SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Oregon's next legislative session will see a split House (30-30) and a nearly split Senate (16-14). That means legislators will be forced to compromise to get anything accomplished. Already, House members had to strike a deal just to decide how the chamber will be run.
In a recent poll (pdf) from OPB and Fox 12, 88 percent of respondents said they agreed with a statement that said "times are too difficult to focus on partisan differences" and that it was time "both political parties be willing to compromise to move us forward."
At a time of increased polarization in this country, talk of compromise is reaching new levels. But is compromise essentially a good or a bad thing? Dictionary definitions of the word offer both positive ("an agreement") and negative ("concession") connotations. Princeton's Avishai Margalit writes that we ought to be:
judged by our compromises more than by our ideals and norms. Ideals may tell us something important about what we would like to be. But compromises tell us who we are.
Can legislators really come together to get things done in Salem? How do you define compromise when it comes to politics? What political issues would you absolutely not want to see your representatives compromise on? Is compromise good or bad?
GUESTS:
- Tim Hibbitts: Partner of Davis, Hibbitts and Midghall, Inc.
- Michael Metelits: Oregon voter who agrees political compromise is important
- Eleanor Degeneffe: Oregon voter who disagrees compromise is important
- Avishai Margalit: Professor at the Insitute for Advanced Study at Princeton University and author of, "On Compromise and Rotten Compromises"
- Rep. Jules Bailey (D-Portland): Represents Oregon's 42nd House District
- Rep. Tim Freeman (R-Roseburg): Represents Oregon's 2nd House District
Tagged as: legislature · politics
Photo credit: Aidan Jones / Creative Commons
-
YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED
-
Bluewater's accurate budget figures in his first paragraph and the stark comparison they draw say it ALL and are indisputable Vitalpac. You are the confused one and possibly the truths in Bluewater's second paragraph explain why.
-
Thirty some years ago when republicans were moderates we saw some compromises for the good of the people but now that the Conservative extremists have taken over the Republican party, all we see is insistence on "their way or no way", which Margaret Thatcher expressed as TINA, "There Is No Alternative".
That being the case, I think that the Democrats, who are still the moderate centrists, ought to hold their ground and stop giving in to the far right extremist Conservative Republicans.
If the current republicans are going to act like three year olds throwing tantrums when they don't get their way, we the grownups of the rest of Americans ought to treat them like the immature children they pretend to be and give them a long time out of office. Conservative Republicans need to grow up mentally and learn to act like adults.
And once they do that, we can talk about "Compromise" in politics.
-
MAY I REMIND YOU OF THE NOVEMBER ELECTION RESULTS>>...... ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND AMERICA HAS REJECTED THE LIBS>>.NOW GO POUT ABOUT IT
-
More light humor from Vitalpac ... in an election or referendum, Teabaggers would have voted against civil rights for blacks and in favor of a return to slavery if given the chance too, . And yes that would have some consequences ... bad ones.
-
Given the two comments above, why would we expect our leaders to be any different than we are? We all tend to run to our respective corners in a fight... the hard part is setting history aside and figuring out how to meet in the center... and setting history aside is a hard thing to do (ask the Arabs and Israeli's).
I acknowledge that both Democrats and Republicans (listed here alphabetically) have contributed to the fix we're in... some more, some less, but all contributed.
I've accepted the fact that we're going to have to raise taxes and cut spending/programs in order to get this country back on track... taking it all out of the rich or stripping the poor of support alone won't do it. All of us are going to get hurt to one degree or another... it'll be easier if we pull together to get through it.
-
Well Said.
-
very idealistic but not very realistic >.........THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WILLNG COMPROMISE >> ALL COMPROMISE IS FORCED, SEEN TO BE THE BEST CHOICE BEHIND THAT OF TOTAL VICTORY AND ABOVE THAT OF TOTAL DEFEAT
-
On the contrary VP... we as people engage in willing compromise everyday... when doing so is in our own best interest. At work, at home, in relationships... everyday.
It's only when we are stuck at an extreme and are fully vested in the extreme that it becomes more forced (personal experience).
This is idealistic only if a majority of the country is unwilling to realize that balkanization is not in their best interest at this time.
-
The biggest problem facing the state right now is a shortage of funds. This shortage is due primarily to a high unemployment rate and the resultant double edged sword of low tax revenue and high payments to the safety net that unemployed people rely on.
To be sure we have a national problem on our hands; but I feel one of the main factors that needs to be addressed is making sure people have a legal right to work in the first place and that businesses of all stripes are only employing people legally and paying all of the commensurate workmen's comp and business license fees they are supposed to be paying.
There is a national E-Verify system in place but it only ensures that the Social Security Number and Name on the ID match. 2 or 4 or 100 people could all be using the same number and name and the state is doing nothing to make sure only one person is using that ID match. This allows many businesses to employ people that will work for minimum wage who are sharing an identity and thus slants the workplace in favor of the employer. Just because he is employing cheap labor does not mean he chages less but his workers do contribute far less to the system and the entire state suffers.
