor’s opposition comes to mind.

I support responsible government, fiscal discipline, and social programs that demonstrably serve the public good. I also believe our elected officials should represent their constituents rather than blindly follow party leadership. Those principles should transcend party affiliation.

The answer to one-party dominance is not to replace one party’s unchecked control with another’s. It is to insist on accountability, examine policies on their merits, and elect representatives willing to work across party lines. Democracy depends not on everyone agreeing, but on our willingness to challenge our own assumptions as well as those of others.

That is what I believe checking political power should mean.

Jim Arvin
Rutherford Township
Martin County

Editor’s note: This is not Jim Arvin, the former president of Jasper Desk.