Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:48 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,309

Constructive political compromise -- possible? Desirable?


Something I heard on NPR this morning, I don't remember what, triggered a thought about a possible presidential candidate (for example) whose platform had the over-arching theme of bipartisanship first, and specific programs second. Someone who was wholly dedicated to reducing partisanship and accepting that "the other side" does, sometimes, have a point, and then acting (or at least proposing actions) accordingly. This candidate would have as their first principle the cooling off of the body politic.

Could you support such a candidate? Is nuance possible any more, where people try to actually understand what motivates and drives the opposition (without making stuff up), and are willing to sit down to consider actual constructive compromise?

I've read lots of liberals who claim, perhaps rightly, that conservatives (I'm using these terms broadly, so please don't nitpick) are dying out and eventually liberals will be victorious all the time everywhere. And I think about what happens if that's true. Do the victors tell people who aren't in the majority "sorry, sucks to be you" or do they try something more inclusive? Do they engage in triumphalism or something else?

I'm not sure if I'm getting across what I'm trying to ask. We are living in a time of internecine hatred that I don't remember in the 55 or so years when I have been aware of such things (I am 70). Can we step back from that? Is anyone willing to take that first step, without expecting anything in return? It seems to me that the alternative is too dire to contemplate.

I remember now what triggered these thoughts. A commentator alleged that children raised with hatred of any kind are more susceptible to extremist philosophies and actions. That, it seems to me, is the road we are headed down.

"It's the other side that's riddled with hatred, not us. And I hate them for that!" Do you? Can you not? Is hatred the only outcome from where we are now?

I've put this in Great Debates because that's the kind of discussion I hope to have. I don't, however, have an assertion to debate except, perhaps, that compromise is not a dirty word. It doesn't mean that one side has to give in to the other side on every issue, it means that both sides give in at least a little on at least a few issues. It means that scoring political points becomes secondary to taking care of the nation's needs. It means a different way of doing things from anything I've seen since the turn of the century (if not before).

Is this possible? Is it desirable?
  #2  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:50 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,808
It takes two to tango. Trump and the rest of the Republican Party have zero interest in this.
  #3  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:55 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
It means that scoring political points becomes secondary to taking care of the nation's needs.
Unfortunately, I find this unlikely in politicians in the near term.
  #4  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:58 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 528
I don't think compromise on really big issues is possible right now. I don't think it's an equal "all sides do it" thing either. I think it's the Republican Party that is more dug in and uncompromising. So, on issues like healthcare, climate change, and even infrastructure, they don't seem willing to do deals anymore.

I'd love to see compromise. But both parties have to be willing to govern. I haven't seen that in a while from one of the sides. Let's be real here. Do you think a party that nominated Donald Trump is capable of compromise in good faith?


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-norms/540165/

And if you're watching Democratic debates, I'd be wary of any candidate who talks as if they'll be able to cross aisles with the current Republican party. If they think that, they're not paying attention.

Last edited by survinga; 10-18-2019 at 10:58 PM.
  #5  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:26 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,309
These answers are not unexpected, although I was hoping for something more ... hopeful.

Since we have only heard from one side so far, let's ask this a different way.

Suppose your side wins the presidency and both houses in 2020. How do you govern? Do you do whatever you want and pay no attention at all to the opposition, or do you try to include them in some meaningful way? And if you pick the first option, do you think that's a sustainable way to govern?
  #6  
Old 10-19-2019, 10:34 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
These answers are not unexpected, although I was hoping for something more ... hopeful.

Since we have only heard from one side so far, let's ask this a different way.

Suppose your side wins the presidency and both houses in 2020. How do you govern? Do you do whatever you want and pay no attention at all to the opposition, or do you try to include them in some meaningful way? And if you pick the first option, do you think that's a sustainable way to govern?
I think on big issues, you need to try and implement the policy as you campaigned. So, if someone is elected, and has a congress in his corner (or her corner), then he/she should not get too side-tracked with bipartisan worries. To me, chasing bipartisanship on huge domestic issues is like chasing the golden unicorn. The caveat there is if the filibuster occurs in the Senate. At that point, you're forced to play ball with moderates from the other party - if they exist - or to pass bills using reconciliation. If a Democrat wins with both houses, but not a filibuster-proof Senate, then I would try to craft an ACA-fix bill and do reconciliation to get it passed.

There are a couple of issues where both sides can work together occasionally. I think this includes trade policy, and somewhat on foreign policy. Those are actually big issues, but there are occasionally glimmers of light....and even on those issues, the glimmers are weaker and weaker over time.
  #7  
Old 10-20-2019, 07:55 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
These answers are not unexpected, although I was hoping for something more ... hopeful.

Since we have only heard from one side so far, let's ask this a different way.

