The Republicants and Demobrats

I've read criticism in recent days toward the Democratic party and how they can't all agree on something, the Iraq war, in particular. While the majority of Republicans have stood by one another and said in unison, "Let's stay the course!", the Democrats have been a very divided group. Some will claim that the Democrats who are now in favor of a pull-out are flip-floppers and can't stand firmly on an issue. The two parties, how they operate, and their bickering toward one another reminds me of a time that I think the majority of people can relate to- middle and high school.

After most people seemingly got along in elementary school, many split apart, and went in different directions in the upcoming years. Cliques were numerous. Where a label could be placed upon a person, there was a clique to represent that label. In these cliques, there usually was a head spokesperson or a leader. In most scenarios, they were the ultimate decider. In certain cliques, he or she may be a dictator and not allow the others a chance to speak. Where these leaders went, the followers, well, followed. When they spoke, there were nods in unison. Whenever a person spoke out against this bully or a dictator, he or she would pay the price, either by being kicked out of the group or having nasty rumors spread about them, and boy, do those rumors ever spread around so quickly! Other cliques may operate more like a democracy, where everyone's voice is heard, but at the same time, through much talk and deliberation, decisions are harder to come by.

Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? Anymore, it seems like the bully (or bullies) reside in the Republican clique. For a while there, the bullies had so much force, that both cliques nodded in unison when the bully(-ies) spoke. Anymore, the bully(-ies) influence on the Democratic clique is minimal, but he/she/they still hold(s) a firm grasp on their opposing clique when it comes to certain issues. There are only about 3-5 Republicans who don't nod in unison with their leader(s). Lord only knows what they have to deal with because of that.

So, is there a better clique? A stronger one? A more warm, friendly, and comfortable one? That last question truly depends upon the person, but I think the majority would prefer the freedom and opportunity of letting their voice be heard and taking part in the decision-making process than to play the hybrid role of a mime and a prostitute. One question distinctly comes to mind for me. That is, is it better for an entire group of people to stand side by side on a decision and be wrong or for a group to disagree, argue, and bicker over an issue until they can reach a healthy compromise? People in relationships would hopefully choose the latter of the two (but not all would).

The truth is that there isn't a right answer to those questions for all scenarios. When there are certain time constraints, at least one person has to eventually step up and make the final decision. In Jeopardy, only a certain amount of time is given for a person to give an answer to the question. There isn't much time to do research, go through books, the Internet, or ask a friend (unless the show is Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?). But, when there are no actual time constraints, then there is no reason not to make the most of that time, do research, have lively conversations and debates, and come to a final conclusion that most can agree on. While I believe the Republicans may have a reason to shoot down the Democratic decision-making process if a Democratic candidate was a manager of a baseball team, they have no reason to insult this philosophy when it comes to most issues and political predicaments. To be accurate is better than to be quick. Just ask Peyton Manning.