It may be apocryphal, but the old saying that compared lawmaking to sausage-making rings as true as ever, particularly as the Republican-led Congress seeks to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. The House of Representatives and the Senate each has its formal committees and informal caucuses through which the contentious bill must pass before it is ready for President Trump's signature.

Therefore, it should surprise no one if the early form of this bill undergoes significant, if not drastic, changes before it is reported out of the committees, not to mention when it is passed on the House and Senate floors. This is followed by the work of the conference committee consisting of key players from both chambers to reconcile predictable differences before being sent to the President.

One doesn't have to be jaded about this slow process, just mindful of the United States Constitution's welcome checks and balances, to appreciate the wisdom of taking care with, in this case, the health and insurance needs of the American people.

Leaving to one side the merits of the positions of the known Republican Party factions on the long-awaited corrective for the Democrats' legislative overreach of seven years ago, a measure this complicated and affecting so many interests is bound to require considerable political skill and willingness to compromise to pass.

Partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing for, as Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "If rogues organize, good men must also." But there is a difference between partisanship for one's country and sound policy and partisanship for one's opinions and interests. The sobering fact is that it is often hard to tell the difference.

So capable legislators will try to craft as best they can, taking into consideration both the rights and interests of the citizens and the likely internal and external obstacles to a bill's passage. While I am more than sympathetic to the Freedom Caucus's desire for a clean sweep on the Obamacare monstrosity that has simultaneously driven up rates and deductibles and reduced coverage, the House leadership is concerned about the painful transition to a market-friendly bill that retains coverage for those who recently obtained it.

It's not as if Republican control of Congress is so complete that the party can afford to indulge a massive split in its ranks. The Democrats, true to form, are telling the fable that repealing their signature legislation is tantamount to depriving millions of Americans of health care. Failure to pass a bill that repairs the most costly and meddlesome aspects of Obamacare is too high a priority for Republicans to fail in this session of Congress.

Speaking of Democrats, they would surely describe as sausage-making the Trump Administration's attempts to restrict by executive order the immigration of dangerous emigres from terrorist-exporting countries in southwestern Asia and northwestern Africa.

In the first place, whatever the shortcomings of Trump's first order, they are corrected in the second one now, like the first, being challenged in federal courts. More than this, the president's authority is based squarely on post-World War II legislation passed to check the influx of communists. The left was as indifferent to the country's internal security during Cold War days as it is in the current era of Muslim-inspired terrorism.

Because then-presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed in 2016 that Muslim immigration be slowed or halted, the left will never let go of the miscue, even though the travel ban is far more narrowly focused on seven countries that provide only weak information on persons fleeing abroad.

Of course, they are "predominately Muslim countries," as that religion at the moment is the only one in the world whose most militant followers have declared war on both Muslim and non-Muslim "infidels." Indeed Islam has a 14-century history of spreading the faith by the sword.

The left's attempt to cast sensible immigration policies as religious bigotry deserves ridicule. There are another four dozen or so "predominately Muslim countries" which are left out of the executive order, some of them outside the Middle East. Indeed, the countries singled out are all in the Middle East. Is this "geographical bigotry?" Or is Trump actually "anti-Arab?"

When Hitler started the second World War in Europe, he invaded "predominately Christian countries." (Shucks, when Napoleon engaged in military conquest nearly 150 years earlier, he did the same.) And when Japan, several years earlier than Germany, commenced hostilities in Asia, it invaded "predominately Buddhist countries." The world's troubles are seen narrowly through the left's phony "religious tolerance" lens.

The world's greatest statesmen not only have had to endure narrow partisanship; they were even defeated by it. We should not be surprised when less gifted successors display or face this perennial vice. Let's us hope the looming "sausages" are edible.

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow Community College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of "Taking Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause" (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net