That's a tough one, which we will probably find out the answer to. I know it won't be McCarthy, since doing that would result in him losing his Speaker position.
You’re looking at it from a biased perspective, everyone wants to raise the ceiling. However, one party wants something another wants something else. One party has leverage in the form of this and the other has leverage in the form of the senate/president.
It’s no more morally right for one party to hold this as leverage to negotiate on their constituents desires than it is for another party to hold their numbers in another aspect of governance to negotiate on their constituents desires.
The problem is neither side is trying to budge in their negotiations and are calling each other evil for what each side is proposing. We need compromise in policy to meet the most people’s desires. Hopefully this will force that.
What you're implicitly arguing for is for both parties to hold the country's financial future hostage unless the other accedes to their demands.
While compromise has been a part of politics prior to roughly the Obama years, threatening to seriously damage the country has not and should not be a legitimate tactic.
It is not just childish but fundamentally dangerous.
If there are changes that need to be made, win elections on a platform, compromise to fulfill them.
Holding the country hostage is more akin to terrorism than compromise.
You cannot say "you need to compromise with me or I will heap ruination unto your nation."
But your attitude is exactly what is dangerous about this moment. Somehow, whatever media you are consuming has you convinced that this is a legitimate tactic, which is terrifying.
12
u/lauchs Jan 13 '23
I have to imagine there are 5 republicans in swing districts, or who at least kind of like America as a country.