By “deal with the Devil” I mean concede a major policy goal of the other side, in exchange for a major policy goal in alignment with your own side.
As a leftist, I’d be happy to make a deal with the right wing to never pursue any gun control laws, in exchange for the legalization of marijuana.
If I’m allowed to trade shit I don’t care about strongly, I can think of dozens. Gun control. Yucca Mountain. Card Check. Trade restrictions. Campaign finance laws. Affirmative action. Vouchers. I’d give up any of those for relatively minor concessions.
If I have to trade something I actually care about, I can still think of a few. I’d trade immigration reform for sensible energy policy (carbon tax or some other method of internalizing pollution costs). I might trade parental consent (with judicial exceptions) for abortion for repeal of DOMA. I’d trade death penalty reform for drug policy reform.
I’d be willing to accept significant restrictions on abortion (parental consent for those under 18, no abortions after the first trimester unless it was for the health or life of the mother, even a mandated ultra sound to guilt trip the woman into not having an abortion) in exchange for single payer, universal health care.
I’d do this, mainly because I’m a lefty gun-nut who likes dope.
No. The problem with deals with the Devil is that he’s the Devil. Making a deal with malignant and untrustworthy people means that they will use whatever concessions you give them to impose cruelty, and they won’t keep up their end of the bargain if they have a choice.
To use the example of parental permission for abortions that others have mentioned; what you are actually talking about is letting conservative judges force girls who have been molested to bear their rapist’s child, or to beg their rapist for permission for an abortion (and hope he doesn’t kill her for it). That’s what actually happens now in places with parental consent. Is repealing DOMA worth tormenting and killing girls? Let’s make the bargain more direct; same sex couples can get married, but only if they are raped first. Would that be a fair bargain?
You can’t make deals with monsters, without the result being monstrous.
I’m really a Libertarian more than a Republican, so with the modern Fox-news Republicans, sure, there’s a whole hell of a lot that I’m willing to “give up” if a Libertarian Republican were to enter a race.
I’d consider both of those bad bargains, since I think we’ll get both without that sort of concession. And as much as I am in favor of repealing DOMA, a woman’s right to her body is greater than anyone’s right to marry, for me.
As a leftist, I’d happily give up legalization of marijuana for sane gun control laws. Hell, I’d consider letting the conservatives ship drug legalization advocates off to Gitmo for sane gun control laws for or a number of other issues.
That’s an exaggeration, sure, but with all the things in the world needing fixing, choosing the right to fuck your own brain up over, say, reproductive rights, preventing needless gun crimes and deaths, the rights of gays to marry, universal health care or… hell, pretty much anything… you’ve demonstrated a pretty skewed set of priorities.
If the one freedom that means the most to you is the right to puff reality away then I won’t shed a tear if you lose the rest of them.
Dan Norder: If instead of “legalization of marijuana”, he’d said “an end to the War On Drugs” would your answer have been the same?
I assume you know this and were just being needlessly flippant, but there’s a lot more to the pro-legalisation position than “the right to puff reality away”.
Quite a few issues with the Left in exchange for banning abortion unless if the mother’s life is threatened.
Would you agree to an offer to ban abortion in exchange for drastically scaling down the U.S military (to where we spend slightly more per capita than Europe does, we’d have enough to defend ourselves from invasion but not enough to be World Police anymore), and using the extra money for social welfare programs (including contraception)?
Good point.
DOMA isn’t just (or at all, really) about the right to marry. It is about immigration, health care, and so much more. It really pervades every aspect of federal law.
And not all infringements on abortion rights are equal. In my view, parental consent with judicial exceptions is not a great idea, but it is the least bad infringement on abortion rights.
I’d do it because I’m a righty gun advocate who…likes the 5th Amendment. 
Wouldn’t trade away Abortion under any circumstance, not even restrictions (it’s not mine to trade). Guns for anything would be too easy since I’m a pro-gun lefty.
I could probably deal on vouchers or charter schools. If I could get traction on drastic cuts to military, I’d be willing to kick some back in tax cuts for all incomes.
But YOU, of course, are perfectly trustworthy, and a conservative who made a deal with YOU would never get stabbed in the back, right?
Yes, I’m trustworthy, and yes I regard myself as the moral superior of conservatives - not because I’m all that good, but because they are so very horrible. They make such a point of being vile people after all. And I wouldn’t make a deal with a conservative in the first place so the issue wouldn’t arise.
I’ve played enough Dungeons & Dragons to know that the monkey’s paw will always get you in the end. No deals with the opposition.
I’d give away some truly significant ground on economic policy in exchange for universal health care and gay marriage.
I’m willing to let 'em have guns and nuclear energy. I kinda like both of those things. I don’t understand the fetish for guns, but whatever.
However, if there’s one thing the Right has taught us over the past few years, it’s that the Right’s version of “compromise” is “do everything we demand and we’ll *still *torpedo anything you try to do”. So yeah, fuck 'em.
If the left gave up on providing health care, I’d be willing to let them have their way on immigration… I’d probably throw in stopping the ‘war on drugs’ as a bonus incentive.