Balloon Juice: Compromise (including great answer from Pres. Obama on compromise)

[muriel_volestrangler]

That word in the title is a dirty word to many. It seems to put teabaggers and firebaggers in a suicidal rage and can make partisans of all stripes a wee bit queasy. And yet, compromise is at the heart of our system of government. All progressive progress since 1776 has come through a series of hard and often bitter compromises. To reject the very idea of compromise is to reject the idea that Government by the people, of the people and for the people is a good thing. Because there are a lot of us with many different views and ideas of how to move forward. Some of these ideas are good. Some bad. Quite a few are horrible. Some only improve when tested against other ideas. The best ideas are tested by compromise and improve over the years.
...
This is especially true of the Republican Party which has been taken over by neo-Confederates. Like their fore-bearers of old, this modern Republcan Confederate Party would rather blow up the Nation than compromise on any item that might harm the oligarchs running the con. Then, as now, it was about money and the right of the few to steal the labor of others while passing on the cost of their corruption to the majority. Then, as now, they built their political world view upon a foundation of magical thinking, fear and hate. And then, as now, they would do anything and everything to destroy the President of the United States. Then it was Abraham Lincoln. Now it is Barack Obama.
...

Q Hi. My name is Mary Wagner. I teach government at Blake High School in Montgomery County … And one of the things that we teach our students when we’re teaching them about this governmental system that we have is how important it is in a two-party system to compromise. And my students watched the Republican leadership after the last election saying things out loud like, we’re not going to compromise with the Democrats. And does that mean—are things changing? Do we not use compromise anymore? And what should I teach my students about how our government works if people are saying out loud, we’re not going to compromise with the other party? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:...All of us have particular views, a particular vision, in terms of where we think things should go. But we live in societies, we live in communities. And that means we never get our way a hundred percent of the time. That’s what we teach our kids. That’s what we teach our students. That’s how government has to work.
...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/07/24/compromise/

I think this is a very good summary the current situation, and also why Obama is still looking for compromise, to the annoyance of many DUers - because that's what's needed for the American political system to work. If the Republicans stay intransigent, and Democrats become that, it builds instability into the whole system.

[vi5]

1. I don't disagree with that at it's core...

But the problem is, at a certain point it's not compromise. At a certain point, it's complete capitulation.

I'm not saying compromise has to be 50/50. I understand that's not how life works. But the degree to which these compromises end up being at best 75/25 or even worse, and always in favor of the party which is for all intents and purposes the minority party since they only control the House and Dems control the Senate and the Presidency, is what is very frustrating and disheartening.

Especially when I think very few people are saying there should be no spending cuts for anything at all. And espeially when all data and all history shows that those who are against the cuts and for the revenue increases are correct. A hard fought compromise and even a hard fought loss are one thing. But when the facts aren't pointed out nearly enough, and the case not made with the copious amounts of evidence out there, and to then have to swallow what can barely be called a compromise is what is so bothersome.

And the fact is that a deal that does not include immediate revenue increases, not some vague, maybe down the line at some point we can raise taxes......maybe....but maybe not if we change our mind.....that is not a compromise. That is a full on slaughter.

[WCGreen]

2. I am not against compromise...

But if all the compromising is going one way then that is capitulation.

Compromise is built on the willingness of both side to recognize the legitimacy ot the others stance. If that is not a part of the process then you have tyranny and that does not bode well for a good outcome.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Was Neville Chamberlain right to compromise with Hitler?

There's compromise, there's appeasement, and there's capitulation.

"Fixing" a fully-fake crisis solely by savaging the 99% is one of the latter two, as was OKing Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland,

[daleanime]

4. How do you 'compromise' with fantasies?

:banghead:

[Doctor_J]

5. What a bizarre statement

If the Republicans stay intransigent, and Democrats become that, it builds instability into the whole system.

So we should try for "stability" by giving in to the Repukes?

Man, this country is REALLY in trouble - dead on its feet - when this kind of thinking becomes the norm.

[ProSense]

6. Wait

"If the Republicans stay intransigent, and Democrats become that, it builds instability into the whole system.

So we should try for "stability" by giving in to the Repukes?"

...so Democrats should become "intransigent" like Republicans?

Not becoming intransigent doesn't mean giving into the Republicans. It means acting responsibly.

The "bizarre statement" is implying that Democrats should become like Republicans, say no to everything and watch the country blow up.

[Doctor_J]

8. If the Repukes' goal is to get everything they want,

and ours is to lend stability to the whole thing but continually giving them more and more, then this ceases to become a representative government - it becomes a totalitarian state where the "intransigent" side just issues orders and the rest of us carry those orders out. You think the country "blowing up" is worse than giving in to the terrorists; I happen to disagreee, and, further, believe that if the president had walked into his office on Jan 21, 2009 and said, "The far right ideology of the Republicans has been soundly rejected - they're going to be doing most of the compromising from now on", it wouldn't have gotten to the point where he is preemptively giving away SS and Medicare.

[ProSense]

9. What happens

if they all stand there and pick their noses?

Government was never "my way or the highway." Republicans agree to something one day, and then say no to it the next day. Democrats should not emulate assholes.

[Doctor_J]

10. You're proving my point

Republicans agree to something one day, and then say no to it the next day.

Which is why appeasement is a formula for disaster, and why the president's repeated capitulation to the fascists has boxed him in. If you have no principles that you won't "compromise" away, then your lot is to be treated with contempt and disrespect by allies and enemies alike. The reason the fascists keep attacking is that the president keeps backpedaling.

[libmom74]

14. +1

[Divernan]

7. The author of "Balloon-Juice"blog refers to it as "BJ" -nuff said.

I did like comment 78 from the OP's link:
burnspbesq - July 25, 2011 | 2:05 am · Link

Of all people, Cornel West has come up with the metaphor that nails it.

Obama has been the thermometer far too often. He needs to be the thermostat.

[obxhead]

11. It's not the desire to compromise, but what he is willing to compromise.

It's not fair to compromise the bottom 95% for the gain of the top 1%.

[bemildred]

12. The author is quite correct.

It is unfinished business from 150 years ago that is biting us in the ass now. It is true that compromise is the heart of democratic governance, playing by the rules, and it is also true that compromise cannot be forced, it must be willed. Absent that will to compromise, to play by the rules, what one has is a state of war, implicit or explicit.

[yurbud]

13. the problem is not compromise, but when it's offered and how much: don't give away half upfront

When you give your opponent half the pie before haggling even starts, you'll be lucky to end up with the crumbs.

Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress seem to do this habitually, start at giving away half the store and then negotiate away the other half, even when the public widely supports the traditionally Democratic position.

I cannot believe that all those cagey businessmen and lawyers in Congress are incompetent. Either they are getting their palms greased or their children threatened (or someone has a picture of them in bed with a goat).