It is in the interest of both parties to address this huge hole in our economy. It is less a matter of compromise than simply doing the people's business.
-
judged by our compromises more than by our ideals and norms. Ideals may tell us something important about what we would like to be. But compromises tell us who we are<<<<<<<, WHAT A BUNCH OF LIBCRAP
You libs would compromise with Hitler (peace in our time)
THE ISSUE I WANT NO COMPROMISE ON IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
-
I think you have made an error, there, Vitalpac...It was Former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who sought to compromise with Hitler. Once he was ousted and Winston Churchill was Prime Minister again, there was no more talk of "peace in our time" through compromise with Hitler.
(But then again, I paid attention in school, -- Yes, Public School -- and yes, it was before the current crumbling of public education brought on by the short-sightedness of the electorate in the 1990's.)
-
USING CAPS LOCK MAKES YOU SOUND LIKE YOU ARE SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.
PERHAPS A GOOD ARGUMENT DOESN'T NEED ALL CAPS TO BE HEARD?
-
Penny, you omitted the main point of your great correction of Vitalpac's CONCRAP and that is that Neville Chamberlain who did indeed say 'peace in out time' in relation to appeasing Hitler, was leader of the CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
-
you think you have a lot to say, but really it's quite a bit more than one person's fair share of B.S.
GET A REAL LIFE, LEAVE THE BARN, SEE THE WORLD, OPEN YOUR EYES (and shut your ignorant mouth)
-
Thanks for that reminder, TomD...I had forgotten, and didn't take the time to check PM Chamberlain's bio on Wikipedia (an imperfect resource, to be sure, but faster than trying to set up a Brittanica account). I did remember that Chamberlain was the Muggle Prime Minister when WWII began, but don't remember if his paty affiliation was addressed in History Class way back when.
-
VALPAC.
I THINK YOU ARE GREAT!
I LAUGH AT EVERY ONE OF YOUR POSTS EVEN WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A POINT.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
YOUR FAN.
D
Other then that I got nothing. . .
Wonder if I have to camp with the band for this; time will tell.
-
Obama calls this a compromise?
When only one side of a discussion gives in and the other side does not give anything, how is that a compromise?
What did the far right compromise in this? What have they ever compromised on?
-
These are the key questions never asked by the media, including OPB and NPR.
The other question never asked is can the Republicans name one Republican policy over the last ten years that has ever helped the majority of Americans at the expense of the wealthy or the powerful?
Whereas, we can name hundreds of their policies that have helped corporations and the rich at the expense of the vast majority of Americans!
-
Good point, TomD, as Citizens United is a good example. Although that was a SCOTUS decision, most of the Justices on the High Court were, if I recall correctly, appointed by Republican Presidents.
-
Trading extended unemployment benefits for extending tax breaks for the rich isn’t compromise; it’s the same old take the easy way out that’s gotten us into the current situation. We need to cut the deficit, all the so called experts say that will require increased taxes and budget cuts. It’s time for our politicians to grow up, smell the coffee, and start making the hard decisions.
-
Dr. House: Ah, yes, but as the philosopher Jagger once said, 'You can't always get what you want.'
-
I like to see compromise from my elected officials in some areas because it shows progress and teamwork, but when it comes to human rights, I would really like to see them make a stand. For example the right for gays to marry, the right to have an abortion, the right to an education, and the right to healthcare for all.
The compromise that makes me the most frustrated is how much polictians compromise their communication to voters. It's very hard for the average person to really understand what is going on right now. Currently the conversation is about the people who make $250,000 or more. This is such a minority in our society, I wish these decisions were expressed with more transparency. Voters need to know what their elected officials are actually doing for them, or in this case, against them unless they are in the small 250K minority.
-
Even your phrasing of the question serves to continue the harm done when our policy questions are restricted to two possibly meritless answers.
Everyone would be better served if the we were all more interested in facts, and instead discussed the goal of the policy, and how well the policy meets the goal based on information.
The health care "compromise" was bad, for instance, because one position "government takeover" had nothing to do with problem solving, it was pure fear mongering. Compromising with this kind of position is never beneficial.
-
Given his welcome knowledge of the worthy philosophy and methods of non-violence, President Obama (and the Democratic Party) should be more aware of one of its most important cautionary principles ... the 'Salami Principle'.
This in essence says that you should never compromise on matters of fundamental principle, but you should compromise on those matters that are not fundamental to your beliefs and values.
HOWEVER, and this is where the Salami Principle is vital to your behavior and actions, you should above all NEVER allow yourself to make so many small and constant concessions or cuts to your position that in reality the salami has been totally cut away with none of your positions left intact. The death of principle by a thousand cuts!
This seems more and more to be a key lesson Obama is overlooking. Is it fundamental to oppose maintaining irresponsible tax cuts (at a time of costly wars) to the ultra rich while literally well over 30 million others in America have to suffer job loss/unemployment and/or poverty??
