Two sides have diametrically opposed ideas about what's in the best interest of the country.
They do, in terms of what sort of judges we should have and what ideology they should represent. And those two sides are having a fight to the finish, do or die.
But there's a different way to slice what's best for the country. It is best for the country that one side, having control of the WH and both chambers of Congress, greedily stifle all opposition and the opposition preparing to fight to the death? Or is it best that the mechanisms of governance and civility and balance be sustained?
I am a bit of an ideologue, too, but IMO there is next to nothing worth that kind of war. You fight so far and only so far, to protect the venue for the next fight. There is nothing about a handful of appellate court judges that will either save or destroy this country. But the fight over it might do the latter.
Whereas the "moderates" are trying to smother the debate in the name of tradition and getting along.
You call them "moderates." I would call them "temperates" because it's not about ideology but temperament, restraint, sanity. One fight is over ideology, as you say, but the other fight, the more important fight, IMO, is between temperance and intemperance. You dismiss that as "getting along." I'd call it wisdom to leave the building standing. |
