Democrats compromise. Republicans don't. Is that the basic problem?

[Armstead]

In an ideal world, that would not even be a question. Compromise is the essence of a democracy, and of a civilized society.

However, we're not in an ideal world. When two political parties are evenly matched but one side has a strong agenda and pushes for it relentlessly and succesfully, then compromise becomes impossible. In that situation, compromise only means that we move in one direction a little more gradually than we might otherwise.

When one strips away the noise, that is what has been happening to the US over the last three decades. The right-wing GOP has stuck to their agenda with no compromise, while the Democrats and the left have compromised. And that has taken us steadily on a rightward course with very little actual resistance.

Bill Clinton, for all his strengths, epitomized that. Unlike the current occupant of the White House, Clinton was a compromiser. Despite his political skills and basic popularity, he lost ground for liberalism and the Democrats ultimately.

Bush also epitomizes it. He sticks to his guns, and does not yield. As a result, he wins some and loses some, but in a larger sense he comes out ahead and further embeds the conservative agenda.

Thus, in a purely tactical sense, Democrats must confront a basic question. Should it stick to the notion of compromise, or recognize that we need to be as ideological and stubborn as the other side?

Any thoughts here?

[InsultComicDog]

1. Well, yahhhh....

which is exactly why there is so much frustration with some Democrats who won't play tough with Republicans.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi InsultComicDog!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Atman]

2. Compromise and understanding is at the core of the Lib philosophy

and the antithesis to that of the GOP.

The GOP simply believes that everyone must do things their way, period.

[bryant69]

3. Tricky question

Certainly there are going to be many who would argue we should be more ideologically pure (like the Republicans). And it does seem to be, if not a winning strategy, at least as good as our strategy.

On the other hand; when government slows to a crawl because two entrenched factions refused to comromise, Republicans Win. Republicans believe that Government can't accomplish anything; we believe that government had an important role to play in society. So Republicans can happily stonewall and fail (without going to far) because they don't believe in success. We don't have the luxary.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Armstead]

11. But Republicans believe in Authoritarian government

I gree that the GOP does not want government involved in the same issus we do, uch as fighting poverty and advancing other social/economic goals.

However as recent events have proven, Republicans are not against Government. They favor Big Government to advance their own priorities and strengthen their power.

So the question is not necessarily whether the GOP automatically wins by such conflicts. It depends on the issue. For example, if the Democrats took a united front and fought to kill the Patriot Act, it would serve the ame function as the GOP blocking something like healthcare reform.

[A Simple Game]

15. When every move you make is to the right, perhaps it is time

to stand still and think about your position(s).

[endarkenment]

4. We keep reaching out to meet intolerance and fascism half way. eom.

[HereSince1628]

5. R's don't need to compromise they currently control the board

On the otherhand the Democrats _must_ be able to get R's to vote with them to get anything they want. That sort of demands a willingness to compromise don't you think?

It may be a bitter pill but it's the cost of completely losing the Hill.

[Armstead]

6. But is that why they control the board?

That's my question. The GOP did not compromise when we controlled the board.

[HereSince1628]

14. It's been quite a while since we completely controlled the board

so long in fact it's hard to remember. When was the last time the democrats controlled the WH, the House, and the Senate for a full four years?

Personally, I think the general rightward shift of American politics is more responsible, for the success of conservatives. In this process even the Democratic party has not been kind to itself, its major coalitions have become antagonists to each other. The party now has a significant dilemma reconciling conservative democrats, liberals, and progressives. Although the liberals and progressives find more common ground, their relationship to democratic conservatives is increasingly distant and acrimonious with conservative Democrats such as the DLC.

[Armstead]

16. It's a chicken-and-egg question

The general rightward shift of American politics can be seen eitehr as a cause or effect.

IMO in terms of the public, I don't think it's really a matter of liberalism vs. conservatism in a general sense. When you look at both specific issues, and what vlues people really prefer, the nation is just as liberal as it ever was.

For example, most ordinary people (except the right-wing koolaid drinkers) believe in such basic notions as "a fair day's wage for a fair days work." They also believe that there should be a baic compact between employer and employee regarding sharing the benefits of success. They do not want to see the US degenerate into a rigid class structure with a wealthy elite enriching themselves by screwing everyone else.

The problem is that there has been almost no representation of those basic values among politicians. Insterad they've been fed a steady diet of right wing crap like "If you give more to the rich, it will spread to everyone els eventually." The Democrats have basically gone along with that in a milder way.

Without a Democratic party that challenges such nonsense and offering alternatives, people have either gone with the slick lies of the right wingers ior simply become fatalistic and said "A pox on both their houses."

IMO if Democrats advocated for the basic principles of liberalism again, then thatwould provide a political venue for the liberal instincts of the population again.

