FAITH IN OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

Loss of faith in Bush leads to alternative
Two of my heroes in American politics are Tip O'Neil and Newt Gingrich. Sure, the two are very different. One is far left, one is far right; one wants to grow the government, one wants to shrink it; one is accused of being a bleeding heart, the other of having no heart at all. But these men do share one thing in common: the ability to lead from Congress -- and to do it despite an oppositional president.
Today, as citizens' faith in our president is hitting all-time lows, the American people have come up empty in their search for an alternative. While congressional Republicans are plagued by scandal and infighting, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have failed to show a Democratic alternative to the President's agenda.
As a nation, we are facing rising energy and health care costs, serious troubles in Iraq, a constant terrorist threat and general pessimism over the direction of this country. People are craving leadership, perhaps now more than ever. In the past, the American people have counted on prominent and charismatic congressmen and senators to fill this role. They have been able to call for change, push through bills and stand up for their constituents.
Today, though, people's confidence in Congress is even lower than in the president, hovering around 25 percent. Those in the legislature devote more energy to playing politics and manipulating the public than they do writing policy and helping the public. We need leaders in the legislative branch who will restore our faith in government, not just scream about President Bush.
Real leaders don't blindly agree with everything the president does, but they don't blindly oppose him either. O'Neil and Gingrich understood this, and used their congressional leadership posts as a springboard for new ideas. Based on circumstances, these men would either work with or against the president in order to enact policies, which they believed would help the American people.
When Congress brought down Ronald Reagan's proposal to make Social Security solvent entirely through benefit reductions, it was O'Neil who came to the president with a compromise that ended up extending its viability for (presumably) 65 years. While Republicans brought down President Clinton's plan for universal healthcare, meanwhile, Gingrich and others were proposing policy alternatives that would reduce the cost and increase the coverage of healthcare insurance.
With Democrats in a position to take back both houses of Congress, they still have no plan for strengthening our country. Gingrich used his "Contract with America" to assist in balancing the budget, reforming welfare and reducing government corruption. O'Neil, meanwhile, used his clout to help reduce the deficit, correct the Social Security shortfall and put the economy back on the right track.
The Democrats, apparently, believe their chances for victory this November are higher if people are voting against the President than for the members of the Democratic Party. In the short-run, they might be right. But in the long run, America is at its best when it has two strong parties.
When instead of rising to the level of the opposition, a party aims to bring the opposition down with them, we are left with a weak and divided America, and everybody loses.
--Marc Goldwein is a junior political science and economics major from Merion, Pa.