Suppose your side wins the presidency and both houses in 2020. How do you govern? Do you do whatever you want and pay no attention at all to the opposition, or do you try to include them in some meaningful way? And if you pick the first option, do you think that's a sustainable way to govern?
Go back to 2008 and ask that question. I think Obama sacrificed his whole presidency on this point. The Republicans said publicly that their only goal was to prevent Obama from winning reelection. Obama was a slightly rewarmed Republican health care proposal. But not one single Republican supported it and now they are trying their damnedest to destroy it in the courts. Had Obama known what was coming he could have put in a real medicare for all plan with his 60 votes in the senate. Now anything like that is dead for a generation. If anything, the Republicans are even less interested in compromise now than they were 10 years ago.
  #8  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:35 AM
jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,174
If you plan a date and say "I'd like to have Italian tonight" but your date says "I'd prefer tire rims and anthrax", where does the compromise in that lie? Have tire rims with marinara? No, you reject the crazy-pants suggestions and don't worry about the myth of bipartisanship in an era where one of the major parties is insane.
  #9  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:50 AM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,310
The entire concept of politics is about compromising for the greater good, if you are not doing that you are doing something else.

One thing I would add is that what I see very frequently is that the same people who see the other as being unwilling to make compromises or listen to a different viewpoint are more often than not the same that come down like a ton of bricks on anyone on their side trying to do reach a compromise or see the other's point of view.

If you want politics to work start by weeding out hypocrisy of that kind.
  #10  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:03 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,963
Mitt Romney — If he were a Democrat running for President he'd have my support.

John Kasich — I detest every single one of his political opinions and wouldn't like to imagine him as President. But he honestly believes in his ideology and wants what's best for America. Bravo.

The Bushes: George, Dubya and Jeb — I thought Dubya's Presidency was an abomination. But he was a good-spirited patriot. He didn't try to sell out America for a few pieces of silver. And this family had the gumption to oppose what the GOP has transmogrified into.

But 95% of today's Republicans are dominated by hatred, lies and greed. And fully support an obvious criminal, fraudster and traitor.

What would "bipartisan compromise" with such an ilk even mean? Only lock half the asylum-seeking babies in cages? Plan to send men back to the Moon as a foolish publicity stunt, but save money by not bringing them back? Let women get abortions only in alternating months? Waste $5 trillion on tax cuts for the rich instead of $10 trillion? Force voters in D-leaning precincts to wait 3 hours to vote instead of 6 hours? Prattle lies about Hillary et al only on weekdays, not on weekends too?

I ask OP: Do you support compromise with the Ku Klux Klan?
Do you support compromise with the American Communist Party?
Do you support compromise with the American Nazi Party?
Do you support compromise with ISIS?
Why in heaven's name would we compromise with the abomination that has usurped the name of the once-great Party of Abe Lincoln?
  #11  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:53 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
It takes two to tango. Trump and the rest of the Republican Party have zero interest in this.
From this board alone, this is what you will get. Fingers in ears and them telling you that "they do it worse", " they started it" but very very very little of anyone saying that they believe that is the case, much less them saying that they would be willing to work.

You'll get 100 examples of how "THEY did this, now we get to"

It's a sad state to be in but here we are.

BTW, I agree with you 100% and have posted as such many times on these boards over the years.

I will add, that the POLITICIANS and those fervent followers are the ones ruining, and running the country. I wish that we could strip politics of all the monetary benefits that have grown over the years.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 10-21-2019 at 10:57 AM.
  #12  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:46 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Mitt Romney — If he were a Democrat running for President he'd have my support.

John Kasich — I detest every single one of his political opinions and wouldn't like to imagine him as President. But he honestly believes in his ideology and wants what's best for America. Bravo.

The Bushes: George, Dubya and Jeb — I thought Dubya's Presidency was an abomination. But he was a good-spirited patriot. He didn't try to sell out America for a few pieces of silver. And this family had the gumption to oppose what the GOP has transmogrified into.

But 95% of today's Republicans are dominated by hatred, lies and greed. And fully support an obvious criminal, fraudster and traitor.

What would "bipartisan compromise" with such an ilk even mean? Only lock half the asylum-seeking babies in cages? Plan to send men back to the Moon as a foolish publicity stunt, but save money by not bringing them back? Let women get abortions only in alternating months? Waste $5 trillion on tax cuts for the rich instead of $10 trillion? Force voters in D-leaning precincts to wait 3 hours to vote instead of 6 hours? Prattle lies about Hillary et al only on weekdays, not on weekends too?

I ask OP: Do you support compromise with the Ku Klux Klan?
Do you support compromise with the American Communist Party?
Do you support compromise with the American Nazi Party?
Do you support compromise with ISIS?
Why in heaven's name would we compromise with the abomination that has usurped the name of the once-great Party of Abe Lincoln?
We need to acknowledge that not every Republican is a reprobate. It's better to turn criticism toward individuals and certain factions instead of the entire party. This country needs the Republican party—we just need it to send the "deplorables" packing. And IMO, there are many GOPers who feel the same way.

