The Washington Post
The Sept. 9 front-page article “Dissent imperils spending package” described core historic debates regarding government programs. The argument has traditionally been engaged between our two major parties: How do we pay for new or expanded benefits for our citizens? What social and fiscal efforts best serve the common good?
Democratic representatives are presently playing out within their own ranks these predictable questions. Will the social benefits we propose best reflect our nation’s values? How can we pay for all that we want? In recent times, both major parties have avoided facing the fact that aspirations and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Can the moderate and liberal Democrats do any better? They have an extraordinary opportunity to show that they can contend with the knotty conundrums entailed in paying for social programs. It necessitates agreeing that differing opinions are to be respected because no one is correct. Frankly, it is more comfortable to take one side of a quandary than wrestle with all of it.
Griff Doyle, Chevy Chase
It is a disservice to refer to Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.VA.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-ariz.), as “moderate” in the Democratic Party. These politicians are Democratic conservatives. Calling them “moderate” in opposition to “progressives” is all but an endorsement, as who would oppose moderation?
In fact, the Democratic House leadership — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- Calif.), Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD.), etc., — can truly lay claim to the Democratic center, proof of which are their efforts to make policy with both their Democratic progressive and conservative wings.
It’s devastating that the Republican Party has ousted its conservatives and embraced policies such as voter suppression and opposition to science, but it does not give the Republican Party sole or even accurate claim to the mantle of conservatives.
Robert Patt-corner, Cabin John