|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 5, 2011 21:36:21 GMT -5
Compromise isn't always what it's about. They had a clear mandate from the people going in, and the "Supermajority" to push it through. They stalled long enough, and caved fast enough to let public opinion slide. Having a supermajority of support should be a rare thing. And even when one has a supermajority, one should be willing to compromise with the minority in most cases, else you have that classic situation known as “Tyranny of the Majority”. But I am talking honest-to-goodness “Both sides give and take a little bit and make reasonable concessions and demands until a workable middle ground is found” Compromise. Such a thing seems to be extinct in modern American politics. And, no, I am not so naïve as to believe this sort of Compromise ever truly existed in its pure, unadulterated, most desirable form. It is an ideal—something that exists only in the imagination but to which reasonable people must fight to create a close a semblance as they possibly can. The problem is, no one is fighting for this particular ideal. Because of this, I actually agree in this case when the person in the video said the “compromisers” need to be thrown out. One can only fight for the ideal if all parties act in Good Faith. Once again, that is not the case. In the short term, we may create a monster worse than what we currently face. But in the long term, perhaps it will help to give some balls back to the Left, enabling them to call the Republicans out on their Bad Faith shenanigans. And just maybe then we can find a spot to start working on the fight for our ideals once again. Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 5, 2011 21:49:37 GMT -5
The problem is that the Democrats could never win a majority without the Blue Dogs. Most of New England, parts of California, Oregon, and Washington, and cities will elect progressives, but the South, Midwest, and West won't. Even in "blue" districts, progressives have a much harder time winning a general election than a moderate or a Blue Dog. I can't speak for the south or the west, but I'm from the Midwest. The last time my state voted for a Republican president was in 1972 (and happens to be the only one to not vote for Reagan in 1984). We also have ourselves state-run health insurance superior to Medicare and state dollars are used to cover abortion. We are more liberal than the US as a whole. Do not write off huge portions of the country as die-hard conservatives when we are not. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 5, 2011 22:10:10 GMT -5
Having a supermajority of support should be a rare thing. And even when one has a supermajority, one should be willing to compromise with the minority in most cases, else you have that classic situation known as “Tyranny of the Majority”. Which is how Fox News played it up. The problem is, compromise isn't always necessary, and in the instance I was talking about, there was no tyrrany. Up until the GOP decided to make health care Obama's Waterloo, we favoured health care as a national interest. Compromise should be an option. However, Obama "Compromised" before he was even in a position to make changes. This is what I was talking about, and it's great you mean in general, but in the context? No. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 5, 2011 22:11:21 GMT -5
I can't speak for the south or the west, but I'm from the Midwest. The last time my state voted for a Republican president was in 1972 (and happens to be the only one to not vote for Reagan in 1984). We also have ourselves state-run health insurance superior to Medicare and state dollars are used to cover abortion. We are more liberal than the US as a whole. Do not write off huge portions of the country as die-hard conservatives when we are not. Shut up and hold still so I can paint you with this broad brush. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 5, 2011 22:45:33 GMT -5
Compromise should be an option. However, Obama "Compromised" before he was even in a position to make changes. This is what I was talking about, and it's great you mean in general, but in the context? No. Indeed. You can’t compromise with Bad Faith. But that’s what the Dems try to do. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Sept 6, 2011 3:30:09 GMT -5
Having a supermajority of support should be a rare thing. And even when one has a supermajority, one should be willing to compromise with the minority in most cases, else you have that classic situation known as “Tyranny of the Majority”. A super-majority is a really bad thing. Have a look at South African Politics and you will see why (Although I recommend you do so before the secrecy bill gets signed after being pushed through by the super-majority.) Super-Majorities and the American 2 party system are both the most disgustingly flawed kind of democracy ever. In the one party state, minorities are completely ignored and oppressed and have no ability within the legal political framework to change that. In the 2 party state, all policies become polarized despite just about every