For now the best thing to do is: do not support, do not vote for this current manifestation of the GOP. Help the historical GOP (currently known ironically as RINOs) get their voice back by dealing big losses to the current crop of Satan's Little Brown-nosers.

Trump got elected because a lot of knuckle-dragging Deplorables voted for him but also because a lot of good, sensible Republicans voted "Anyone But Hillary". If Liberals are honest we might admit some ambivalence about our voting choice if a criminal Democratic version of Trump were poised against some hated Republican (say McConnell). But no one would ever admit the possibility of a Liberal ever voting for anyone with less than impeccable morals. (cough).
  #13  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:50 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
There are 2 big obstacles to bipartisanship today:


1. Both sides are convinced the other side is out to screw them. "Bipartisanship" sounds less like cooperation for national good and more like "They will bend us over while we provide the lube."

2. Humans naturally tend to perceive things as slanted against them; the referee effect. In the same way that a ref can officiate fairly 50/50 but fans of both teams think the ref was 30% for and 70% against their team, you can have Democrats and Republicans meet at a table and come away with an agreement that splits things 50/50 but both sides think that they walked away with a deal that gave too much to the other side and too little to theirs.
  #14  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:53 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Mitt Romney — If he were a Democrat running for President he'd have my support.

John Kasich — I detest every single one of his political opinions and wouldn't like to imagine him as President. But he honestly believes in his ideology and wants what's best for America. Bravo.

The Bushes: George, Dubya and Jeb — I thought Dubya's Presidency was an abomination. But he was a good-spirited patriot. He didn't try to sell out America for a few pieces of silver. And this family had the gumption to oppose what the GOP has transmogrified into.

But 95% of today's Republicans are dominated by hatred, lies and greed. And fully support an obvious criminal, fraudster and traitor.

What would "bipartisan compromise" with such an ilk even mean? Only lock half the asylum-seeking babies in cages? Plan to send men back to the Moon as a foolish publicity stunt, but save money by not bringing them back? Let women get abortions only in alternating months? Waste $5 trillion on tax cuts for the rich instead of $10 trillion? Force voters in D-leaning precincts to wait 3 hours to vote instead of 6 hours? Prattle lies about Hillary et al only on weekdays, not on weekends too?

I ask OP: Do you support compromise with the Ku Klux Klan?
Do you support compromise with the American Communist Party?
Do you support compromise with the American Nazi Party?
Do you support compromise with ISIS?
Why in heaven's name would we compromise with the abomination that has usurped the name of the once-great Party of Abe Lincoln?
We always hear that the only good Republicans are the ones safely in the past. As soon as a Republican leader is shuffled off into death or retirement, they become the model of sanity and restraint, unlike today's candidates who are all nuts.

A couple years after Trump leaves the national stage you will hear, "I didn't like Trump, but at least he is not a crazy warmonger/unrepentant racist like these current candidates"
  #15  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:55 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Mitt Romney — If he were a Democrat running for President he'd have my support.
This is what you say now. This sure wasn't what Democrats were saying about him in 2012.
  #16  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:07 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is what you say now. This sure wasn't what Democrats were saying about him in 2012.
Who knew at that time that the Republicans would decide that the best tool to use when stuck in a moral/ethical pit would be a steam shovel?
  #17  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is what you say now. This sure wasn't what Democrats were saying about him in 2012.
That's because that year they were busy telling us how they would have happily supported John McCain.
  #18  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:15 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There are 2 big obstacles to bipartisanship today:


1. Both sides are convinced the other side is out to screw them. "Bipartisanship" sounds less like cooperation for national good and more like "They will bend us over while we provide the lube."

2. Humans naturally tend to perceive things as slanted against them; the referee effect. In the same way that a ref can officiate fairly 50/50 but fans of both teams think the ref was 30% for and 70% against their team, you can have Democrats and Republicans meet at a table and come away with an agreement that splits things 50/50 but both sides think that they walked away with a deal that gave too much to the other side and too little to theirs.
When I was learning to drive, there was a rather narrow busy 2-lane street near our house. When I was driving alone with my mother she said I was too close to the parked cars. When I was driving alone with my father he said I was too close to the center line. Even at 15 I figured out I must be doing it about right.

My attitude towards a centrist, bi-partisan, compromise approach to national politics is that we need someone who wants to and who can make it work. I might still agitate for a more liberal answer to issues than the compromise position, but I would still celebrate any moves in my direction.

I think it's a mistake to call the entire Republican party corrupt or insane. There is plenty of corruption to go around in both parties; I don't think it's the fault of the ideology, it's the fault of there being so much money in it, as Kearsen 1 mentioned. Reform of the things that allow money to rule is a genuinely bi-partisan issue that it should be possible to sell to the voters.

