Constructive political compromise -- possible? Desirable?

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.

Apologies, I stand corrected then.

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.

Interesting. You decry labels on the one hand, then label me on the other. Can you name my far-left positions?

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.

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”.

I’m curious how the Board’s “conservatives” (or “moderates” :smack: ) 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?

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?

Renaming post offices is governance at its best, hunh?

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.

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.

It seems strange to label a strategy that is focused on winning votes “anti-democracy”.

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.

I figure I qualify.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I don’t recall. Could you link to that quote please? Thanks.

Thanks, septimus.

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.

I’m curious. Does #37 have an effect on this assessment?