The poll taken was also an ill worded one in the way it was formulated. A real insight would have been gained if the question had been broken into two. The first asking if respondents agreed with the proposition that it was time "the Republican Party should be willing to compromise to move us forward." The second asking the same question concerning the Democratic Party.
Strip all the so called 'balanced' media coverage away, and it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS to any truly objective observer that the overwhelming majority of partisanship and lack of compromise shown over the last ten years (and totally at the expense of the American people) has occurred as a result of the actions of the most callous, rigid, uncaring and extremist Republican Party the country has ever seen.
In terms of policies, President Eisenhower (Republican) was an 'extreme communist' compared to where his alarmingly disingenuous and deceitful Republican party is today!
And just why is it that the Republican Party's total unwillingness to ever compromise over anything important to the good of this country (if it fails to favor corporations and the rich) is never really challenged by the (equally corporate) media, while pressure is constantly placed on the Democrats to show they are willing to be non-partisan?
This hard line refusal to compromise seems to actually help the Republicans improve their vote. A lesson here for the Democrats maybe??
-
Compromise is absolutely necessary to leadership in a diverse, messy democracy. I cringe, however, that the President has once again started from a position of weakness, and conceeded from there. Honest compromise requires respectful honest brokers from each position. Sadly, the President has negotiated toward a position that is both fiscally flawed and politically perilous.
The Republicans have been hammering the public with a mantra of Obama's current deficits, and reducing the national debt. The tax deal digs the hole even deeper, and results in revenue reductions that were not forseen in the original Republican position. Not only doe they get the tax cuts that they covet, but they were given the political cover to beat the Democrats senselesss with the consequences in the next election.
In January of 2012, the national election will be in full swing. The White House and control of the legislative branch will be up for grabs. The Republicans are already writing the headlines. While holding the poor and middle class hostage to the continued greed of the "top two percenters", the next election will start with the argument " OBAMA RAISED PAYROLL TAXES TWO PERCENT AND WANTS TO RAISE YOUR INCOME TAXES AGAIN!". Their involvement (insistence) that these artificial tax events be scheduled willl be forgotten in the debate.
Remember, the "tax crisis" was created by the Republicans eight years ago. The tax cuts are expiring ONLY because it was the only way to make the new rates appear less destructive to the long-term debt, and facilitate their passage through reconcilliation by a simple majority.
The republicans are using compromise to solidify political advantage, rather than advocate for balanced, responsible governing. It is their guiding principle. The President has shown weakenss on this issue. He will pay for it. So will all of us.
-
Good stuff and well said. Very accurate account of some key issues.
-
Compromise is a Utopian word that is a lie to begin with, its alleged meaning doesn’t exist in reality. What does compromise even mean in the way we normally use it? At this point it is a cliche to suggest everything is ‘partisan.’ It isn’t that people are partisan and they are overly enamoured with their political party, the problem is much deeper then superficial partisanship or an unwillingness to compromise---the roadblock is much worse indeed, half of the country actually doesn’t agree with the other half on central issues. There is essentially little to compromise on, there really is nowhere to go. This compromise people are talking about simply means one side giving up on what is important to them. We have gone somewhat far as a culture and we are now left with grappling the issues that are fundamental, issues that are impossible to compromise on.
-
To avoid confusion, I am definitely not Tom D Ford, although also I usually find he has worthy things to say.
-
It seems to me that compromise is the negotiated end of two strongly opposed positions. Obama never seems to start with a passionate, firm stance like the Republicans. When he starts from this weaker place, he has less room to negotiate and always ends up giving up more than is palatable.
-
Good stuff.
-
Compromise isn't what is needed. More moderate candidates are needed. The left and right are running for the opposite ends of the political spectrum while most individuals are more towards the center.
I don't vote for ideology, I vote for results and actual plans candidates have for holding office.
Compromise seems to be a forgotten tool in politics. Compromise actually reconciles differences and makes concessions in order to further the cause at hand.
Today, the Democrats vote for tax cuts they know won't pass in order to try and corner Republicans on their tax cuts for the wealthy in the future. Conservatives don't vote for tax cuts for the majority because it doesn't also serve their power base. They will only vote for cuts that also affect the uber-wealthy.
Seems pretty obvious that 2/3 of that tax cut bill could be passed if there was compromise. Instead, the political parties engage in "gotcha politics".
When will the majority be represented?
-
I believe that most people want compromise. Compromise is necessary for any progress, and a series of compromises can lead to getting what you as an individual want. Unfortunately, the loudest voices- the ones that are heard over the din of general frustration- are the ones that refuse to compromise.
Also, compromise seems to be a lost art. Too many people think that if they argue to a standstill, they can restart the conversation at a later date with a more extreme position so they have more room to draw the opposition toward what they want. This turns the compromise into an act of futility.