One issue I would like to talk about is the possibility of understanding what it is that the other guy really wants. You don't do this by throwing brickbats or cherry-picking the most outrageous thing you can find. You do it by asking, and listening, and validating that you heard correctly. For example, some Trump supporters like him because he is so clearly not a politician. This is more important to them than policies or issues they don't really understand, but because they are so sick and tired of politicians who, by and large, talk out of one side of their mouths while acting completely differently. They seem to like that they can often understand where he is coming from and what he wants. The idea that what he wants is not good for the country doesn't seem to resonate as much.

So how do you address that? By calling them names? Their dislike of regular politicians is very understandable to me. There's a way of talking that instantly says "politician weasel words" to me. The way to address that is to meet the need with an outspoken and straight-speaking candidate who says plainly what they mean, and who means generally good things for the country. That's supposed to be political suicide. I would sure like to see that proven wrong.

Of course this person would have to be smart enough not to be taken in, and strong enough not to be walked over. That's a pretty tall order, and I rather doubt the Democrats have anyone like that in their stable this round.
  #19  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Funny thing about fence-sitters: Complain about Republican shenanigans and they pop up to explain how the Democrats are somehow equally as bad...but anyone who complains about Democrats gets a free pass from them.
  #20  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:36 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,963
Let me walk back my comments a bit. I wrote
"But 95% of today's Republicans are dominated by hatred, lies and greed."
I should have clarified that a large fraction of GOP voters are not fully onboard the Hatred-Lies-Greed wagon: they're just too ignorant, stupid, gullible and/or obstinate to understand that's what the GOP has become.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
We need to acknowledge that not every Republican is a reprobate. ...
Cite? Donald Trump received more votes than any other Republican candidate in history. Gopster Senators bent over backwards to put scumbags like DeVos and Kavanaugh into the highest positions of power. AFAIK only Bricker among the Board's right-wingers voted for Hillary. (Some "conservatives" here claim to have voted for Nitwit Johnson, effectively voiding their ballot.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
This is what you say now. This sure wasn't what Democrats were saying about him in 2012.
Speak for yourself. I made a post in 2012 right here at SDMB defending Romney from unfair criticism. Bricker even complimented me on it.
  #21  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:44 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Funny thing about fence-sitters: Complain about Republican shenanigans and they pop up to explain how the Democrats are somehow equally as bad...but anyone who complains about Democrats gets a free pass from them.
Probably because by and large, most of the criticism over shenanigans is over Republican shenanigans these days (this is the Trump era, after all.) When 80% of the criticism is against the R's and only 20% is against the D's, the fence-sitters who are seeking a sense of "balance" wouldn't feel the need to stop anyone who criticizes the D's, since in their perception that would be pushing things back towards the center.
  #22  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:45 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Speak for yourself. I made a post in 2012 right here at SDMB defending Romney from unfair criticism. Bricker even complimented me on it.
Apologies, I stand corrected then.
  #23  
Old 10-21-2019, 03:47 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Funny thing about fence-sitters: Complain about Republican shenanigans and they pop up to explain how the Democrats are somehow equally as bad...but anyone who complains about Democrats gets a free pass from them.
And you still can't for the love of all that is holy understand why that would be true on this board of all places? It leans heavily in your favor, you get plenty of support for all kinds of craziness here. You don't need any help from the Republicans or conservatives of this board to defend anything the Democrats do, or don't do.


Contrary to popular belief, most of the conservatives on this board are really moderate. Bone, puddle, XT, Me, hell I'd even lump Hurricane in the moderate category. Some of them are really passionate about 1 or other issues (say Gun Control) but most of them support fairly centrist policies.
But you are so much further left than center that you see your particular center as center politic. It isn't.

My centrist views are called crazy.

I like when the house and/or Senate is controlled by a different political party than the presidency. It means that only truly bipartisan bills will pass.
  #24  
Old 10-21-2019, 04:00 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
But you are so much further left than center that you see your particular center as center politic. It isn't.
Interesting. You decry labels on the one hand, then label me on the other. Can you name my far-left positions?
  #25  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
And you still can't for the love of all that is holy understand why that would be true on this board of all places? It leans heavily in your favor, you get plenty of support for all kinds of craziness here. You don't need any help from the Republicans or conservatives of this board to defend anything the Democrats do, or don't do. ...
This. I feel confident that a goodly number of Dopers stand ready to call out any moral failings they detect from the right side of the political spectrum. There are significantly fewer willing to call out moral failings from the Left, or perhaps its that they're not as skilled at detecting the moral failings of the Left.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
... One issue I would like to talk about is the possibility of understanding what it is that the other guy really wants. You don't do this by throwing brickbats or cherry-picking the most outrageous thing you can find. You do it by asking, and listening, and validating that you heard correctly. ...
This is, I think, one of the most valuable services the SDMB provides. I like hearing my political opponents opinions on the issue of the day and what direction they'd like the country to take, and why. I don't often agree, but I find value in at least understanding the opposing perspective. I think it lends itself to fewer of the "everyone on the other side is a monster"-style rants.

