compromise in american politics

Post Reply New Topic

Politicians on the left and right will appeal to the most extreme of both spectrums, but in the end, people usually compromise. Many of the past American presidents had to compromise (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama definitely) at least on several important issues. On the debt ceiling, each side did their obligatory grandstanding on how the other side is wrong, but in the end, inevitably, they put aside their differences.

That's why I think candidates like Bachmann and Perry are short lived. Perry says all of these tough statements to garner attention, but in the end, Romney is more presidential. Bachmann advocates ideas like not raising the debt ceiling, but in the end, when the time for talk is over, people compromise.

In a political system where majorities are required, the closer to the center you are, the more votes you gain. you could be just right of center, and the right-wing will generally will easily vote for the center-right over anyone in the left. then again, the tea party seems firmly resolved in their principles to not vote for a moderate.

your thoughts?

Um... no, they didn't. The Republicans got 100% of what they wanted out of that deal. There was no setting aside of differences. There was unconditional surrender by the Democrats.

the republicans DID NOT get even a small percentage of what they wanted.

it cut very little deficits. most of the projected cuts are promised spending cuts that a committee will magically work out in a few months.

You cannot be in politics - at least in the US - without compromising your principles.

You're kidding? They got trillions in cuts and guarantees of trillions more... do you not remember the trigger on that committee? If they don't get a bunch more cuts through Congress, then Social Security and defense spending will automatically be cut to make up the difference. They also avoided even a penny in tax increases. This is 100% of what the GOP wanted. To say otherwise is utterly delusional. What did Democrats get out of the deal? Raising the debt ceiling? That's not a partisan issue; both sides know full well that that was a necessary step, and it has been taken many times in the past under GOP and Democratic administrations.

There's automatic triggers in case they don't work out said cuts, regardless with a supercommittee stacked "evenly" with Republicans and Democrats, yet having enough conservative Democrats to tip the balance against a progressive bill, I'm sure the GOP will continue getting what they want.

Politics is all about compromise and deal-making. There are only two ways to avoid it: (1) Have no government (anarchy), or (2) Have a one-party system (dictatorship).

The debt deal was what the good ole boys in congress wanted, yes. Those cuts are miniscule and insubstantial but they give the illusion of fiscal restraint and to show the public that they can "work" with the opposite party. All that really matters in Washington is the dog and pony show.

Compromise isn't a bad thing but you can't betray your principles.

John Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted. The Democrats wanted some mix of revenue enhancement and spending cuts. That didn't happen at all.

As moderates have been evicted from the Republican party compromise has become less likely. Look at the fillibuster rate. Republicans have doubled the fillibuster rate in the past two Congresses. They try to stop almost everything. An historical aberration.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere ... Counts.htm

If Democrats return the favor under a Republican Senate or President, which is plausible, then we are in a new era of hyper-gridlock.

Exactly. I don't favor cuts right now, but I hate the lying. They cut based on projected increases, and they cut less than the amount of the projected increases. Only in Washington does a smaller increase count as a cut.

The Republicans care more about hurting Obama than about helping the country, for sure.

On the topic of the automatic triggers, do you guys mean automatic like the automatic cuts in payments to Medicare providers which Congress puts off every year?

EDIT: The Democrats have improved, though. Unconditional surrender beats preemptive surrender.

Obama and the democrats held out for a raise in the debt ceiling so that Obama would have mad money to last through the elections. That was a huge concession that almost made the republicans' demands futile. Basically, all they ended up with was an agreement to not drive the debt up as fast as they had been.

The debt ceiling debate was nothing but political theater on the part of the republicans.

They manufactured a problem strictly to make the president look bad.

It worked, didn't it. Right now the Republicans have only one policy and goal. To make Barak Obama a one term president.

ruveyn

Yes, it did work. And it has been their policy and goal since November 2008.

It is highly unlikely that such a move would be permitted. Do you remember what happened when Democrats tried to use the filibuster during the Bush administration?

we could only be so lucky to be in a era of "hyper-gridlock"