In my opinion, the manner in which the decision of the Congress was taken seems ethically inappropriate in connection with the topic around which the dialogue is centered. Speaking about a pandemic, we must be aware that this is a global and collective problem that requires a consolidation of minds that are not clouded by differences in the views of political parties. By placing values in a certain hierarchy, we cannot claim that the adherents of a particular party with precision have a greater ability to propose a solution or greater privileges in their application. The partisan nature of the last act makes one automatically doubt its usefulness and, consequently, its effectiveness. It makes us look to the future with caution regarding the solution of similarly ambiguous problems. A likewise issue that should go beyond the dualistic relationship between party representatives is global warming.
First of all, considering the practicality of this or that administrative decision, we must take into account what values it professes and how they apply to a specific situation. Global warming decisions are concerning the general well-being of the country and possibly the world, so they must be outside the party category and overcome political bias. If congressional decisions are instructed by internal political strife, they are ethically wrong because they risk neglecting the lives and future social well-being of large numbers of people. Their moral responsibility is beyond discussion, depending on whether the party is in a dominant position or not. In any case, these people are their voters, that is, people’s trust belongs to them, and they cannot undermine it. However, the influence of the party in power may not focus on meeting the needs of the people but on ensuring strictly its line of political influence (Binder, 2018). When it comes to future generations, partisan disagreements cannot arise at the head of the discussion, and a desire to talk and find a common language is required.
The problem of political division, expressed by the decision of the Congress, seems even more complicated against the background of the initially divided bicameral structure of the Congress. However, this dual structure can even be seen as a distinct advantage if you regulate the relationship of institutions to solve a specific problem – in this case, global warming. The Chairpersons of the House of Representatives, who, as you know, have a special control over national finances and taxes, should be especially responsible for their task (Schmidt et al., 2018). We are talking about the distribution of finance in the wake of a global eco-disaster, and this problem can require unexpectedly huge amounts of money. It is necessary to establish internal communication between the House of Representatives and the Senate so that lawmaking in times of crisis works most effectively and tasks are distributed evenly.
Another important point that should not be underestimated is the ability of Congress to influence the collective sentiment of people. What political parties always have in plenty are people ready to support them. This is what officials could discuss, how to get people to look at the ecological problem and participate in solving it. Congress has a special role in influencing people’s opinions, as it voices the state agenda that shapes the civil society of our time (Schmidt et al., 2018). Consequently, Congress can act as a mouthpiece announcing the need to unite and boldly face the ecological situation together, find one’s way to participate in the mutual battle against impending environmental disaster.
Instead of fighting for influence and sowing hostility, opposing parties in Congress could try to listen to each other and negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution. The main thing is that this decision should be primarily conditioned by the agenda and not by ideological confrontation. There are more and more frequent statements that a split is emerging in the political elites, preventing the development of consistent decisions on the issue of pandemic (Green et al., 2020). Looking at this situation, we must learn the lesson and realize the need for unification and dialogue to solve problems of a global nature that lie outside the political field. Only the bi-partisan, opinion-tolerant approach that is above political prejudice should be the successful one in the fight against the ecological crisis.
References
Binder, S. (2018). Dodging the rules in Trump’s republican Congress.The Journal of Politics, 80(4). Web.
Green, J., Edgerton, J., Naftel, D., Shoub, K., & Cranmer, S. (2020). Elusive consensus: Polarization in elite communication on the COVID-19 pandemic.Science Advances, 6(28). Web.
Schmidt, S. W., Shelley, M. C. (2018). American government and politics today: Brief. Cengage Learning.