-
The sacred reality is that we are all interconnected and dependent upon each other. Partisanship cannot change this. We CAN manage shared resources through politics while always keeping in mind the shared nature of all that is important to us. Compromise is symbolic of the essential fact that we need each other. Some type of compromise is only natural and inevitable. A fight is simply an ineffective form of compromise in which precious resources are wasted.
-
If 50% of the nation will not compromise.
Then let’s kick them out put the 50% that will compromise in power and start building a stronger community TODAY!
-
Secession... maybe it's time has come... State of Jefferson anyone?
-
rethomas, I for one would vote FOR a State of Jefferson if the borders were extended to include Lane County. According to the map on Wikipedia, it currently only extends north through Douglas County, and stops at the Lane County line.
Also, we would need to do a little re-naming...stripping names of slave-holders, racists, and white supremacists from the place names and important public buildings. Maybe apply some names of famous 20th century explorers...How about Aldrin County? Or the City of Armstrong? Perhaps the Sally Ride Expressway. Maybe Cousteau Beach.
-
Penny, I think you are really talking about supporting a new nation state of Cascadia not Jefferson. They have very different histories and focuses.
-
Actually, TomD, I did look into both before I posted my comment, and do know the difference.
The State of Jefferson is comprised of a number of counties presently in SW Oregon and a majority of the northern counties presently in California. (I do often feel like Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County in general are somehow given the short end of the stick by the Salem government. They often seem to think that anything that is not Portland or Salem is unimportant.)
Cascadia, on the other hand, is largely a reunification of the old "Oregon Territory," which extended from the border between CA and OR all the way up through BC. (Maybe it is time for a little revolution and/or secession. How much help (or support) does the Northwest actually get from the Federal Government unless it is aggressively sought by one of our Democratic Congressmen?)
I would have no problem voting in favour of either one. I do still think we would need to make a few changes to some place names, however.
-
Penny - my apologies to you. Cascadia concept because it encompasses so many economic areas was probably the most viable of all of them and seems to cover a territory with 'largely' shared progressive values, at least nowadays. The only problem I have had with Jefferson history is I have never been sure which Jefferson they are talking about - this highway history makes for an interesting read: http://www.ashlandfreepress.com/The_Thanksgiving_Issue
-
Penny, also forgot to mention I entirely agree with you about ridding the state of all those racist and historically obnoxious names!
-
To Bonzosa: Should there have been compromise over civil rights for African Americans? You claim to vote for results, yet it is the ideology of the Republicans alone that is stopping these from being achieved. They delight in NEVER compromising!
-
Compromise isn't an all or nothing argument. It doesn't mean you have to compromise on every single thing all the time.
On the flip side, it also doesn't mean you should never make concessions.
Prudence.
Also, don't blame the GOP for everything. The ills of this country are not all theirs. Last I checked it's not the GOP holding up education reform, (hint: it's unions and Dems). Plenty of blame to go around...
-
To Bonzosa, nobody with any sense is letting the Democrats, Unions or anyone off the hook for critical appraisal of their positions and actions. The problem today is one of totally lopsided appraisals of who is doing by far the MOST DAMAGE.
Should we choose to get sidetracked by pointing to occasional (and comparatively far less damaging to America) exceptions to the rules by the Democrats? Or get REALLY upset by the fact that the Republicans positions are the ones really causing MAJOR DAMAGE in almost ALL that they do.
It's about time conservatives introduced a genuine sense of proportion to their assessments of who is to blame. Saying the others do it too, is only designed to have people take their eyes off the main culprits (whose totally uncompromising, ideologically inflexible actions are basically sending America down the plug hole!
The same can never be said by any sane and fair-minded person about the Democrats, as weak willed and often toothless as they often appear to be.)
-
bonzosa,
This is exactly the problem, compromise IS an all-or-nothing argument when it is about fundamental issues. Compromise is nice as a theory, or as a manipulative tool, but it doesn’t apply to most of the deepest questions we face in the world.
-
I couldn't disagree more with Earl. The only way unemployed people can survive and continue to look for work is by recieving unemployment benefits. Looking for a job takes gas, clean clothes, bus passes, etc. It also helps if you know you can continue to eat food and sleep in a bed while you do it.
The idea that people won't look for work if you're supposedly "paying them not to" is likely to only be held by someone who has either never been jobless or made a whole lot more on unemployment than anyone Ive ever known! The amounts I am familar with aren't likely to have anyone resting on their benefits.
Kristina Brewington
Albany Oregon
-
More practically the choice may be that paying the unemployed is cheaper than putting them in jail when they steal to feed their families... or march on the state capitol, pitchforks and torches in hand.
-
"Get out your pitchforks and torches..."
-
What happens when the paradymn changes and the old arguments that did evolved are now are both wrong and both right - often at the same time? They will continue to argue over who is right and who is wrong and be oblivious to what is actually taking place.
