Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate

[beirnini]

According to Pew Research Centre,

There is now no difference between Republicans and Democrats in their views of compromise. In six previous surveys conducted since 2011, Democrats were consistently more likely than Republicans to say they liked those who compromised. As recently as last July, 69% of Democrats said they preferred elected officials who made compromises; today just 46% say this.

It's obviously in response to Trump, but frankly it's long, long overdue. Imagine if Democrats didn't compromise on the warcrime in Iraq, if Obama didn't compromise with Romneycare and stuck to at least a public option, if Obama had stuck to his guns about Bush' tax cuts for the rich, if the flat-out theft of the Supreme Court seat presently held by Gorsuch was fought against with even a passing degree of outrage.

Democrats have been "keeping their powder dry" for as long as the Clinton's rammed third-way centrist neoliberalism down the throats of the American left-leaners in the '90's. It's about time they said enough's enough. It took a crypto-fascist to do it, but at least it's something.

 

[Infanteer]

...and the tone of your post suggests you'd really be up for compromise.

We wrote new rules for the politics section for a reason.  It seems you're here to scream and shout.  I recommend re-reading them.

Consider this strike 1.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I doubt compromise is dead; what is dead is slow-moving progress and concensus that governments should mainly see to the mundane business of the day and effect large-scale changes only occasionally and only once the case has been sold to the people sufficiently to convince a large mass of them.  People seeking change today want a great deal and they want it almost immediately.  (It doesn't help that when change is "won", some of the victors make a point of punishing those who stood against them.  It hardens the will of those who count themselves among the punished to resist in future.)

For compromise to work, both parties must be willing to make concessions: of equal value, subject to modification depending on the relative political strength in the legislature.  And: they must stick to the terms, including the substance informal preliminary agreements (don't renege on a commitment made when a one-two phasing favours your aims first).

It is illustrative that although the Democrats had nothing they were willing to concede to Republicans in order to pass the PPACA, a great deal of compromise within Democratic ranks was necessary.  What they got was as much as was practical; had anyone held out for much more, I doubt they would have passed anything.

The animations of Pew surveys here - which I have linked before - illustrate the growing divide.  Worth noting is that the position of Republicans has not shifted much (which we should expect for "conservativism") whereas the position of Democrats has shifted considerably.  How can anyone expect their relative expectations to be easily reconciled?  If you select for "Politically Active", the shifts and gap are more pronounced; since the "politically active" are the ones writing and talking, it feeds a perception that the country as a whole is more divided than it really is.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I doubt compromise is dead; what is dead is slow-moving progress and concensus that governments should mainly see to the mundane business of the day and effect large-scale changes only occasionally and only once the case has been sold to the people sufficiently to convince a large mass of them.  People seeking change today want a great deal and they want it almost immediately.  (It doesn't help that when change is "won", some of the victors make a point of punishing those who stood against them.  It hardens the will of those who count themselves among the punished to resist in future.)

For compromise to work, both parties must be willing to make concessions: of equal value, subject to modification depending on the relative political strength in the legislature.  And: they must stick to the terms, including the substance informal preliminary agreements (don't renege on a commitment made when a one-two phasing favours your aims first).

It is illustrative that although the Democrats had nothing they were willing to concede to Republicans in order to pass the PPACA, a great deal of compromise within Democratic ranks was necessary.  What they got was as much as was practical; had anyone held out for much more, I doubt they would have passed anything.

The animations of Pew surveys here - which I have linked before - illustrate the growing divide.  Worth noting is that the position of Republicans has not shifted much (which we should expect for "conservativism") whereas the position of Democrats has shifted considerably.  How can anyone expect their relative expectations to be easily reconciled?  If you select for "Politically Active", the shifts and gap are more pronounced; since the "politically active" are the ones writing and talking, it feeds a perception that the country as a whole is more divided than it really is.

Great post and thanks for the link.  Very good read.  Thank you again.

 

[tomahawk6]

This is all about 2 party politics.When the dem's are in power they wont compromise.The Republicans have power but little stomach to use it.Then you have divisions within the parties.There are neverTrumpers who dont want the President to succeed so they obstruct him at every turn.Here we are over a year later and he hasnt got his selections in place there are too many democrats still in government.Usually when a new administration comes in the old resign.This time the dem's are staying which will bite them in the behind if they ever win the Presidency.