Plus, I learn cool new words like "brickbat".
  #26  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:11 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,963
I'm curious how the Board's "conservatives" (or "moderates" ) would label me. I believe the scientists over the liars on climate change — does that make me a leftist? I join Nobel prize-winning economists on BOTH the left and the right to want a move toward some form of UBI — does that make me a Stalinist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
... Contrary to popular belief, most of the conservatives on this board are really moderate. Bone, puddle, XT, Me, hell I'd even lump Hurricane in the moderate category....
My centrist views are called crazy.
XT, IIRC, voted for Hillary. Puddle is definitely no moderate. Recall Hurricane's famous quote about Tim McVeigh: How could you possibly call him a moderate?

I oppose racial hatred; I oppose lying by government officials; I oppose the promotion of raw greed over all other motives and purposes. — With these views, in your dialect am I allowed to call myself a centrist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I like when the house and/or Senate is controlled by a different political party than the presidency. It means that only truly bipartisan bills will pass.
Renaming post offices is governance at its best, hunh?

Last edited by septimus; 10-21-2019 at 05:12 PM.
  #27  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'm curious how the Board's "conservatives" (or "moderates" ) would label me. I believe the scientists over the liars on climate change — does that make me a leftist? I join Nobel prize-winning economists on BOTH the left and the right to want a move toward some form of UBI — does that make me a Stalinist? ...
I've certainly never thought of you as a centrist. Beyond that I'm leery to test how far the moderators would tolerate me sharing labels for you in this forum.
  #28  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:29 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,465
Back in Obama's time the republican party overtly stated their abandonment of bipartisanship. With this as their overt policy, they rather literally declared war on democracy. Their actions since then have been fairly consistent with that approach - it's no longer about what the people want or what's good for the people (even their constituents); it's about how they can keep their electorate voting for them by making the democrats a hated enemy to be voted against at all costs.

I don't really see how that can be resolved through negotiation - anti-democracy is a winning strategy. A totally corrupt and evil one, yes, but it makes for a really, really motivated electorate, which is all politicians need. About the only thing that can defeat it is what might end up happening - for the liberals to get so pissed at Trump and the republican politicians that they rise up in force and push through an actual Blue Wave this time, before lapsing back into complacency.

So no, democrats are not going to be able to work with republicans through reasonableness and bipartisanship; that was the Obama approach and look where that took us. So what's the ideal outcome? In my fantasy world there would be an overwhelming blue wave and the republican party is obliterated forever - and then the democrats would make a serious effort to deal with rural poverty, job loss, and drug use. We can't make them happy regarding racism, religion, sexism, abortion, sexuality, or any other moral front - but they're still americans goddammit, and we shouldn't abandon them to the economic bed they're lying in.
  #29  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:47 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... it's about how they can keep their electorate voting for them ...
It seems strange to label a strategy that is focused on winning votes "anti-democracy".


Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
... In my fantasy world there would be an overwhelming blue wave and the republican party is obliterated forever - and then the democrats would make a serious effort to deal with rural poverty, job loss, and drug use. We can't make them happy regarding racism, religion, sexism, abortion, sexuality, or any other moral front - but they're still americans goddammit, and we shouldn't abandon them to the economic bed they're lying in.
Why would the dems have to wait until after this fantasy blue wave to deal with rural poverty, job loss, and drug use? Couldn't they do that, like, now? Or at least "make a serious effort to"? ISTM that if they were to do so, it might even help in bringing about the electoral victories you so crave.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-21-2019 at 05:49 PM.
  #30  
Old 10-21-2019, 06:00 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 16,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
AFAIK only Bricker among the Board's right-wingers voted for Hillary.
I figure I qualify.
  #31  
Old 10-21-2019, 06:02 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It seems strange to label a strategy that is focused on winning votes "anti-democracy".
Representative democracy is about representatives from the various regions coming together to work together to decide what should be done, based on best serving the interests of their electorate due to the presumed motivation of earning their electorate's approval by representing their interests. The republican approach of late has been to oppose everything that the democrats propose, up to and including republican health care plans, and then use propaganda channels inform their electorate that the proposed things were evil to start with. No effort is made to ACTUALLY represent the electorate's interests, since they are not selling what they accomplish, but rather what they stand against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Why would the dems have to wait until after this fantasy blue wave to deal with rural poverty, job loss, and drug use? Couldn't they do that, like, now? Or at least "make a serious effort to"? ISTM that if they were to do so, it might even help in bringing about the electoral victories you so crave.
The democrats can't deal with rural problems now because the republicans would oppose it and prevent it from proceeding, while simultaneously painting it as something reprehensible somehow. Their opposition to democratic initiatives is reflexive, and certainly trump the idea of benefiting their electorate. Especially if the democrats put forth an idea that benefits their electorate - can you imagine how they'd react to the idea of the democrats appealing to their base?
  #32  
Old 10-21-2019, 06:25 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Funny thing about fence-sitters: Complain about Republican shenanigans and they pop up to explain how the Democrats are somehow equally as bad...but anyone who complains about Democrats gets a free pass from them.
Was this directed at me? If so, I think it is inaccurate and misleading.

