if the party that wins has to negotiate a solution with the party that loses.
raising taxes on the wealthy was clearly a key part of the winning manifesto.
adopting a growth strategy rather than an austerity package was also clearly something that was voted for.
the gop is going to stand against the people? (gerrymandering does not express popular will, of course).
good grief. us democracy is in trouble if an election produces no flexibility.
if democracy does not permit change, it fails.
at least allow the administration to try something that they were elected to do, for gawd's sake.
we've reached disfunction junction.
what happens to a democracy that isn't governable? frustration, of course.
and frustration has effects. either it leads to changes in the structure of government. or it leads to anger within the populace.
the constitution - being a sacred object - may not be changed, even if it is churning out some of the negative externalities that cause problems.
so instead, you get anger. the kind of anger that poisons the conversation.
this isn't a good situation to be in. neither side would be as angry and intransigent if the country was able to evolve. but instead gradual change meets endless obstruction.
this structure is capable of producing very nasty civil wars. the underlying problem is the inability to change.
| 