Bipartisanship: A Cop-Out for Conservative Principles

A few weeks ago, the BYU Colleges Republicans and College Democrats gathered to debate various political topics. The debate featured seven Democrats and seven Republicans who took turns debating each other on separate topics. However, it may have been a good idea to define the word “debate” before selecting participants, especially on the Republican side. The majority of debates consisted of Republicans meeting the Democrats left-of-center in the name of “bipartisanship.” Many participants used their short-allotted time to briefly state that there is, indeed, a problem that needs to be fixed in this country, and the solution to fix it is encompassed in the magical word “bipartisanship.” Not only did this rhetoric lead to some extremely boring debates, but there are two major problems with what was said.

First off, shouting “bipartisanship!” is not a solution to a problem. There are several policies that don’t necessarily hold true to any partisan lines. Some sort of bipartisan compromise may also be necessary to pass certain bills. Politics is often a game of give and take based on how you prioritize different issues. However, when the moderator asks, “How should the U.S. government approach economic reform?”, simply saying things such as “private and public sector alliance” or “bring both sides to the table” is not a solution. The only way to have effective bipartisan agreements is by first offering a conservative solution to the problem. Anything else is either virtue signaling or an excuse to hide your support for left-wing agendas.

This brings us to the second problem with this vague rhetoric; selling out principles in the name of bipartisanship. It is unclear for me whether some of the BYU College Republicans were just trying to score some moral points with the audience by their “let’s all work together” statements, or if they are, in reality, liberals hiding behind the elephant because they are at a primarily conservative school. It is hard not to believe the latter, when one Republican debater took a more liberal stance than the democratic debater by openly endorsing redistribution of wealth.

Here is the problem. Conservatives aren’t just stubborn politicians with no feeling. True conservatives care about the individual liberties and economic prosperity of others. For this reason, they hold strong opinions. The point of a debate is for the audience and debaters to hear arguments for or against certain principles, ideologies, and policies. By doing this, people can make informed decisions about the best solutions for our country. Simply getting along with and working with Democrats does not do people any good service. The fact is that some principles and policies are better than others. History has proven that: democracy is better than communism, free markets help the economy more than regulation, etc.

I hope that Republicans at BYU can learn from this debate. Hopefully they can learn that selling out on principles to get along with someone will not help our country. We need strong conservatives to offer real solutions that will fix our country. Only after conservative solutions are voiced to the people and presented to politicians can we begin to think about compromise and bipartisanship, and only then as a mode of passing our highest priority policies. Although it may be unpopular to many BYU Republicans, fighting for conservative principles is more important than making friends across the aisle, especially in a debate. Our liberal colleagues will thank us later as we all enjoy the fruits of our ideology—together.