A fence-sitter is someone who can't make up their mind. On the contrary, my mind is quite made up. I suspect your problem with me is that I don't think that the Democrats, as they exist today, are the answer or the solution to the Republicans, as they exist today. The fact that I'm not screaming in every post about how bad the Republicans are you mistake for indifference or complacency. Not so.

What I am groping for here is a different way for us to direct our political energies, one that doesn't end either in one-party rule or in complete chaos. Neither party seems very interested in that sort of discussion, nor do any of the candidates that I've heard. That's what I would like to change.
  #33  
Old 10-21-2019, 07:13 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,465
The only way we're going to get one-party rule is if the republican vote-interference initiatives succeed. America has historically shown that when one political party dies out another springs up to replace it. You know, like happens with sith lords.
  #34  
Old 10-21-2019, 07:32 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
Originally Posted by septimus
AFAIK only Bricker among the Board's right-wingers voted for Hillary.
I figure I qualify.
Yes, sorry. I did have that vague memory, but you've not been vocal lately.

For those who do NOT think I'm a "centrist," I wonder what specific policies you can point to that I've advocated that make me a "leftist." I've specifically denounced Warren's M4A and student loan forgiveness (although I adore her as a person). I've advocated a libertarian (in the old 20th-century sense) approach to pollution mitigation. Guns Guns Guns are the three dominant political issues for many "conservatives" — I've ridiculed both sides of that debate, and recently was denounced for calling the thousands of extra American gun-deaths "irrelevant."

Hint: Anger at ignorant right-wing haters does not make me a "left-winger," no matter how extreme that well-placed anger might be.
  #35  
Old 10-21-2019, 08:06 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yes, sorry. I did have that vague memory, but you've not been vocal lately.

For those who do NOT think I'm a "centrist," I wonder what specific policies you can point to that I've advocated that make me a "leftist." I've specifically denounced Warren's M4A and student loan forgiveness (although I adore her as a person). I've advocated a libertarian (in the old 20th-century sense) approach to pollution mitigation. Guns Guns Guns are the three dominant political issues for many "conservatives" — I've ridiculed both sides of that debate, and recently was denounced for calling the thousands of extra American gun-deaths "irrelevant."

Hint: Anger at ignorant right-wing haters does not make me a "left-winger," no matter how extreme that well-placed anger might be.
Demonstrating the trouble, of course, with Us and Them thinking -- if you're not Us you must be Them. And vice versa.

It seems ridiculous to me for anyone to have to recite their bona fides in this way. Individual people have individual positions on different issues; there are lots of people who don't follow the party line down the whole ticket.
  #36  
Old 10-21-2019, 08:21 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
XT, IIRC, voted for Hillary. Puddle is definitely no moderate. Recall Hurricane's famous quote about Tim McVeigh: How could you possibly call him a moderate?
I don't recall. Could you link to that quote please? Thanks.

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 10-21-2019 at 08:24 PM.
  #37  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:26 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
I don't recall. Could you link to that quote please? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Timothy McVeigh's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
...
  #38  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:41 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,651
Thanks, septimus.
  #39  
Old 10-21-2019, 09:54 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,475
I don't think bipartisanship is possible anymore. I feel the right has become reactionary and hateful towards the left, and now the left has responded in kind.

I mean, I think on the left we'd be open to working in good faith on solving serious problems. The issue is that we disagree on what count as serious problems. Climate change, health care? We don't agree that these are problems.

On issues where we agree there is a problem (like long term deficits) our approaches are totally different.

I think W Bush was the last president who enjoyed and real bipartisanship or for the parties to cross the isle on political agendas (he got republicans to vote for medicare D).

It'll probably be the 2030s before bipartisanship is possible again. If that.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #40  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:27 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
... hell I'd even lump Hurricane in the moderate category....
I'm curious. Does #37 have an effect on this assessment?
  #41  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:39 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
If the posters of this board and in this thread are any indication of the real feelings of the left then abs-o-fucking-lutely NO compromise.

Why should anyone have to compromise with another person/group who calls them Nazis & Racists & whatever else?

