If Only One Side Didn't Know What The Other Side Was Doing.

When it comes to Washington, you can always find three sides to any argument. There's the left hand argument, the right hand argument and what's actually true. But that's not the question. The question is what argument is best for Americans. Generally speaking, it's never the first two. Take the most current discussions on the debt and the debt ceiling. You could, in a vacuum, argue that either the left or the right is the best course of action. The problem is that we're never in a vacuum. There are always side issues that throw monkey wrenches into the mix. On the one hand, severe austerity measures always hurt the most vulnerable. On the other hand run-away debt endangers the investments of the more affluent and therefore the entire economy. But if you take money away from the poor and middle-class, who will buy products that would spur growth?  Without protections the wealthy may fear to invest in growth. See? Neither side can win this argument. So, what to do? It's easier to say what not to do. What not to do is to just sit and argue, or even worse, walk out  on the discussion. What generally happens in Washington at this point is a lot of grand-standing, posturing and generally trying to make political hay. You know. Make the other side look bad. If the other side looks unwilling to compromise, then your base will dislike them. Which it already does anyway. If your side sticks to it's guns and promises, then your base likes that and dislikes the other side. Which it already did anyway. It's a pointless exercise but is one that seems to have to be played out regardless. So what's best for Americans? What would be best for Americans would be to ban political parties. But then, how would Democrats and Republicans keep score?