The Art Of The Possible

[Lord Jim]

This is extracted from a couple of follow up posts I wrote in the CSB version of my thread, "Okay, I'm Prepared To Admit It"....

I thought it might form the basis for an interesting discussion here:

I come from a history, tradition, and milieu that says "politics is the art of the possible"....

Nowadays, "compromise" is defined by doing "what we can all agree on"....

Well, damn little will get done if we define it that way....

True political compromise used to be defined by, "okay, you give me something I consider to be important to me and in exchange I'll hold my nose and give you something you consider to be important to you...."

And then we both go home to our constituents and let them know we both cut the best deal we possibly could...

We need to get back to that....

Let me give you an example of how this could have worked....

I had an idea for an Omnibus Healthcare And Education Act of 2010....

All based around the principle of expanding competition, public, and private....

What if we had had a bill that allowed for a public option in health care, but at the same time vastly expanded charter schools, and school vouchers?

Then both sides could have gone away happy....

The Democratic Congressmen could have gone back to their districts saying:

"Well, I had to give in on the school vouchers...but it was worth it to get a public health care option!"

And the GOP Congressmen could go back to their districts and say:

"Well, yes, I gave in on that public health care option....but in exchange we got a school voucher program that will help you send your kids to a better school"

I submit that until we get back to that way of doing things on The Hill, that nothing of any substance will be achieved.

[kristina]

I couldn't agree more, LJ, but I don't see it happening any time in the near future.

[Rick]

Sometimes it appears as though ALL common ground has been mined and folks are afraid to take any step in that direction...

[Gob]

Which brings me back yet again to the problems with your system.

I think the best thing you could do would be to get rid of the office of president, get a Prime Minister, elected by the party in office, and start churning out real policies.

Oh, abnd get rid of the "electoral college", the need to be registered to a party to vote, and sharpen up your act generally.

[Lord Jim]

I couldn't agree more, LJ, but I don't see it happening any time in the near future.

Unfortunately Kristina, all indications are it's going to get worse before it gets better...

The dynamics are very different from '94.....

In '94, the GOP took both the House and the Senate, giving them undisputed control of one third of the government...

From that moment forward, the Republican Party had "skin in the game"....

Now we have one half of one branch of government, and the other half has no vested interest in success ...

Also in '94, the Democratic Party was completely chastened by what happened to them...(Tom Foley, then The Speaker, even lost his seat)

Now you have a heavily liberal rump Democratic Caucus, (so clueless that they're actually going to elect Pelosi again as their Leader) that's just itchin' for a fight....

And the big difference is that in '94 we had a President who was nimble enough to understand that the time had come to compromise....

From the statements that have come from this President since the election, he doesn't seem to have worked out whether he wants to compromise and find "the middle ground", or cast his lot with Pelosi and Co. and double down on a liberal agenda....

The ball is in his court, and he's got till January to figure out which way he wants to go.....

[Andrew D]

That is just bizarre.

This:

Now we have one half of one branch of government, and the other half has no vested interest in success ...

is just freakishly weird. It bears no coherent resemblance to reality.

In reality, the Republicans in Congress have exactly zero interest in doing anything that might even begin to solve the country's problems. Their sole interest is in making sure that nothing happens which might make the Democrats look good.

An economic recovery might make the Democrats look good. So the Republicans in Congress don't want an economic recovery. They want a continuation of what we have now. And the fact that a continuation of what we have now means misery for millions of Americans is, for them, good news. It will make the Democrats look bad. And to the Republicans in Congress, that's all that matters.

The present political situation has nothing to do with whether Obama "wants to compromise and find 'the middle ground'". The Republicans are determined to make sure that there is no middle ground.

Don't take my word for it. Take McConnell's word for it. Take Boehner's word for it.

The Republicans in Congress have no interest at all in compromise. Quite the opposite. They want Obama to fail. And the fact that wishing failure on the President is wishing failure on the nation doesn't matter to them in the slightest.

[Lord Jim]

I think the best thing you could do would be to get rid of the office of president, get a Prime Minister, elected by the party in office, and start churning out real policies.

Oh, abnd get rid of the "electoral college", the need to be registered to a party to vote, and sharpen up your act generally.