I despise the hardcore left more than just about anything and I'm in full support of any politician who gives them a nice public middle finger at every available opportunity.

I mean Kavanaugh was a perfect example of the pure filth the left will lay out without a fucking care in the world. Compromise with that? Fuck no.

The game is broken, both sides do everything in their power to manipulate, poison-pill, soundbite. Everything is an angle. Bills are blocked for no good reason other than not wanting the other side to have a win.
  #42  
Old 10-21-2019, 11:10 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
I mean Kavanaugh was a perfect example of the pure filth the left will lay out without a fucking care in the world. Compromise with that? Fuck no.

.
I'm genuinely curious what was so wrong about what was done to Kavanaugh. If he has a history of sexually abusing women that is going to factor into his attitudes about women's rights.

Also the right has no issue going back to the 70s to dig up dirt on the Clintons, so why is this different?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #43  
Old 10-21-2019, 11:51 PM
Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
When I was learning to drive, there was a rather narrow busy 2-lane street near our house. When I was driving alone with my mother she said I was too close to the parked cars. When I was driving alone with my father he said I was too close to the center line. Even at 15 I figured out I must be doing it about right.

My attitude towards a centrist, bi-partisan, compromise approach to national politics is that we need someone who wants to and who can make it work. I might still agitate for a more liberal answer to issues than the compromise position, but I would still celebrate any moves in my direction.

I think it's a mistake to call the entire Republican party corrupt or insane. There is plenty of corruption to go around in both parties; I don't think it's the fault of the ideology, it's the fault of there being so much money in it, as Kearsen 1 mentioned. Reform of the things that allow money to rule is a genuinely bi-partisan issue that it should be possible to sell to the voters.

One issue I would like to talk about is the possibility of understanding what it is that the other guy really wants. You don't do this by throwing brickbats or cherry-picking the most outrageous thing you can find. You do it by asking, and listening, and validating that you heard correctly. For example, some Trump supporters like him because he is so clearly not a politician. This is more important to them than policies or issues they don't really understand, but because they are so sick and tired of politicians who, by and large, talk out of one side of their mouths while acting completely differently. They seem to like that they can often understand where he is coming from and what he wants. The idea that what he wants is not good for the country doesn't seem to resonate as much.

So how do you address that? By calling them names? Their dislike of regular politicians is very understandable to me. There's a way of talking that instantly says "politician weasel words" to me. The way to address that is to meet the need with an outspoken and straight-speaking candidate who says plainly what they mean, and who means generally good things for the country. That's supposed to be political suicide. I would sure like to see that proven wrong.

Of course this person would have to be smart enough not to be taken in, and strong enough not to be walked over. That's a pretty tall order, and I rather doubt the Democrats have anyone like that in their stable this round.
I also use a car analogy for politics, you can't have a car that only has an accelerator (Progressivism) or only has a brake (Conservatism) is useless, you need both because while it's good that you can accelerate towards a destination if you don't have functioning brakes you are going nowhere but the hospital.
I would say that, personally I think that the people on the pedal-to-the-metal side of the continuum are the most likely to cause the most damage; I do recognize that parking in the middle of a train crossing is bound to end in tragedy, but statistically speaking, its the speeding that kills.

This is why, if anything, I'd call myself a moderate, which contrary to what the extremist love to claim doesn't mean that if I'm in a car going 100km/h and a dear old lady walks into the road my choice would be to slow down to 50km/h and run down the old lady anyway.
  #44  
Old 10-22-2019, 12:21 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm genuinely curious what was so wrong about what was done to Kavanaugh. If he has a history of sexually abusing women ...
That's a pretty big "if"
  #45  
Old 10-22-2019, 05:47 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'm genuinely curious what was so wrong about what was done to Kavanaugh. If he has a history of sexually abusing women
That was one of the biggest and most obvious attempts at public humiliation and slander I think I've ever seen and was so obviously partisan it was insane. Its plays into the Democrats whole strategy where facts dont matter, just news cycles and soundbites, truth and objectivity be damned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Also the right has no issue going back to the 70s to dig up dirt on the Clintons, so why is this different?
The Clintons are legacy Democrats with actual dirt to dig up.

But again, it seems like the left justifies everything they do by what the right does, aka a twisted form of 'retaliation' so I guess if thats the political standard you wanna go by then go for it.
  #46  
Old 10-22-2019, 08:12 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Suppose your side wins the presidency and both houses in 2020.


See, here's the thing: That outcome would be the compromise. There's no way the Democrats can pull this off without lots of former GOP voters essentially deciding for themselves to compromise with the Democratic Party, in opposition to what the GOP has become over the last 10 years.

Compromise with the GOP party leadership is effectively impossible at this point. But with their voters? Maybe. Leave the GOP party out in the cold for a few election cycles, and see if that convinces them to reign in the crazy wing.