policy having many shades of grey. As such people are forced to choose between two sets of policies regardless how much the believe in them individually. You may say choose republican because they support cutting government spending, but unfortunately it comes along with the anti-abortion and tax breaks for the rich baggage. However the video does make a good point. Unfortunately it fails to understand that the very thing that makes the left a coalition of different minorities is also what keeps it divided. Hell some of the things listed in his agenda at the end of the video are things I am NOT for. As such, I cannot stand united on them. The banner of freedom for all carried by the democrats is all that's keeping the vast collection of different groups under them. Unfortunately the unification of the republican marketing machine keeps all the republicans toeing the line. as the Video says, the republicans are not for anything, they are against anything and everything that is not rich white male. With all the support the party gets from the rich white males, they can afford the large marketing campaign to unify and basically trample their opponents. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 6, 2011 6:38:02 GMT -5
The thing is that the Democratic Party has already became Republican-lite, policy wise at least...what they need is soul searching, and to re-discover themselves and their beliefs... The blue dogs need to leave the party, forcibly if necessary. That would get rid of a lot of the right wing tendencies. Edit: Something we can do on the personal level is pay more attention to primaries other than for the presidency and support candidates who are actually liberal. People are less likely to vote in a primary for a state senator than for their governor and, as a result, a single vote means a lot more. I'm perfectly willing for Blue Dogs to continue voting democrat, so long as they never get to write policy. At present, liberals get an occasional pat on the head, while the Dogs always set the agenda. That should be the opposite way around- Dogs are poor at writing policy, liberals good. And, furthermore, there's a whole other party for conservatives. Talk to them about your fucking tax cuts. Compromise isn't always what it's about. They had a clear mandate from the people going in, and the "Supermajority" to push it through. They stalled long enough, and caved fast enough to let public opinion slide. But I am talking honest-to-goodness “Both sides give and take a little bit and make reasonable concessions and demands until a workable middle ground is found” Compromise. Such a thing seems to be extinct in modern American politics. Crap. Compromise is bad, compromise is undesirable. If at all possible, you want to avoid it. A half-arsed policy will be less effective than a fully-realised one based on good theory or practice. For instance, Obama's compromised health insurance policy was worse than a fully-realised public option. Or his stimulus, less effective than a sufficiently large one. Sometimes you must compromise, just like sometimes you must pay taxes. But you don't want to; the policy will be worse. |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 6, 2011 8:08:44 GMT -5
Crap. Compromise is bad, compromise is undesirable. If at all possible, you want to avoid it. A half-arsed policy will be less effective than a fully-realised one based on good theory or practice. A half-assed policy is not a successful compromise. A successful compromise is a fully-realised policy that takes the needs and reasonable desires of all parties into cconsideration. Yes. Sometimes the desires are mutually exclusive, and trying to compromise to include both will result in something half-assed. This results in those few times when one party will have to get their way with little give for the other. But the sting of this can be mitigated with the promise to compromise in another area, perhaps in a future policy. I believe I have mentioned these things are not examples of compromise, yes? It’s rolling over and playing dead and then calling it compromise. Hey, as long as I’m actually getting something for them—like decent roads, education, and quality healthcare, I do want to pay my taxes. Aside from the roads, maybe, I really don’t get those, of course. So I guess I don’t want to pay them right now.  |
|
|
|
Post by ragabash on Sept 6, 2011 11:10:09 GMT -5
Compromise should be an option. However, Obama "Compromised" before he was even in a position to make changes. This is what I was talking about, and it's great you mean in general, but in the context? No. Indeed. You can’t compromise with Bad Faith. But that’s what the Dems try to do. My take on the current White House is that if the Republicans proposed a plan to fix the economy by anally raping the poor Obama would look for a compromise on lubricant. Unfortunately the Democrats have discovered that they have one truly great talent, and they've dedication themselves to it, namely their amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They're piss poor at getting their message out because they seem to believe that the "liberal" media that attacks and undermines them at every opportunity is on their side. They're willing to sell out their base in hopes of not being called socialists or left wing by the people who are going to call them left wing socialists no matter what they do. They bend over backwards to appease the super-rich in hopes of getting some of those campaign dollars, hoping that their economic hand-jobs are going to beat out the Republican's hand-jobs and free puppies. The Democratic party has essentially become a party of professional sell-outs. |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 6, 2011 12:42:57 GMT -5