 

[Pencil Tech]

It's very disturbing how entrenched the two sides are there now. I don't see how they can ever come back together. It's like they're speaking two completely different languages.

 

[Altair]

This is all about 2 party politics.When the dem's are in power they wont compromise.The Republicans have power but little stomach to use it.Then you have divisions within the parties.There are neverTrumpers who dont want the President to succeed so they obstruct him at every turn.Here we are over a year later and he hasnt got his selections in place there are too many democrats still in government.Usually when a new administration comes in the old resign.This time the dem's are staying which will bite them in the behind if they ever win the Presidency.

Canada has 3 parties and it's not any better here.

 

[jollyjacktar]

6 parties

 

[Altair]

6 parties

Lib,Con,NDP, Bloc,Green....?

And really, only the big three are in positions where they may actually need to compromise on things

 

[daftandbarmy]

According to Pew Research Centre,

It's obviously in response to Trump, but frankly it's long, long overdue. Imagine if Democrats didn't compromise on the warcrime in Iraq, if Obama didn't compromise with Romneycare and stuck to at least a public option, if Obama had stuck to his guns about Bush' tax cuts for the rich, if the flat-out theft of the Supreme Court seat presently held by Gorsuch was fought against with even a passing degree of outrage.

Democrats have been "keeping their powder dry" for as long as the Clinton's rammed third-way centrist neoliberalism down the throats of the American left-leaners in the '90's. It's about time they said enough's enough. It took a crypto-fascist to do it, but at least it's something.

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

― Mark Twain

;D

 

[tomahawk6]

Ryan has fired the House Chaplain.The dem's are outraged.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/27/paul-ryans-firing-house-chaplain-outrages-democrats.html

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ryan has fired the House Chaplain.The dem's are outraged.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/27/paul-ryans-firing-house-chaplain-outrages-democrats.html

The comments section accompanying this piece was.....illuminating

 

[mariomike]

Ryan has fired the House Chaplain.The dem's are outraged.

Some Republicans grill Ryan over House chaplain firing
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/politics/chaplain-dismissed-house-ryan/index.html

QUOTE

“I’m not aware of any discontent or any criticism, and to be the first House chaplain removed in the history of Congress in the middle of the term raises serious questions, and I think we deserve more of an explanation of why,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who asked Ryan in the GOP meeting Friday to detail the reasons for his decision. “Paul said it was solely because he was not giving good service to the members. Again, I never heard that before.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/ryan-seeks-to-defend-ouster-of-house-chaplain-as-members-question-his-motives/2018/04/27/70937e8a-4a0f-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html?utm_term=.09d92b6600ef

END QUOTE

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.

 

[quadrapiper]

He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.

Not like you can make the argument that members of Congress are unable financially/logistically to find new supports while in D.C., unlike e.g. service members.

 

[FJAG]

He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.

The whole thing makes me marvel at the hypocrisy behind these things.

Wikipedia's article on the chaplaincies are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate

Despite the Constitution there has almost always been a chaplain in each house and, until 2000 and with one exception for a year in 1832, almost always some form of Protestant. Anyone want to lay bets on when the first Jewish, or Muslim or Scientologist chaplain will be appointed?

Note that the court issues on this have always ruled on the side of "tradition" or the right to appoint "officers" despite the clear language in the Constitution. I guess anyone who has "In God We Trust" inscribed on their money can't be too serious about separation of church and state.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

The whole thing makes me marvel at the hypocrisy behind these things.

:cheers:

I don't know who said it first, just reminds me of something I read,

"The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar." 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Anyone want to lay bets on when the first Jewish, or Muslim or Scientologist chaplain will be appointed?

The fellow in yellow will be appointed as soon as Tom Cruise wins the presidency.  ;D

 

[Remius]

The fellow in yellow will be appointed as soon as Tom Cruise wins the presidency.  ;D

Hmn.  So he could be both president and congressional chaplain at once...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Unclear why there is a need for one in the first place?