This is pretty much where I am at with respect to Canadian politics, btw.
  #47  
Old 10-22-2019, 08:35 AM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
That was one of the biggest and most obvious attempts at public humiliation and slander I think I've ever seen and was so obviously partisan it was insane. Its plays into the Democrats whole strategy where facts dont matter, just news cycles and soundbites, truth and objectivity be damned.

The Clintons are legacy Democrats with actual dirt to dig up.

But again, it seems like the left justifies everything they do by what the right does, aka a twisted form of 'retaliation' so I guess if thats the political standard you wanna go by then go for it.
So your argument is its ok when Republicans dig up dirt but when democrats do it it is unfair slander?

To me, you are so radicalized that facts, law, morality and good/evil have been abandoned in favor of tribalism. You remind me of the gop voters who felt Roy Moore was being 'railroaded' because the press investigated him being a child abuser.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #48  
Old 10-22-2019, 09:03 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
Go back to 2008 and ask that question. I think Obama sacrificed his whole presidency on this point. The Republicans said publicly that their only goal was to prevent Obama from winning reelection. Obama was a slightly rewarmed Republican health care proposal. But not one single Republican supported it and now they are trying their damnedest to destroy it in the courts. Had Obama known what was coming he could have put in a real medicare for all plan with his 60 votes in the senate. Now anything like that is dead for a generation. If anything, the Republicans are even less interested in compromise now than they were 10 years ago.
If he had tried for an M4A plan in 2008, it wouldn't have passed even with a filibuster-proof senate. There were Democrats who wouldn't pass the ACA with a public option. So, I don't think there's anything else that Obama or Pelosi could've done at that time, even with large majorities in the Senate. The Democrats were bargaining amongst themselves.
  #49  
Old 10-22-2019, 01:07 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
XT, IIRC, voted for Hillary. Puddle is definitely no moderate. Recall Hurricane's famous quote about Tim McVeigh: How could you possibly call him a moderate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
I don't recall. Could you link to that quote please? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think Timothy McVeigh's actions were not an entirely unreasonable reaction to Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I'm curious. Does #37 have an effect on this assessment?
@septimus - I realize you offered this loosely in response to ongoing discussions, but this is a hijack and it's out of place in this forum to personalize discussion in this fashion. You seem to have a fixation on this particular point. I have previously cautioned you against bringing this up in unrelated threads else you be warned for harassment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I considered issuing a warning for this given my previous note in post #166, but I am open to the possibility it wasn't crystal clear. McVeigh isn't germane to this thread. Introducing it in this fashion is akin to harassment. Don't do this any further.

[/moderating]
After that instruction, you proceeded to bring it up several times. In chronological order:
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Oh, Hurricane. I remember you!

Have we asked the liberals whether they can condemn Timothy McAntifa's mass murder of 169 people in Oklahoma? Sure, that massacre committed by a liberal crusader wasn't entirely unreasonable, and hardly as egregious as petite Yvette Felarca's oh-so-very-unreasonable shoving of a Nazi; but you'd think these liberal hypocrites would at least offer a token apology. They got their panties twisted when despicable Heather Heyer threw herself in front of a Nazi car which couldn't stop in time, but can't quite bring themselves to admit McAntifa's mass murder in Oklahoma wasn't entirely reasonable. Sheeeeesh. How can you pro-Nazis put up with this place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
To paraphrase OP when he was applauding the patriotic gesture of Tim McVeigh, I'm not entirely sure that Mr. Ditka is entirely ...
SPOILER:
[deleted]
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Too optimistic? Perhaps. But we must hope for something, lest we start thinking that solutions involving explosives are not entirely unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
@ Hurricane: Your insightful commentaries are always .... interesting to read; but I, for one, wish you'd sometimes follow through and complete a thought. Would that be entirely unreasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Once upon a time it wasn't entirely unreasonable to think some of the posts from you two were not entirely unreasonable. What happened? Dawning realization that your boy is an incompetent criminal is causing cognitive breakdown?
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Are you sure AOC's diction is entirely unreasonable?

If you continue to bring up McVeigh, "entirely unreasonable", or anything that I think is along those lines a single time in any GD or Elections thread in any fashion that isn't specifically and directly related to the topic, you will receive a warning. Do not do this again.

[/moderating]
  #50  
Old 10-22-2019, 01:19 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,617
There are compromise-able issues and uncompromisable ones.

Fixing the budget deficit/debt is perfectly compromisable. Just get Democrats to agree to enough spending cuts, and Republicans to agree to enough tax hikes, and you get there.

Abortion, on the other hand, is not compromisable. You have one side who considers abortion to be murder (how can you agree to 50% murders instead of 100%?) and another side who sees it as a blatant violation of a woman's autonomy and right to her body (how can you agree to a woman being controlled/overriden only 50% instead of 100%?) There is no happy middle ground.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017