[HereSince1628]

20. A couple of things...

Everything I have read suggests that the country HAS shifted to the right over the past 30-40 years. And it is hard to argue against that as New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs, environmental/womens rights gains have all been put to the torch or at least severely scorched beginning in about 1978.

You selectively dismiss folks that back that movement as kool-aid drinkers. I think that undermines rather than supports your position. Drunk or not, they are out there, they vote, and a significant number of them are inside the Democratic party, they are not particularly supportive of traditional northeastern/west coast liberals or upper midwestern left leaning progressives.

The DLC democrats pretty much turned their backs on labor when Clinton and the DLC, thinking unions were part of a "former era" jumped into NAFTA over the strenuous objections of labor. That rift has never been healed, and union/labor influence remains greatly diminished within the party.

Other issues tear similar rents in the fabric of the party: urban/social program leaning democrats vs suburban & rural personal responsibility democrats. Gun safety, reproductive rights, gay rights, foreign interventionism all these spread out the party rather than pull it closer together.

And so I repeat, the difficulties in the party aren't as simple as being compromising or uncompromising.

[Armstead]

23. That's why I am talking about compromise

You're right that many peope chafe at things like environmental regulations or affirmative action or paying for welfare to the undeserving. The ineffectiveness and perceived overreaching of liberalism in the 70's did seed the ground for the Reagan Revolution and the conservative advances.

However, when you look below the surface,it is not a matter of whether a majority of people support the basic goals of liberalism or not. It's more a matter of balance -- compromise -- and pursuing those gioals on an effective common-sense basis. It's possible to be a staunch liberal while being moderate and open to compromise.

For example, I'm a diehard liberal and strongly support environmentalism and community planning. But, like many people, I also don't believe that pointy headed bureaucrats should become so intrusive that you can't even put new shutters on your house without hiring a lawyer and filing an EIS....People especially resent being excesively restricted when they see corporate polluters and deep-pocket developers getting away with whatever they want.

So compromise is always required. However, to reinforce my original point, that does not mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Being resonable about environmentalism does NOT mean abandoning it.

In a political sense, that's where I believe Democrats and liberals have screwed the pooch. The GOP has sold the public a misleading set of beliefs that cast these things as either/or choices. Instead of being equally strong about out beliefs, we have mistaken compromise with surrender. So we let the GOP and corporate oligarchs and right wing nuts determine the framework.

The problem with the DLC is not that they are "moderate" or willing to compromise. The problem is that they have ceded far too much ground on fundamental principles, and have become de-facto corporate conservatives.

To address your point about the diehard right wingers. I am not putting everyone who is conservative into the Kool-Aid drinking category. There are many people who are conservative, but also reasonable and even somewhat liberal....I'm referring to the segment of right wingers who have made upo their mind and are so unyielding that they really don't care what happens to anyone else or who buy the nonsense fed to them by people like rush Limbaugh without any question or critical thinking. They are a lost cause in terms of winning them over. The only way they might change is if they get screwed directly by the values they have bought into.

[HereSince1628]

26. DLC didn't "become" pro-corporate conservatives, it was born that way

The DLC founders broke them out as a distinct group promoting a conservative agenda.

[Armstead]

28. Then they should be sent to the GOP

Pro-corporate conservatives should be Republicans.

Democrats should be clearly liberal in a way that will make it clear that we represent the real interests of working people and the disadvantaged -- the middle clss and the poor AND a majority of small and mid-sized business -- over those who would destroy the middle class to enrich themselves.

IMO if we stop pandering to corporate conservatives within our own ranks, we would be able to craft a mesage and agenda that really does represent the values of the majority on the bread-and-butter issues that matter...That would be worth sacrificing those whose sympathies are with the economic elite rather than with the real majority.

[unblock]

7. compromise is what great legislation is all about

and, once upon a time, republican had always been reasonable compromisers, just as much as democrats.

but all that changed when the banana republicans started infesting the republican party. gone are the fords, the rockefellers, the eisenhowers; in are the gingriches, the frists, the delays, and the bushes.

today's banana republicans want nothing to do with democracy except as a veneer to cover for the ugly, corrupt, dictatorship that they have been singularly focused on inflicting on the united states. compromise can create great legislation, but what do they care about that? THAT'S NOT THEIR GOAL. so they don't compromise. they push the envelope, test the limits. they get away with whatever the can get away with, and cave on what they can't, only to try again later.

compromise is a GREAT virtue in a legislator and in a political party, but only when the other side plays by the same rules. if they will compromise as well, then you're uniting the country, ironing out differences, and building a great nation. if they won't compromise, then you're nothing more than chamberlain waving a piece of paper in the air.

[sui generis]

8. no - republicans play to fear, first, second, and last

There is always a jew poisoning the well, a gay terrorist trying to get married, liberals bringing about the downfall of western civilization.