If you dont have a pigio hole you have no way to sort, once you have a pigion hole the pigion hole becomes all and if it is wrong or not the best, the pigion hole will still be defended to the end.
Much of scientific advancement is similar and at times the changes took huge shifts and lots of fighting and often the original people who were right only see the new ideas accepted long into the future after years of abuse and embarrisment from those who could not accept the change.
That seems to be what is happening now with the world that has globalized.
What will/would work would violtate both sides at different times.
We pigion hole our beliefs and ideas and keep the pigion holes like a religion.
There is a good Star Trek Episode called "Let This Be Your Last Battelfield" that shows how the need to stick to the old paradymn will/can win out over changing the paradymn even when it is the only way to survive.
This is not about compromising parties and system but about re-arranging them in a fashion that contains new plus a mix of what the parties would see as opposites at times doing two things that look like contradictions at the same time.
This is unacceptable witht he current parties.
Seems to be a basic human problem this need to evolve from what has seemed to work in the past.
Compromise is a bad word here.
-
An important man in the organization I worked for used to say:"Do you want to be right, or do you want to get results".: To get results you have to negotiate and compromise. Each side has to state the areas you do not want to compromise on, and others that you can and want. Once you come to an agreement, you both support that.
Obama is in a situation that no matter what he does, people find fault. The Republicans gave in on voting for extending the unemploment benefits and to start negotiating the tax break for the rich in another 2 yrs. I wish we all could be supportive of something. The constant bickering makes this country vulnerable in the eyes of the rest of the world. It is easier to topple a nation with lots of inner strife. Let's put more energy in building up rather than breaking down.
-
Productive governance requires compromise in some instances. In order to be able to reach beneficial compromises, though, requires two sides that both have the best interests of the country in mind. If this is the case, even though the parties' ideas for what to do may vary widely, there is a chance for compromise to work. We do not have that situation today. After the midterm election, Mitch McConnell stated that the Republicans' top priority for the next two years is to deny President Obama a second term. There is no real surpise in that, only that he is willing to state it so clearly. It has been quite obvious that this was the Republicans' priority ever since Obama took office. Where one side's interest is solely to deny the other side (and thus the country) any type of success, they should be denied a place at the table whenever possible. Any compromise you make with them will only make things worse.
-
Keep in mind that Conservatives are anti-government and so they win in two out of three ways, when they actually win and when they stop the government from working by refusing to compromise.
And the only time that the party of The People, the Democrats, win is if they actually win.
-
All your comments make great sense.
-
I definitely agree- we no longer have politicians who are willing to work in a goal-oriented fashion, looking at what's best for Americans rather than what advantage they can gain for themselves or their constituents. I'm not sure that many of them understand what compromise really is, much less collaboration, even though I believe it is a necessary element of politics.
-
Compromise is always part of civility. One can however compromise away civilized society.
-
Nicely said!
-
I like to think of compromise on a sliding scale - a compromise if you will. If an issue isn't critical to life or limb, like deciding which restaurant to eat at, then compromise is easier.
If a decision has critical ramifications then compromise might not be possible.
But life is based on compromises because we can not impose our wills to get what we want 100% of the time, at least not without causing chaos and consternation.
Your previous caller mentioned disappointment with Obama caving in to Republican demands. I'm disappointed with Obama and the entire government kowtowing to interests of the rich and powerful that are wrong and harmful to the majority of us. Very depressing.
-
Very well and accurately said. Your last point goes to the heart of America's real dilemma.
And possibly many Teabaggers know this too, but have been conned into blaming the Democrats by Fox 'news' and a corporate run mainstream media.
-
I'm appalled at the lack of progress made by the Obama administration. After 8 yrs of Bush driving this country toward the abyss it was a relief to believe we would be rescued in time by a return to more democratic principles. But now the Republicants have grabbed the wheel again. Their avowed goal is to thwart Obama no matter what he proposes. Yeah, that's great for "compromising". No amount of professorial rhetoric will change the intentions of a rabid dog. It's "voters, morals and the future be damned" from the right-wingers. It's a "tea party" alright--from Alice's wonderland, and Mitch McConnell is the Mad Hatter.
-
Ayup.
And "Rabid dog" is an apt description of the current Conservative Republican leadership.
And I suspect that the Republican base don't realize that their "Old Yellers" have turned rabid and against them and their own interests. Conservative Republicans are killing off the middle class and small businesses, and small farmers, and returning to the old days of extreme wealth and poverty with very little in between. They are no friends of the average American.
-
This is infuriating. Obama should've stood his ground. We can't keep digging this country further and further into the hole and expect to get out again. The interest, JUST THE INTEREST, on our national debt each year is twice what we pay on education. TWICE! It's 6% of the budget.
Adding to our deficit with these extended tax cuts will add to our debt and add to our interest on that debt.
Here you go future, here's an overwhelming national debt, sorry most of your economists who passed through our education system won't be able to do the math and get you sorted out. We just figured it was more important to make sure today's rich get richer, future be damned.
