Democrats and Republicans: No Compromise Anymore?

[TommyC1776]

In the last few years it seems that the 2 parties don't want to compromise anymore.  I remember someone said that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill used to put politics aside and they'd do things together outside of the debates.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama's ideology is compromise for compromise's sake.

[TommyC1776]

Obama's ideology is compromise for compromise's sake.

I'll admit Obama has caved in on some legislation and has proposed legislation in the wrong way.  I'm a liberal Democrat who was disapointed with Obama in a few areas including the healthcare bill (yes I said healthcare bill).

[TommyC1776]

In the last few years it seems that the 2 parties don't want to compromise anymore.  I remember someone said that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill used to put politics aside and they'd do things together outside of the debates.

It has to be the political system, the method by which people get elected.  Most of the time when I see a national poll it's pretty reasonable.  This Tea Party "no new taxes" thing is not a popular concept.  Most people are for reducing expenditures and raising taxes (at least on the rich).  The party system has ruined America.

Good point.  George Washington would be rolling around in his grave especially about the party system.

[Dereich]

We even manage to do the party system wrong. If we really want political parties that produce reasonable and centrist candidates, letting the candidates be chosen by partisan bases is not the way to go. If party leaders chose candidates, no one like Christine O'Donnell or Dennis Kucinich would see any chance of being candidates.

[TommyC1776]

We even manage to do the party system wrong. If we really want political parties that produce reasonable and centrist candidates, letting the candidates be chosen by partisan bases is not the way to go. If party leaders chose candidates, no one like Christine O'Donnell or Dennis Kucinich would see any chance of being candidates.

Yeah.  The way it was 80-100 years ago.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We even manage to do the party system wrong. If we really want political parties that produce reasonable and centrist candidates, letting the candidates be chosen by partisan bases is not the way to go. If party leaders chose candidates, no one like Christine O'Donnell or Dennis Kucinich would see any chance of being candidates.

Yeah.  The way it was 80-100 years ago.

Actually as recently as 1968 for Presidential elections. Humphrey didn't exactly kick ass in the 1968 primaries.

[greenforest32]

Obama's ideology is compromise for compromise's sake.

[bgwah]

Obama's problem is that he comprises too much!

[The Vorlon]

There are a couple factors.

The first is the gerrymandering that goes on in districts - each party has about 150-175 seats in the House of Representatives that have been so gerrymandered they are just about nuclear blast proof.  Because of this, no matter how extreme, the Democrat or Republican nominee is almost guaranteed to win in the General election - So the GOP tacks hard right, the Dem whack-job left  to pander to the special interests that own the respective parties.

Once they get to Washington, because each party has 150-175 safe seats, the fringes of the party are guaranteed to be a majority in their own caucus. Pelosi led the Dems to the worst electoral butt-kicking in 4 generations and is the most hated national political figure in the nation..... Her reward? - Being re-elected by her caucus again as leader! - Why? - If you're a dem from a safe seat in Harlem or San Fran, hey, Pelosi is your kind of leader - to heck with middle America, the crazier the better!

Both parties have just about completed the political equivalent of  the "ethnic cleansing " process and have achieved political purity.

The senate is a little better (you can't gerrymander a state) and there are (perhaps) a dozen moderates left in the senate, but the House is, well, a disaster of groupthink ideological purity.

[lowtech redneck]

We even manage to do the party system wrong. If we really want political parties that produce reasonable and centrist candidates, letting the candidates be chosen by partisan bases is not the way to go. If party leaders chose candidates, no one like Christine O'Donnell or Dennis Kucinich would see any chance of being candidates.

I actually consider the greater accountability of Representatives to their constituents relative to party bosses (almost unique to the United States) to be a good thing.

[rwoy]

No Justice, No Peace

[NVGonzalez]

Obama's ideology is compromise for compromise's sake.

[J. J.]

In the last few years it seems that the 2 parties don't want to compromise anymore.  I remember someone said that Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill used to put politics aside and they'd do things together outside of the debates.

It has to be the political system, the method by which people get elected.  Most of the time when I see a national poll it's pretty reasonable.  This Tea Party "no new taxes" thing is not a popular concept.  Most people are for reducing expenditures and raising taxes (at least on the rich).  The party system has ruined America.

Good point.  George Washington would be rolling around in his grave especially about the party system.