Every single "motivation" they provide for their political platforms comes from fear mongering, and people believe they're scared if you tell them they are. More people than don't.

[C_U_L8R]

9. I think the basic problem is focus

The repukes are focused and tenacious about achieving their goals.
They never let an issue go away... they keep fighting and fighting and fighting until they win.
Forget about all the crappy stuff they do for a second..... but if the Democrats
were THIS energized... this focused and this determined... we'd roll over
the Repukes like a steamroller.

It's a two fold problem... and it all comes down to leadership.
Leadership from above to point us all in the same direction but more importantly...
leadership from within.... meaning the responsibility that EACH ONE OF US takes.
We can't be doubtful, we can't be pessimistic, we can't be unfocused.
We are all leaders in this cause .. and we must all be energized focused and determined.
If we....the base.. are motivated.. then we win.

[zbdent]

10. Repukes are Binars

unless it's their ass in the orange jumpsuit

[Yollam]

13. Not exactly - republicans compromise too.

The problem is not in the compromising, it's in the fact that when we compromise, we do so in such a way that a bill is passed that will bring the country further to the RIGHT in one way or another, but less than the republicans had initially hoped. When THEY compromise, it's in such a way that the country is brought further to the RIGHT in one way or another, but less than the republicans had initially hoped. See the problem?

It's been this way since Clinton was elected, IMO. For the most part, our taxation structure, our laws and regulations, etc. have been moving inexorably to the right for more than 13 years with very few exceptions.

I agree with your contention that the few liberals holding elected office as democrats should stop compromising, but I did think that I should point out our pathetic habit of stopping or slowing the latest right-wing onslaught and portraying it as a victory, when in reality, almost no PROGRESSIVE legislation of any kind has been enacted in decades.

[Strong Atheist]

17. We need to compromise internally, with other

progressives/Dems. NEVER compromise with the repukes, it does not work!

[leftofthedial]

18. that's a problem, but not the basic problem

the basic problem is capitalism and its spawn, the corporations.

[Tsiyu]

19. Republicans raise their prejudices to a level equal with law

and use the People's system to gain more power for the individual rather than doing the most good for the greatest number.

[Dongfang Hong]

21. The minority party

has to operate under a different paradigm than the majority party.

[Armstead]

24. The same approach applis whether a minority or mjority

The party that is the majority is in a position to get its way. However, that does not mean the opposition party should fight any less hard for their principles and policies.

The GOP ws just as determined and strong in opposition when they were a minority. That may well be why they are now the majority.

[Dongfang Hong]

25. And when, recently, was the GOP a complete minority?

Even under Clinton, they owned the House. Democrats can either compromise, or cast useless protest votes as the Republicans get everything they want. It's a democracy, not a war.

[Armstead]

29. First two years of Clinton

And they were a Congressional majority before that, which put them in a strong position even with a Republican president.

[ComerPerro]

22. But Bush doesn't stick to his guns

Bush flip flops like crazy.

But you're correct when you say that Republicans absolutely refuse to compromise.

They are babies, who cry and fuss until they get their way.

[KansDem]

27. Newt Gingrich set the tone in 1994...

"We will cooperate, but we will not compromise."

Remember that little ditty?

I thought at the time, "WTF? What's this suppose to mean? I thought democracies were based on compromise?"

Yet, our crack media reporters didn't delve one bit into this revealing remark...

[LittleClarkie]

30. It's all in the talk

Republicans talk big, then quietly compromise. Perhaps Dems talk the language of compromise all along.

Bush talked big about terrorism, then gave bin Forgotten what he wanted when he moved our base out of Saudi Arabia. They talked big about ANWR, then dropped it at the last moment.

The difference is that the Republicans hope you don't hear them quietly cave.

[Armstead]

31. They never give up

Ho many times has ANWAR been brought up and defeated and brought up again. I almost guarantee you that unless things change, it will at some point be pushed through by the GOP.

Likewise, Bush didn't really sacrifice nything by giving up Saudi Arabian as a military bse. Intead, they simply shifted it to Iraq.

To give a counter example, Clinton tried to put through a healthcare reform plan that was compromise from the start. When it was defeated, te Democrats basically walked away from the issue, insted of comning back with another plan, and then another until something made it through.

[LittleClarkie]

32. But they're supposed to be so strong, and yet they caved

on Saudi. We didn't lose much, I'm sure, except it would have been a moral victory for the man we KNOW bombed American soil. So instead of going after him, we let him go, and instead of saying, "No compromise" we cave in to what he wanted. If the American people ever had that presented to them properly, I think it would pull the mask off the "war president".

[Armstead]

33. You're right but....

if you put it in the larger context, Bush looked so "strong" by going after Iraq that his little capitulation in Saudi diappears by comparison.

That's not accurate, of course. But I think that's why there is a diconnect between their words and their actions and how they are perceived as "strong."