RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
TomD's comments:
on Compromise
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.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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!
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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)
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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)
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
Penny, also forgot to mention I entirely agree with you about ridding the state of all those racist and historically obnoxious names!
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
Penny, I think you are really talking about supporting a new nation state of Cascadia not Jefferson. They have very different histories and focuses.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
Nicely said!
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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??
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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!
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
Good stuff.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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.)
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
All your comments make great sense.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
Good stuff and well said. Very accurate account of some key issues.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
To avoid confusion, I am definitely not Tom D Ford, although also I usually find he has worthy things to say.
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
on Compromise
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!
posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context