-
What makes you think he is not standing his ground? Ever consider he is just trying to make the bitter medicine go down better for the Democrats?
The fact that Obama is thought of as liberal and progressive is just so wrong to the facts and only remaines this way because of the talking heads and idiots.
The idiot democrats think that they must protect the world from the idiot republicans and so will swollow what every Obama push's out to them. A few words will keep them at bay.
The truth is we have others in power, the ones who have the money. They are probably not monolythic either but share enough interests to work with either the D or the R, who will do what ever they can to get elected.
Keeping the public engaged in political and philosophical battles is like the Ducks and the Beavers getting ready for Civil War, the battle is so much fun that reality gets ignored or the party game gets thought of as the reality.
Obama is standing the ground he wants to, saying things to keep the democrats off the street and the republicans appearing as an enemy so they have someone to shoot arrows and words at, cause it feels good to have an enemy even if that enemy is behind the curtains your friend.
-
This is the last thing I saw Obama doing. Just a less than a month ago he said he wasn't willing to compromise on this issue and forfeit 700 billion dollar in taxes and now he is? As one of the previous commenters mentioned, how's 30 billion in unemployment equal to 700 billion in tax cuts?! I couldn't agree more.
And what is all this BS about cutting taxes leading to more jobs? Republicans throw that statement around as if it is self-explanatory. Well it is not. As a matter of fact, it is absolutely outright bogus and deserves no compromising with. I absolutely do not believe a word of it. Here's some info to question those claims:
http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2010/07/why_tax_cuts_dont_wo.php
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
http://www.truth-out.org/tax-system-favors-wealth-over-work64768
What also really bothers me is how neither party, especially Obama since he has the power, has clearly laid out on paper the implications for the rest of us if these tax cuts were to expire. There are schools that say taxes will go up for everyone and other's that say they won't.
Now which is it dear Obama, Congress and every cheating and power hungry politician out there that we need scores of lawyers we can't afford to keep track of where your filthy financing money is coming from? Why is there such lack of transparency in these measures before they are implemented? It's the lack of finer details that leaves people confused and makes their political mood swing like a pendulum.
American politics has become a room full of smoke and mirrors with complete and utter disregard for the will of the majority of the population.
-
"We get the politicians we deserve.", doesn't quite articulate the problem. Rather, we get the politicians that best reflect the electorates diverse attempt at understanding complexity using belief and selective preponderance.
Collectively, we organize this diversity into two competing camps. People within both camps make hard compromises in order to defeat the dreaded other end of the polarity. As a result, we risk disintegration within each of our political parties if leaders of those parties then turn around and compromise with the 'enemy'.
It is a social arrangement that does not encourages compromise in the best of times. But when the complexity and difficulty of the problems increases, compromise becomes even less likely. Leaders are literally cornered by the collective narratives of their respective parties bases i.e., that part that is most energized by oversimplified narratives and a vilified opposition.
It is hard to blame the leaders for their level of functioning when you see the restrictions placed on them at the ballot box by the level of functioning of the electorate in either parties base. -
This evenhandedness in the way you see the 'two' parties is half the problem. In the US there are dramatic differences and it is still vital people understand and acknowledge these. (Despite the media's efforts to ensure they never do.)
One party pretends that it 'does not believe in government' (while stealing the public purse and our taxes for its own benefit and that of its 'friends') .. and is willing to bankrupt the country to prove this.
One party attaches no meaning to the word 'compromise'.
One party feels no shame in totally lying the majority of the time about important truths that the public need to understand.
One party has NO interest (of any proven kind over the last few decades) in America and American's well being, other than that of the obscenely rich and powerful. (And if you think this is not the case, please show me otherwise with some facts.)
And yes, both parties are corrupted by big money.
But the 'other party' is still willing to not ditch some responsibility for actually trying to do a few decent things for America and its people, while also serving the needs of its lobbyist patrons. In the context of such a dark scenario, that is still not (in reality) a minor difference to just ignore or gloss over.
Given the scenario, it is also a bit of a wonder that any just-minded person would still wish to enter the political halls of Washington and persist with trying to right so many things that have gone seriously bad in this country. Many good people choose not to in horror at it all. Maybe this also helps explain why we get the politicians we deserve.
There are many instances of where 'doing the right thing' has usurped any often self defeating notions of 'compromise' - how do you compromise over introducing civil rights for blacks and gays??
-
Tom D,
I appreciate your thoughtful response. You are delving deeper into the problem than most people, including myself, can do without pencil and paper. Do you mind map?
An interesting book is 'Polarity Management' by Barry Johnson.
Of course the two parties are not equivalent! They have different focuses and different blind spots. This is by design.
The nature of the beast is that there are so many important issues that themselves are complex that people are 'forced' to specialize in order to keep their sanity and have enough energy, (from the confidence of a minimal sense of certitude), to function. Polarized camps serve, in part, the function of allowing 100% of the electorate to be minimally energized by feeling superior to 50% of the electorate. This is no small thing! This is accomplished in how the two camps specialize, i.e. , they study and get even more competent in the areas where their side has an advantage, while also studying the areas where the other side is the least competent, if not screwing up outright. Both sides do this sufficient to have enough confidence to function.
The goal should be to give more of the electorate the tools - mind mapping works - that they do not have to specialize thus, to have enough energy to function.
We need a majority of the electorate in each party to be well versed in all the many - and there are many - strengths and weaknesses in both parties, for the system to work better. Making lists on paper, over time, is one way I have found to stay 'on the fence' and still have enough energy to function. The other is to intentionally get to know people across the political spectrum that have managed to maintain a sense of humility and awareness about their own specialization. I have been lucky in this regard. -
To dirtguy: Yes I know of mind mapping ... it is an excellent thinking tool and process. Can be used for very creative purposes in particular.
Your focus on suggesting helpful 'processes' to facilitate social progress and political decision making be taken more seriously and actively used in an organized way is very accurate.
In fact, more honest consultation processes with the public/voters/community by government and politicians - as long as it is fully transparent and evidence is shown of how what was gained from public input was actually acted upon - is a great way to move democracy away from 'representative democracy' to more meaningful 'participatory democracy' modes of doing things. But the money bagged lobbyists would never like this because of the threat it poses! True democracy? ... Never!
So they, and most politicians, are happy to go along with the more pointless 'town hall' meeting notion of democratic consultation. Let a few people who bother to turn up air a few grievances to make them feel 'better' and then return to doing things the way you always intended to. The other problem with this archaic process (we can do much better now!) is that it fosters angry and alienating 'grandstanding' by people with a bee in their bonnet and not real civilized and well facilitated input processes as might occur at a genuine participation based workshop or seminar. (But again lets not consult for consultation and appearances sake ... what actually came out of it and what was done or not done as a result???)
My final point on this whole 'compromise' thing is that even within the context of the common but basically antiquated 'representative democracy' model most western countries operate under, unlike America most of these countries interpret this as meaning when a majority party is voted in they get to make the laws for the time they are authorized to stay in office (and power). In theory they enact the policies they went to the election with and promised to their supporters. No notion of compromise required or seen as necessary here! Then if the voters don't like what they have done with their majority power of decision making they vote them out next time round.
This does not happen in America and this is the real issue that should be dealt with, not being sidetracked into talking about the need for 'compromise' at the expense of seeing the system as it stands has a fundamental flaw and barrier in it in relation to such 'majority' party outcomes occurring. I speak of course of the insane Senate rules that do not allow the majority party to have the right to use its (over 50%) majority freely. Instead the minority party is allowed to thwart and totally compromise all their efforts at policy changes that they have been voted in to deliver! (continued)
-
To the best of my knowledge, few if any other western democracies makes such spoiling tactics so easy to engage in. It is certainly not true of the British Parliament.
And my understanding is that the Senate Democrats with their majority could have, if they wished to, voted down the whole absurd notion of 'filibustering' to partially at least end this farcical situation. (There are other rules that are equally crazy, like allowing just ONE Senator to hold up legislation put to the chamber. The Senate being the place where House of Reps legislation (they allow the 51% majority party to actually pass legislation) basically goes to die or be 'compromised' out of existence and effectiveness!
So in summary, a lot of this talk of 'compromise', partisan ship etc is just serving as smoke screen to hide the real need ... REFORM THE LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM AND THE LEGISLATURE so as to finally allow it to function effectively and the way it should in the interests of all Americans and good government!
And that of course would also require removing all corrupting monetary donations to the parties and politicians - these people are the real legislators now. And the ONLY REAL way to do that is to publicly fund the campaigns and elections to FIXED and MUCH lower LIMITS of expenditure for all candidates and exclude all 'donations'.
Electoral boundaries should also not be allowed to be gerrymandered any longer - but drawn up by more arms length, and transparent, fair means.
And finally the fully transparent, simple and fair methods of conducting elections, voting and counting votes used so trouble freely in other nations should be introduced UNIVERSALLY across all American elections.
No system (such as hackable computers) which are open to tampering should ever be allowed.
All aspects of elections at the Federal level should be run by an independent Federal Electoral Commission in a UNIFORM way across the nation, and each state no longer given any rights to interpret or do things with regard to federal election differently and independently - one rule/process/fair system for all voters is an absolute necessity. (continued)
-
The corporate dominated media should also be reformed and opened up to, without distortion or trivialisation and sensationalism, carry more differing points of view. There should be a return to requirements to treat issues more accurately and fairly.
For their right to exist and make use of public airwaves and infrastructure (and in the interests of them finally meeting their public responsibilities) they should also be required to run free election based information in accordance with strict and equally fair guidelines at election time.