Is that all it'll take to satisfy you Strop, or is there something else you'd care to add?

(BTW, no one is required to be registered by party in order to vote in a general election; some states require party registration to vote in a party primary; others have "open" primaries in which anyone may vote)

[oldr_n_wsr]

I have no party affiliation and here in NY you need to be a member of whatever party in order to vote in that parties primary.

[dgs49]

While the details have yet to be confirmed, it may well be that the "republican" POV will prevail on many issues in both houses of Congress.

There are more than enough Democrat Senators who, facing re-election in 2012, will be hearing footsteps behind them when considering their votes on, for example, extending or perpetuating the "Bush tax cuts."

Furthermore, the R's in the House will have to have something to show for their two years (actually, maybe 18 months) in office before the next election - even if it only to present Barry with some bills that he will surely veto.

Mr. Boehner has teed up a few issues (e.g., earmark reform) that provide just the sort of grandstand play that will endear the R's to the right-leaning public, particularly if they are fought by the entrenched D power structure.

I don't look to see Obamacare repealed, but there will definitely be some trimming at the margins to show that the R's could have been contibutors had the D's not had the "We Won!" attitude for the last two years.

[Lord Jim]

There are more than enough Democrat Senators who, facing re-election in 2012, will be hearing footsteps behind them when considering their votes on, for example, extending or perpetuating the "Bush tax cuts."

I agree that we'll probably win that one. If the House and Senate sends a bill to Obama that extends all tax cuts for at least two years, there's no way in hell that he would be foolish enough to veto it. (It's also important that the capital gains tax reductions at least remain in place...if not reduced further...and the huge increase in the inheritance tax scheduled to take place also needs to be ditched)

Now that the business community can have confidence that the tax and regulatory environment will at least not be made any worse, I believe we'll start to see some of that 1.4 in potential investment dollars that have been kept on the sidelines will start being released, and the economy will improve significantly.

I believe we'll also have a much better energy bill than we otherwise would. A bill that will put the primary emphasis on domestic drilling, coal, natural gas, and especially nuclear power....Things that could actually significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil in some realistic time frame...(people who say that they see our foreign oil dependence as a national security issue...which it is...but then in the next breath start talking about solar panels and windmills aren't serious about seeing a national security threat.)

Speaking of national security, closing Gitmo and civilian trials for international terrorists, are now dead issues, which is obviously a good thing.

[Andrew D]

In short, the Republicans get everything their way. So much for the compromise extolled in the opening posting.

[Guinevere]

So LJ, how is what you posted above a compromise? Can you explain that please? What are the republicans giving up?

[Gob]

Is that all it'll take to satisfy you Strop, or is there something else you'd care to add?

Well you could put back the "u" in the words you've removed it from, and shoot half the people in Hollywood, that would be nice.

(BTW, no one is required to be registered by party in order to vote in a general election; some states require party registration to vote in a party primary; others have "open" primaries in which anyone may vote)

LOL!! Oh that's far less complex..

[Gob]

That is just bizarre.

An economic recovery might make the Democrats look good. So the Republicans in Congress don't want an economic recovery. They want a continuation of what we have now. And the fact that a continuation of what we have now means misery for millions of Americans is, for them, good news. It will make the Democrats look bad. And to the Republicans in Congress, that's all that matters.

The present political situation has nothing to do with whether Obama "wants to compromise and find 'the middle ground'". The Republicans are determined to make sure that there is no middle ground.

Don't take my word for it. Take McConnell's word for it. Take Boehner's word for it.

The Republicans in Congress have no interest at all in compromise. Quite the opposite. They want Obama to fail. And the fact that wishing failure on the President is wishing failure on the nation doesn't matter to them in the slightest.

Isn't this verging on treason?

Being willing to see the US fail and suffer to get the President out, surely if proved then that would be treason?

[rubato]

It isn't 'verging' it is treason. I've said so in these pages.

Deliberately harming the country for one's own, or one's parties own, gain is treason. That has been their systematic programme for years.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

It isn't 'verging' it is treason. I've said so in these pages.

Shrieking horseshit to the heavens does not make it fact. It's still horseshit no matter how loud you yell.