He faced it, and found out that it wasn't good not to be the king. 

[Lief 🗽]

Washington was actually pretty partisan, and if you read his farewell address in context he's basically using it to attack the Democratic-Republicans and promote John Adams' candidacy. In fact Alexander Hamilton, a partisan Federalist if ever there was one, contributed a lot of it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yeah, the canonization of Washington's Farewell Address is incredibly misguided; it was designed to save face and explain away the failures of his administration, not serve as some all-knowing guide to responsible government.

[BigSkyBob]

Business as usual has been more spending. The change from business as usual is less spending. The only "compromise" the Democrats, and Republican establishment for that matter, are willing to allow are about the rate at which government spending grows. That isn't a compromise at all.

Talk about "compromise" are really a demand for capitulation by those whom actual want to cut government.

[King]

Business as usual has been more spending. The change from business as usual is less spending. The only "compromise" the Democrats, and Republican establishment for that matter, are willing to allow are about the rate at which government spending grows. That isn't a compromise at all.

Talk about "compromise" are really a demand for capitulation by those whom actual want to cut government.

Business as usual has also been less taxes.

[BigSkyBob]

Business as usual has been more spending. The change from business as usual is less spending. The only "compromise" the Democrats, and Republican establishment for that matter, are willing to allow are about the rate at which government spending grows. That isn't a compromise at all.

Talk about "compromise" are really a demand for capitulation by those whom actual want to cut government.

Business as usual has also been less taxes.

That wasn't business as usual in 1990 or 1993.

[The Mikado]

As I've always said, people romanticize the previous generations' feuds.  I bet you 25 years from now, you'll be saying "I remember the days when even in heated debt negotiations, Obama and Boehner could get away and hit up 18 rounds on the links!  Could you imagine President Hilton and Speaker Cruise playing golf with each other after a long debate over the Americans In Chinese Indenture Act?"

[Oakvale]

As I've always said, people romanticize the previous generations' feuds.  I bet you 25 years from now, you'll be saying "I remember the days when even in heated debt negotiations, Obama and Boehner could get away and hit up 18 rounds on the links!  Could you imagine President Hilton and Speaker Cruise playing golf with each other after a long debate over the Americans In Chinese Indenture Act?"

^ This.

[anvi]

Compromise is still how legislation gets passed, no matter which team is running the show.  But party bases have been conditioned to consider it a dirty word.  GOP candidates delight their bases with promises never to compromise, and Democratic presidents get lambasted for it from their base.  I don't really know to what degree it's always been this way or whether the current media environment has made it worse.  It's just too bad it's such a pejorative in politics, and it only promises candidates and office-holders ever diminishing returns from voters.  If people didn't compromise constantly every day, they wouldn't ever cease from killing each other.  Social contract theory is based on compromise, for those who still hold it, anyway (I don't, but many do).  My own experience with "office politics" attests to the fact that, if it weren't for compromise, whole departments would just fall to pieces almost immediately.  Family life depends on it.  So, what, we reward politicians for promising not to do something that we all have to do every day in every sphere of our lives?  People are crazy. 

[BigSkyBob]

Compromise is still how legislation gets passed, no matter which team is running the show. 

Not really. Obama's health care plan passed with zero Republican votes. Clinton pushed his tax hikes through with zero Republican votes. "Compromise" is the buzzword spoken by Democrats when they no longer have the votes to pass legislation without Republican votes. Of course, "compromise" to them means achieving their objectives more slowly, with Republicans abandoning their objectives altogether.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Simfan34]

People seem to forget that political discourse once got so bad we had a war over it. And congressmen also beat each other with sticks.

As I've always said, people romanticize the previous generations' feuds.  I bet you 25 years from now, you'll be saying "I remember the days when even in heated debt negotiations, Obama and Boehner could get away and hit up 18 rounds on the links!  Could you imagine President Hilton and Speaker Cruise playing golf with each other after a long debate over the Americans In Chinese Indenture Act?"

^ This.

[anvi]

"Compromise" is the buzzword spoken by Democrats when they no longer have the votes to pass legislation without Republican votes. Of course, "compromise" to them means achieving their objectives more slowly, with Republicans abandoning their objectives altogether.

From S&P statement justifying U.S. credit downgrade, 8/5/11

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

"We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process...
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently."