Constructive political compromise -- possible? Desirable?

It’s pretty hard to compromise when you’ve decided that the other party is almost completely filled with evil, incompetent morons.

The incompetent part isn’t really a problem, and while it’s not fun negotiating with morons it’s still entirely possible and can result in curbstomp victories.

And, sadly, america has been negotiating with evil people worldwide for decades. This tends not to work out well in the long run, but dealing with devils still happens.

Where things really fall apart, though, is when the other party refuses to compromise with you.

Politics is overlapping with the troll/meme era.

Everything is being made with one eye on how many retweets and likes you can get.

It’s only going to get worse because the old faces are going to retire/die off and be replaced by a bunch of people who have grown up politically (or generally) with the idea that you have to “own” “destroy” “humiliate” the other side.

I agree

Pretty much. We’re in an era that only rewards zingers and burns.

Actually it’s two examples of compromise so far, because there was also the budget proposal. And these are comprises on significant, core issues.

Versus zero that support your recollection.
Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk

I think one thing that democrats overlook is how much republicans are compromising within the party. I’ve heard fiscal conservatives on this board complain about being shackled to the agenda of religious consevatives. Guess what? The feeling is mutual!
I think a lot of conservatives feel like they’re already given away most of the store to the other wing of their own party before they even start talking to democrats.

In my admittedly limited view, there are the laypeople and the politicians. And when it comes to the republican party I think that the two groups have widely divergent goals - I think that relatively few republican politicians really give a crap about guns or abortion, for example. (If they did they’d have done more about it while they were in power.)

The point I’m leading to is, while I’m sure that there are a lot of begrudging laymen republicans who are uncomfortable with some of the people they’re rubbing shoulders with, I’m less convinced that the high level politicians have a problem - votes is votes is votes, after all.

Now this. I think I will need to give this up as quixotic at best.

But I have to say I am not sanguine about the future of our country. It’s not that I think we can’t come back for a while from the poison of 45. But I fear the improvements will be on the surface mostly, and the underlying ugly divide will just get worse.

Trump is the symptom, not the cause. Complaining about the searing pain in your side instead of the appendix about to explode. Sure, the pain makes things much more noticeable, but you could, say, Sedate the country with pretty much any nice guy politician, and that appendix is still gonna explode.

This is becoming pretty much a global phonemenon btw.

Why, thank you for your enlightening and so original post. I can’t imagine what I meant by “the underlying ugly divide” when of course I thought that 45 was the whole and entire problem in himself. I can’t imagine why I had any need to worry about the future when all we need to do is vote him out of office (and hopefully into a penitentiary). Because I haven’t a brain cell in my pretty little head.

Wow, Is there some underlying reason you’re attacking me? I can’t imagine that having an unoriginal thought would warrant that. My post was not in the least bit a critique of you or your line of thinking. Simply my observation, as unoriginal as it may seem. My apologies.

Because the methods to address those issues would not be accepted by the Right because they are not based on “Old Testament - punishment methodology” or the ever so lovely “I got mine, screw you ideology”. The war on drugs, how’d that work out? Other nations have addressed these issues through treatment of the users and punishment of the suppliers. News flash: no one wants to be an addict. Oh but there’s that pesky mantra of those who just cum in their pants over the concept of “punishing those who made poor decisions”. Using my best drawl…“that’ll learn 'em”.

Job loss? Well there’s training. Ah, again here’s the rub. Businesses want a well trained efficient work force but don’t want to spend a penny seeing that it exists. They’d rather let foreigners in who had their higher educations paid for by governments who actually support education than pay to see education actually made a priority here.

Do not say or imply that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves in glee/distress due to recent news reports, political iconography, contemplation of ideological positions, etc. I see the slight variation in referring to “the right” but never the less, refrain from this type of base sexual commentary.



You said it for me but better.

When one side refuses to ratify a supreme court judge for no reason except that they can? The system is broken but it isn’t the Dems who broke it.

I’m going to ask again – where do you go from there? I am so not interested in blame for where we are (although you are right about that, but it’s in the past and we can’t change the past), I am interested in what people think are viable ways to get somewhere better, and to keep it better longer term. Dems may smash the R’s in 2020, but look out for 2022, and here we are again. Dems may do well for the next 8 years, but look out for 2028, someone who’ll make 45 look like the good old days. And so it goes…down.

So if Dems can’t compromise with Republicans because Republicans don’t play fair, what are the specific and concrete ways they can work to steer the ship of state in a better direction?

For my money, if the Dems get the Presidency and both houses next year, they should spend all their energy for two years on election reform. They should force the Republicans to filibuster every time and not just give in to the threat. Make the R’s sing out loud about how they like the corruption that we have now, and shame them before the voters. This is me being naive and idealistic, but if there is one thing that would make me think there’s hope, it’s this.

I don’t think this is an accurate narrative though.
I think it’s more accurate to say we have a party that doesn’t compromise, and a party that weakly kow tows over and over again, because they are too concerned with appearing fair. And then the media “both sides” it anyway.

(I’m not saying the dems should break the rules, just insist that the rules get followed and hammer the republicans for not doing so, instead of constantly ceding ground)

Agree, but I guess I am more pessimistic than you right now.
We long ago (in fact, I would say, before the election) jumped the shark of terrible misconduct that should have been punished by the electorate. And we regularly see shameful events somehow spun as positives on fox news.

The world we live in now is just one where politicians only need to tell a compelling story within a particular bubble. Not care about reality and what might be good for the country.

I confess my wording was deliberate. And I like the way you put the solution (hammering the Republicans instead of rolling over).

Among other distinctions, Tom Nichols was the Chairman of National Security Affairs and the Forrest Sherman Chair of Public Diplomacy at the U.S. Naval War College.

“Compromise”? Is it to laugh.