Uncompromising Political Positions

[seayakin]

I was just reading the editorial by Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html) and it reinforces my opinion that both parties are too interested in maintaining control to seriously address any problem.

Krugman writes:

The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.

In the last 10 years, both parties had a large majority which have created large swings in policies. These swings have been caused first by a large republican majority (2002-2006) in which many Republican polices were hammered through and the Democrats have done the same thing in the last 2 years. None of the policies are sustainable because they do not have bipartisan support and their sole purpose is to solidify a policy knowing it can be difficult to reverse once in place.

This is not to say the Tea Party is an answer, they are too disorganized and don't represent a centrist vision but put forth libertarian and socially conservative policies that are not always in agreement. I'm just wondering if there are too few people in both parties who want to have true compromise and large bipartisan support (not just a few congressman supporting a bill from the opposite party). Would others agree with Krugman?

 

[INRM]

I personally think most if not all politicians just say whatever it takes to gain or maintain power.

 

[Beerina]

The OP presumes compromise and bipartisan support are good things and/or what "The People" want.

I submit they don't like government growing out of control, a feature of Republican as well as Democrat administrations.

One gains power, keeps doing it, gets handed their hat. Then the other gets power, keeps doing it, gets handed their hat.


What were the best economic times since the middle of the Vietnam war? Reagan and Clinton. Both had split power between the White House and Congress (Clinton, tellingly, after 1994.) Split power means not much gets done means stability means capital sees decreased risk in investment.



So, to phrase it in terms of the OP, what people want is gridlock in government, not compromise. They're upset both parties do way too much when they gain power.

 

[seayakin]

The OP presumes compromise and bipartisan support are good things and/or what "The People" want.

I submit they don't like government growing out of control, a feature of Republican as well as Democrat administrations.

One gains power, keeps doing it, gets handed their hat. Then the other gets power, keeps doing it, gets handed their hat.


What were the best economic times since the middle of the Vietnam war? Reagan and Clinton. Both had split power between the White House and Congress (Clinton, tellingly, after 1994.) Split power means not much gets done means stability means capital sees decreased risk in investment.



So, to phrase it in terms of the OP, what people want is gridlock in government, not compromise. They're upset both parties do way too much when they gain power.

Or does split power mean, both parties need to compromise to push any of their agenda items in a split power? Perhaps, the best ideas are the only ones that rise to passing in that instance although admittedly this is an unsubstantiated hypothesis that came to my mind 3 seconds ago?

Another issue, however, is that I think, unfortunately, a large portion of the electorate do not truly educate themselves about an issue and vote on emotion which is often influenced by the spin of both parties. As a result, the electorate may not necessarily elect the person with the best ideas but someone who appeals to them emotionally (and I'm aware that many have said this on the board before.) (see cite http://www.jstor.org/pss/2938743 but you won't be able to read unless you have access to JSTOR)

Lastly, before anyone asks if I'm advocating for some kind of limited power dictatorship, I'm not because as Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If one looks at survey data, the highest voter satisfaction, even for the "losers", is in countries with consensual, proportional parliaments.

Personally, I find the old "government that governs best, governs least" ideology to be silly. So it would be better if we didn't do education reform, set climate regulations, extend civil rights, etc?

 

[quixotecoyote]

In the last 10 years, both parties had a large majority which have created large swings in policies. These swings have been caused first by a large republican majority (2002-2006) in which many Republican polices were hammered through and the Democrats have done the same thing in the last 2 years. None of the policies are sustainable because they do not have bipartisan support and their sole purpose is to solidify a policy knowing it can be difficult to reverse once in place.

Speaking as someone who was hoping for a large swing in policy in the last few years, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of Obama's actions have either been tweaks on Bush policy while leaving the focus unchanged (Guantanamo, civil rights controversies), or had all the fire snuffed out in an effort to appeal to republicans (health care).

 

[Upchurch]

The OP presumes compromise and bipartisan support are good things and/or what "The People" want.

I submit they don't like government growing out of control, a feature of Republican as well as Democrat administrations.

I submit that "government growing out of control" is not at all what people don't like. It is a meaningless phrase.

What People don't like is the government doing things they don't like. They just call that "growing out of control".

 

[seayakin]

Speaking as someone who was hoping for a large swing in policy in the last few years, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of Obama's actions have either been tweaks on Bush policy while leaving the focus unchanged (Guantanamo, civil rights controversies), or had all the fire snuffed out in an effort to appeal to republicans (health care).

I think I may have overstated the swing to the democrats. I certainly agree that there has not been a great change when it comes to Guantanamo and other civil rights issues from the Bush administration. However, regarding health care, depending on your political view, it might be something seen that the democrats rammed through. I also see the argument that they were given no choice because the republicans offered little to the democrats for realistic compromise. Whatever your opinion on the methodology and the righteousness of the democrats in the healthcare package, if the Republicans were to retake the houses and can the executive in 2014. They could undo all the healthcare reform and be back to square one. Whereas, if they found common ground that both would support long term, you wouldn't have the swings in policy.

 

[Beerina]

If one looks at survey data, the highest voter satisfaction, even for the "losers", is in countries with consensual, proportional parliaments.

After correcting for the placebo effect?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was just reading the editorial by Paul Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html) and it reinforces my opinion that both parties are too interested in maintaining control to seriously address any problem.

Krugman writes:



In the last 10 years, both parties had a large majority which have created large swings in policies. These swings have been caused first by a large republican majority (2002-2006) in which many Republican polices were hammered through and the Democrats have done the same thing in the last 2 years. None of the policies are sustainable because they do not have bipartisan support and their sole purpose is to solidify a policy knowing it can be difficult to reverse once in place.

This is not to say the Tea Party is an answer, they are too disorganized and don't represent a centrist vision but put forth libertarian and socially conservative policies that are not always in agreement. I'm just wondering if there are too few people in both parties who want to have true compromise and large bipartisan support (not just a few congressman supporting a bill from the opposite party). Would others agree with Krugman?

100%

But there's really nothing you can do about it. The most desirable state is gridlock.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

After correcting for the placebo effect?

And the Doppler effect.

 

[jakesteele]

Our govt. is deadlocked, and because of that, ineffectual. What this country needs is a viable third party like Ross Perot represented before he went way off the deep end.

 

[dudalb]

Our govt. is deadlocked, and because of that, ineffectual. What this country needs is a viable third party like Ross Perot represented before he went way off the deep end.

Agreed, but it will be none of the current third parties, which are ,frankly, way to radical for the mainstream.
Same for the Tea Party...they are too hard right.I suspect that some of the Tea Partiers will be angry and mad when the GOP does not follow their agenda (which would be politically impossible for the GOP) and form some kind of third Party which will end up being just another Extreme Third Party.