2009 was quite a tumultuous year for America, particularly when one looks back on the politics and public policy debates in the Congress and with our President.

  From healthcare and other domestic policy issues to foreign policy — including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Pakistan — there has been a huge divide between representatives in Congress on the Republican side and the Democrats just across the aisle.  

Correspondents in both broadcast and print media along with commentators from across the political spectrum keep asking, “Why can't we just come together in a bipartisan manner and get along as well as get some things done?”

While on the surface, this notion seems attractive, the reality is that it is seductive and not consistent with the nature of the United States form of government, given the Constitution and the Framers' intent.

When leaving the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked: “What have you accomplished?”

 His response was: “We have created a Republic, the question is, can we keep it?”  

The Framers were gravely concerned over the accumulation of power by a central government.

 In fact, without the addition from the first ten Amendments, known as The Bill of Rights, the Constitution would never have been adopted.

 The Framers were concerned in principle that a pure democracy with simple majority rule could lead to seriously bad outcomes.  For example, a simple majority could vote to do away with free speech.  

The notion of bipartisan cooperation on policy issues is fundamentally flawed when there are deep and abiding philosophical differences as to the approach to be taken to address problems confronting the nation.

 It is in fact wholly appropriate and consistent with the Founders' notion of creating a deliberative body called the two Houses of Congress, that what we now call gridlock was not a bad thing.

 Until the Constitution was amended, Senators were appointed by state legislatures of each state, rather than being popularly elected.   

Both historically, as well as recently, we have witnessed bipartisan consensus in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

 The reaction of the citizens and their representatives in both Houses to Pearl Harbor, Civil Rights, Medicare and more recently the 9/11 attacks lead to overwhelming bipartisan support for legislative action.

While no one on either side of the aisle is suggesting that we do not face substantive and financing problems with respect to a range of government programs, there is in fact distinct and serious philosophical differences as to what the approach should be to address them.

I would submit this is a healthy debate rather than a definition of the failure of our system.

This debate will continue through 2010 and the great news for American is, in November both parties will be able to articulate their vision as to the future direction and the body politic will decide which will prevail.

  I do not expect the differences will disappear and actually they should not.  It is good for our Nation to have this discussion from two opposite principled positions.

Lynn Mueller worked in government, politics and business. He lives in Georgetown.