What does the debate over the Stimulus Package have to do with Family Law?
Actually, the impact may have a huge impact. But in this context, I want to focus on the process of developing a consensus. It's just like a litigated divorce: Two sides who [to one extent or another] find it impossible to see the merit in the positions advanced by the other, or for tactical or emotional reasons pretend there is no merit until the house burns down or the economy implodes completely. Rent a DVD of "War of the Roses" for a slightly exaggerated version of the problem.
Now it's not like the economy is OK now. Have you seen the unemployment chart - it's dropping almost straight down week after week, with no sign of leveling off, far faster and farther than each of the last two slow downs we thought were disasters.
Just like the economy, you can take your family law issues and drive your house, car, credit rating, and children off a cliff if you can't come up with an effective solution. And by "effective," I don't mean perfect, or even that everyone is happy, just one that makes the best of a bad situation.
Periodically sitting as a temporary judge and decades of family law have made it clear that solving complex problems, where there is no "correct" answer, is not an easy task. As one friend what has had long tenure as a judge says: "I don't get paid for making the right decision, only for making a decision." We all think differently, have different experiences, and different biases. When we are dealing with human emotions and trying to predict the future, we all approach problems from a different direction, using different tools - we reach different conclusions based on how we balance these factors in our own minds. Whether or not we are right or wrong depends on where you are standing, and the ultimate outcome.
As I've written here before, it is difficult to settle anything where the parties to the dispute cannot see any merit in the position of the other, or understand how the other thinks. Whether we are looking at settling divorce cases, resolving trouble in the middle east, or coming to an agreement on the stimulus package, there is no perfect or obvious solution - when each side refuses or is unable to see the world from the position of the other, no resolution is possible and the dispute goes on.
The stimulus votes look just like a bad divorce case. There isn't a perfect solution, and the participants on each side are intellectually, emotionally, or strategically wedded to avoiding any solution unless it benefits them. It's a power play, with the economic well-being of the country in the balance.
Congress had better ratings and was more civil when the two main political parties had not sorted themselves into ideological compartments, demonizing one another. Even with a degree in political science, a minor in history, and more than 40 years of watching politics, it is hard to say where the process permanently came off the tracks. The Republican Party used to be filled with moderate icons like Everett Dirksen, Jacob Javits, Nelson Rockfeller, and Edward Brooks; on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats had the Dixiecrats. Compromise within each party was necessary, and between parties essential - the country wasn't polarized into deadlock, where votes were purely along party lines as they are now. Congress needs a mediator to help its members get away from ideology, and back to considering the merits of the various arguments.
One advantage of the Collaborative Divorce Process is the use of coaches to assist the attorneys in mediating a dispute. Their job is to try to deal with the emotions and motivation, so the parties can focus on their futures. For more information, contact a member of a local Collaborative Divorce group such as the undersigned, or Robin A. DeVito. They can help you decide whether the process, or some other alternative fits your situation. If Collaborative is appropriate, they can help you choose your coaches.
