Introduction

The term “loyal opposition” was born in the parliamentary government system, meaning that those out of power, while still having many disagreements with the party in power, were still loyal to their country and the need for the government to get things done for the citizens they--all sides--serve. In any governmental system, including ours here in the US, opposition, if it is loyal, can be a huge plus. If the opposition is disloyal, it can be an equally huge minus.

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Both Republican President Lincoln and Democratic President Roosevelt were justifiably well known for using a “Team of Rivals” as their Cabinets and senior advisors. Churchill did the same when he became Britain’s Prime Minister in 1940. He appointed the most two senior members of the opposition Labour Party to his 5-man war ministry. One of the two was Neville Chamberlain, then Prime Minister when disgraced himself by capitulating to Hitler with his infamous, “We shall have peace in our time” claim after giving Czechoslovakia to ‘ol Adolph in exchange for a piece of paper promising peace. Hitler attacked, starting WWII a few months later. These American Presidents and the British Prime Minister knew they could rely on their opposition to be loyal to their countries and meet their countries' needs--despite their political differences.

Lincoln, Roosevelt and Churchill chose the team of rivals approach because it best served their nations. It had to be much harder to have dissenting voices in their inner circles, but all ideas were heard--to everyone’s advantage. And the citizens in the countries had to be comforted by seeing that their leaders were working together for their benefit. As World War II approached, Democrat Roosevelt appointed new individuals to key positions. Frank Knox, the 1936 Republican vice presidential nominee, became Secretary of the Navy while former Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, another Republican, became Secretary of War--key positions, especially in wartime. Both men performed admirably under Roosevelt, and as part of a Democrat/Republican Team of Rivals.

President Lincoln’s cabinet included all of his major rivals for the Republican nomination for President in 1860—William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Simon Cameron and Edward Bates. Some of these men had been effectively promised positions as part of the negotiations that led to Mr. Lincoln’s nomination at the Republican national convention in May 1860. Many of them objected to the inclusion of each other in the cabinet. There were worries about both geographic distribution and balance between former members of the Whig and Democratic Parties. But it worked, and worked well.

 

Politicians today are too busy accusing each other, including competing members of their own party, of everything from being idiots to being traitors, that they are unable to take advantage of individual strengths, regardless of party, as part of successful teams that deliver for America. In the US, most politicians seem to have taken an oath to be the disloyal opposition. Quite the opposite of a team of rivals, the current approach is to make anyone who disagrees with them the enemy. The actual enemy. “Resist.” Either by openly resisting any and all action by the other party, or by supporting those who walk around openly and angrily resisting.

Politicians know the advantages of a team of rivals approach, but those advantages accrue mainly to the country and its citizens--not to them and their party. So that's out. We voters are also guilty. We have allowed ourselves to be so deeply influenced by the us-vs-them approach to life in general and politics in particular, that we keep voting for “My team is the only team” politicians. On both sides. And the media actively support this dysfunctional way of...