The Financial Times recently ran an article titled, "Obama speech to pupils riles Republicans." Why are so many Republicans upset over a speech by President Obama to the country's children? After all, when parents began to threaten to keep their children home from school that day, the White House released a transcript of the speech in advance so parents could make an informed decision.
The FT article touched on an interesting point not just about the Republican Party but the minority party (whichever of the two major parties happens to hold the title). Matthew Yglesias from the Centre for American Progress, a left-leaning think-tank, stated:
The opposition party seems to have made a strategic decision to be in opposition.The article also stated that when Republican president George H.W. Bush made a similar speech to students in 1991, Democrats opposed the decision. This led me to wonder, is the minority party always a party of oppositionists?
Why does the minority party always seem to outright oppose most decisions by the majority party? Why does neither the majority nor minority party provide solid, objective rationales for their policy decisions? Do they honestly believe the subjective, misleading statement they make or do they believe the American people are too stupid to understand objective explanations for policy decisions?
Taking this line of thought further, what would happen if a strong third party received seats in Congress? Would a third party automatically become oppositionists, too? Would a strong Libertarian Party become oppositionists?
Additionally, when does opposition encroach on the majority party's freedom of expression?
Jane's Law, my friend:
The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.