In “Twilight at Monticello,” author Alan Pell Crawford recounts Thomas Jefferson’s fear that “America was fast becoming a republic in name only, where power may have been derived from the people, but where they possessed it ‘only on the days of their elections.’ After this it is the property of their rulers.”

President Obama’s first State of the Union address is history.  However, the many initiatives he outlined are all about the Union’s future: health care, security, the economy, jobs and unemployment, and education to name a few.  While one not-so-obvious challenge will be to find ways to fund their solutions, another and more disconcerting challenge is whether Congress can put forth a concerted and cooperative effort from its two major parties to advance these concepts into public policies. 

Unfortunately, this second challenge is real and will not only test the mettle of our federally elected officials but also the very fabric of our democratic process.  Will members of Congress face up to their responsibilities as representatives of the electorate to do what is right?  To do so, means finding common ground through compromise in order to build a consensus or bi-partisan majority.  Or will they delay action or even ignore their responsibility and instead pursue a path of party power over public policy?

Democrats want to maintain their advantage in both chambers; even secure a filibuster-proof majority that enables them to advance their party’s agenda regardless of the opposition.  Republicans seek to diminish the Democrat’s power, even hoping to overturn it and become the party of power.  Either of the GOP’s goals is achievable through the upcoming midterm elections.  The GOP’s hopes have been elevated with the recent election of Scott Brown, as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ new Senator.

How can one member of Congress –one percent of the total– affect the balance of power and public policy for millions of Americans?  When political parties, and their elected officials are focused more on might instead of right. 

With the voters of Massachusetts changing their Senate seat from one party to the other, they showed us (and to the GOP) something about the American public in general: voters are heavily influenced by and fixated on current events and generally cast their vote based on a short attention span.  This special election was more about voting on the moment than on historical achievements, tradition or on potential long term benefits.

This election, along with the current state of the economy, continued job losses, an ongoing war and congressional gridlock (issues argued ad nauseam that they all existed prior to the Obama Administration taking office) provide more fuel for the Republicans to believe they could upend the Democrats’ hold on Congress.  And by sticking along party lines which may mean doing nothing to advance the Administration’s planned federal policies, the GOP may have found an effective strategy to achieve more power, and arguably at the expense of the American public.

Even President Obama recognized the challenge posed by this current state of political struggle.  During his YouTube Interview on Monday in response to a citizen’s question on health care reform, the president cited the election of Scott Brown and responded that “…the way the rules work, it takes 60 votes, and we only have 59…” 

In this case, the president is expecting the congressional vote to be exclusively along party lines.  If so, are we to understand not one person from either party will cross over party lines to support or oppose this historical and important legislation?

Based on events and actions (inactions?) it appears that the GOP and the DNC have drawn their battle lines and the war of “Might over Right” is in full swing. 

Now I am not so naïve –and neither are most Americans– to not to expect that the goal of the minority party is be the majority party and the goal of the majority party is to retain its position.  But these are not “business as usual” times in our nation. 

When far reaching, reform policies are needed to restart, reduce, and reallocate, there has to be bipartisan agreement for those policies.  If not, the transformational changes usually needed in times of crises will be accomplished through partisan politics and by the party in power.  And when the inevitable changing of the guard occurs, those changes will be diminished or even reversed by their successors. 

This flaw of our democratic process is not the preference, nor is in the best interest of the American public or the nation.