The best approach here can always be explored and debated further, but again the fundamental point is that for American democracy to revive, not just Congress and each arm to the separation of powers should be reformed (look at how even the Supreme Court has now been corrupted and basically always sides with corporations and business against basic human rights and justice!), BUT SO TOO SHOULD THE ROTTEN MEDIA SYSTEM ... as exemplified by Fox 'News', but also most of the rest of the mainstream media to an almost equally culpable degree.
Until these and other core fundamentals are got right, American democracy will still continue to defy some of the better intentions of its founders (who could not foresee too readily all these corrupting processes) and remain the farce it truly is today ... at the expense of all decent Americans!
-
Tom D,
That was quite a list of reforms!
I think we may be talking past each other a little bit here. At least our focus seems to be different. If I could characterize where I think we differ, I would say that you think we can get better results by passing some laws/changing some rules and structures that give selfish interest too much advantage. Where as, I am coming more from the position that while there may be some places for those solutions, a more critical element is the level of functioning of the average participant in our Democracy.
It appears to me that the biggest challenge we face as we encourage more participation, is the quality of that participation. Fareed Zakaria deals with that in his book 'The Future of Freedom'.People are better at being short-sighted & self-interested than the opposite. So any system that tries to organize competing interests must always, at a minimum, protect the losers from the winners after a contested vote regarding interests. This is democracy on the most basic street level. But navigating the 'ship of state' that deals with more far-sighted, shared interests requires a higher and higher level of competence. At some point we have fewer and fewer people qualified to even have an intelligent conversation about all the variable involved. As this happens even the brightest, most educated, and most unbiased start to specialize, and in so doing accumulate blind spots.
So, in our increasingly complex world, is the solution to throw the issue before the masses and let the 'wisdom of (specialized/polarized) crowds' settle it? That seems to be the direction that we are going. I for one would like to see more people in that crowd have the pencil and paper tools to be able to 'stay on the fence' while deliberating on their vote. -
Aahh, a great summary and excellent restatement of your thoughts dirtguy. Agree with virtually all you are saying from that perspective. Must read Fareed's book on your recommendation. I admire him and his way of looking at things a lot!
Working both sides of the issues we are jointly raising is probably the most productive way to try to tackle it all.
Was also struck by the accuracy of your comment to the effect - "So any system that tries to organize competing interests must always, at a minimum, protect the losers from the winners after a contested vote regarding interests."
Good stuff and in fact it fits with another intelligent view of the role of good government and that concerns - who is best placed to assume the role of helping create more wealth (and opportunity) equity by diminishing the inevitable gap between rich and poor (and those in between)? Inevitable because in scientific studies done using the game of Monopoly, someone inevitably always accumulates all the wealth it seems. The same study explored the available options to try to balance this result out in a way more beneficial to all and society and good order as well.
They found from international evidence and research, that there is only one practical tool (and one used in highly successful and happier/relatively trouble free nations around the world like Sweden and Australia) that is able to reduce that gap in the interests of a stable and thriving society ... with all able to participate in life in a decent fashion.
And that is basically government intervention using such traditional devices as taxation rates, etc. In Sweden by way of example there are definitely no limits on how rich you can aim to become, but by various devices of government tax policy some of your gains will be basically put back into the society at large for everyone's benefit ... including the rich.
-
I too am interested in the increasing size of the gap in wealth in this country as well as in others. I know lots of people across the political spectrum but none in that top 1%. I don't know where the energy or ideas come from, for the opposition to an inheritance tax on levels of wealth beyond being able to pass down the farm or business to your kids.
As a sideline, a friend who grew up in Milwaukee WI in the fifties said you could always tell the 'old rich' from the 'new rich'. The kids of the new rich didn't amount to anything from being pampered, while the kids of the old rich were typically booted out of the house after high school and told to go make their own damn money.
Was it Andrew Carnegie who said it was a disgrace to die with your wealth?
I don't know if it's any consolation to know that the people who are so bent on leaving vast amounts of wealth to their offspring are probably sealing their children's fates as ne'er-do-wells.
On the other hand, it may be just a reactionary right wing partisan thing to counter what they see as a left wing partisan reaction thing, i.e., taxing.
Sorry for the rambling here. It's late. Just thinking out loud -
Comments are now closed.
I don't like this continuous talk of compromise just for the sake of compromise. It’s a tool to achieve something, not an end game. Political parties exist as a platform of stances on various political issues. You can have unreasonable stances like the Republicans today in Congress filibustering the unemployment insurance renewal that would cost about $30 billion saying it must be paid for first while at the exact same time demanding a $700 billion+ tax cut renewal for the top 2% earners without paying for it.
It’s a false choice to assume that the middle ground is inherently superior to both sides. Some issues have no middle ground (abortion is either legal or illegal). In summary, I don’t like to see my representatives compromising with conservative fascists, but what I really don’t like is to see citizens voting against their own economic interests just because of some controversial social issue like abortion or same-sex marriage.