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

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

Now, since I asked for “any specific cases” and you provided one, I don’t want to be accused of moving the goalposts. I acknowledge that this was a notable instance. But I do contend that one instance, even a notable one, doesn’t really warrant a conclusion.
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

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?
Maybe.
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.

Maybe.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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”.
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.
[/moderating]
nm

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.
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.

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.

So if Dems can’t compromise with Republicans because Republicans don’t play fair […]
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)
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.
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 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.
… this is the end of the Republican Party as the representative of any kind of coherent political movement. The end of the GOP as anything but a cult of personality has been in the cards for some time now, as Trump has crashed through one constitutional barrier after another while some Republicans defended him and others dithered, hoping to avoid the wrath of their most vocal primary voters.
Trump has destroyed so many norms of American life we once took for granted that there is no space to list them all, from the denigration of veterans to the adoration of dictators, from abandoning the basic dignity we expect from a chief executive to inuring us to lies so numerous that fact-checkers have been nearly defeated in their efforts to keep up.
Trashing the foundations of our political life, however, is not an impeachable offense. Republicans, of course, are arguing that this is nothing more than an attempt by Trump’s opponents to overturn the 2016 election, and if the only basis for impeachment were that Trump is a sociopathic ignoramus, the GOP would be right to insist that this is a matter for the voters and the Electoral College.
Instead, Republicans have now chosen to double down against impeachment in violation of every principle the GOP once claimed to cherish.
Limited government? Trump has argued that impeachment does not apply to him, and that he is beyond even being investigated for any wrongdoing. Republicans agree. The party of national security? Trump cheers on the Republicans trying to subvert closed hearings — the kind they themselves defended when investigating the Benghazi disaster — as they barge into classified facilities with unsecured electronic devices. The guardians of patriotism? Trump enablers derided a decorated combat veteran for even daring to speak the truth about Trump’s misconduct.
The House Republicans have clearly decided to throw themselves on the pyre of Donald Trump’s burning presidency. The last act of this tragedy — and impeachment, no matter how it turns out, is a national tragedy — will be when Senate Republicans meekly submit to the will of Donald Trump and acquit him, like terrified jurors under the glaring eye of a Mafia boss who knows their names.
“Compromise”? Is it to laugh.