Crap. Compromise is bad, compromise is undesirable. If at all possible, you want to avoid it. A half-arsed policy will be less effective than a fully-realised one based on good theory or practice. For instance, Obama's compromised health insurance policy was worse than a fully-realised public option. Or his stimulus, less effective than a sufficiently large one. Sometimes you must compromise, just like sometimes you must pay taxes. But you don't want to; the policy will be worse. Compromise is the only thing separating a democracy from a totalitarian regime. What you believe isn't really liberalism, it is enlightened despotism because you think the great unwashed masses are too stupid to know what's good for them and need to have it forced upon them. |
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Sept 6, 2011 14:31:06 GMT -5
The problem is that the Democrats could never win a majority without the Blue Dogs. Most of New England, parts of California, Oregon, and Washington, and cities will elect progressives, but the South, Midwest, and West won't. Even in "blue" districts, progressives have a much harder time winning a general election than a moderate or a Blue Dog. I can't speak for the south or the west, but I'm from the Midwest. The last time my state voted for a Republican president was in 1972 (and happens to be the only one to not vote for Reagan in 1984). We also have ourselves state-run health insurance superior to Medicare and state dollars are used to cover abortion. We are more liberal than the US as a whole. Do not write off huge portions of the country as die-hard conservatives when we are not. That's a fair point, I suppose I overstated my argument. Call it my Indiana bias-- I look around and all I see are conservative Republicans. The Upper Midwest does have a particularly strong liberal/Democratic history. That being said, the Western and Southern parts of the region * (as well as my stupid state) are pretty Republican. Even Illinois, one of the safest Democratic states in the nation, is pretty conservative outside of Chicago. In 2004, Kerry only won a majority in 15 of the 102 counties in the state-- it just so happens that 43% of the state's population lives in Cook County. Then there's Iowa, which almost always goes Democratic, but is fairly socially conservative. Even given that admission, I stand by my original point-- I don't see the Democratic Party being able to hold a majority in Congress if they purge the party of conservatives. The Republican victory in the 2010 election came because they managed to defeat so many Blue Dogs. Progressives are mostly elected in safely blue districts, and don't generally face much of a challenge. I don't agree with the policies that the Blue Dogs support, and I wish that they had as little voice in the party as RINOs do in the Republican Party, but without them the Democrats would be almost permanently relegated to the minority. *In my defense, I generally think about Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota as Great Lakes States rather than Midwestern states because they act a little more like Canada than they do the states that surround them. I don't include Indiana or Ohio despite their Great Lakes access because the former acts like a Southern State and the latter is a cross-section of the entire country to the extent that it doesn't really fit in any region (which is part of the reason why it only voted for the loser in a Presidential Election four times since Lincoln was elected). |
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 6, 2011 14:37:17 GMT -5
What we need is for the conservative areas to make good on their promise to secede...that is the only way we'll ever get any where...
|
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 6, 2011 14:56:41 GMT -5
Also we have an up hill battle because the public has been brainwashed by the right for 30 + years into believing that "liberals are EVIL" bs, look how often the word "socialism' or "socialist" has been thrown around since Obama has been on the scene, yet he's hardly a "liberal" to begin with. The Public as a whole like gov't programs, the problem they believe everything the right says, about "Welfare Queens" and whatnot, so they go against their own interests vote for those who want to destroy these programs. I'm so sick of the stupidity, I've more or less have given up, and I've become very jaded. I don't give a shit anymore, I say let them reap what they sow...
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 6, 2011 16:39:28 GMT -5
I can't speak for the south or the west, but I'm from the Midwest. The last time my state voted for a Republican president was in 1972 (and happens to be the only one to not vote for Reagan in 1984). We also have ourselves state-run health insurance superior to Medicare and state dollars are used to cover abortion. We are more liberal than the US as a whole. Do not write off huge portions of the country as die-hard conservatives when we are not. That's a fair point, I suppose I overstated my argument. Call it my Indiana bias-- I look around and all I see are conservative Republicans. The Upper Midwest does have a particularly strong liberal/Democratic history. That being said, the Western and Southern parts of the region * (as well as my stupid state) are pretty Republican. Even Illinois, one of the safest Democratic states in the nation, is pretty conservative outside of Chicago. In 2004, Kerry only won a majority in 15 of the 102 counties in the state-- it just so happens that 43% of the state's population lives in Cook County. Then there's Iowa, which almost always goes Democratic, but is fairly socially conservative. Even given that admission, I stand by my original point-- I don't see the Democratic Party being able to hold a majority in Congress if they purge the party of conservatives. The Republican victory in the 2010 election came because they managed to defeat so many Blue Dogs. Progressives are mostly elected in safely blue districts, and don't generally face much of a challenge. I don't agree with the policies that the Blue Dogs support, and I wish that they had as little voice in the party as RINOs do in the Republican Party, but without them the Democrats would be almost permanently relegated to the minority. *In my defense, I generally think about Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota as Great Lakes States rather than Midwestern states because they act a little more like Canada than they do the states that surround them. I don't include Indiana or Ohio despite their Great Lakes access because the former acts like a Southern State and the latter is a cross-section of the entire country to the extent that it doesn't really fit in any region (which is part of the reason why it only voted for the loser in a Presidential Election four times since Lincoln was elected). You also have to consider population, the coasts (including the great lake states) have far more people than the west and the south. In terms of federal elections, the western states are pretty much insignificant. So, we now have the west coast, the east coast (including New England), and the rust belt which are all populous opposed to the west and the south. The southeastern states are populous, but the west really doesn't have any people. 3 populous regions have more sway than two regions where only one is populous. ETA: Keep in mind, that during the 2010 election, the Dems that lost were largely blue dogs. Also keep in mind that the Dems still have majority control of the federal government. Dems have the executive branch and the senate, Reps only have the house. So, even with the big surge of conservatism, liberalism was still in charge. Oh, and the popularity of the teabaggers has plummeted. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 6, 2011 23:19:45 GMT -5
Crap. Compromise is bad, compromise is undesirable. If at all possible, you want to avoid it. A half-arsed policy will be less effective than a fully-realised one based on good theory or practice. A half-assed policy is not a successful compromise. A successful compromise is a fully-realised policy that takes the needs and reasonable desires of all parties into cconsideration. No it isn't. That's just good policy. All good policy takes into account all stakeholders. A compromise, to quote wiktionary is "To find a way between extremes." For example a compromise might be where a person splits the difference between the 'extremes' of the policies of the two parties and creates a 'compromisse' policy sitting in the imagined middle. A good example of this is Obama's stimulus policy. Obama wanted a large stimulus; Republicans wanted no stimulus. They compromised at a small, ineffective stimulus. The purpose of politics is not to give the other party a little flutter in their hearts whenever they think of your name. Crap. Compromise is bad, compromise is undesirable. If at all possible, you want to avoid it. A half-arsed policy will be less effective than a fully-realised one based on good theory or practice. For instance, Obama's compromised health insurance policy was worse than a fully-realised public option. Or his stimulus, less effective than a sufficiently large one. Sometimes you must compromise, just like sometimes you must pay taxes. But you don't want to; the policy will be worse. Compromise is the only thing separating a democracy from a totalitarian regime. What you believe isn't really liberalism, it is enlightened despotism because you think the great unwashed masses are too stupid to know what's good for them and need to have it forced upon them. The 'great unwashed' get to vote every two years. If they vote for a policy, that policy should be enacted in full, not in part. That is what democracy is, and it is the major difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. Compromise as a moral principle is a) inefficient (because a compromised policy will, by definition, never be as good as a straight policy) and b) undemocratic. If everyone votes for a party, that party should govern as best it can. It should not hobble itself by dividing all their policies by two. |
|
