On compromise and Politics
May. 8th, 2005 08:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythGenerally, compromise is at least a not-bad thing. However, there's times when it's not a good idea. One of the biggest of those times is when your opponent's not actually interested in compromise, and is dealing in bad faith. Especially in politics.
For example, the current Republican party has gone so far off the extremist right wing edge that Richard Nixon would be an evil liberal in this day and age. Now how, you may wonder, did they manage that? They managed that because the Democrats were too nice. And because there's no extreme left-wing party pulling in the opposite direction. So what happens is a dance usually something like this. The Republicans propose something ludicrously reactionary and extreme. The Democrats go "WTF?" Conservative talking heads and media folks get up and shout that the Democrats are being "obstructionist" and offer a "compromise" that's extremely reactionary, but not as nutty as the original proposal. "Liberal" pundits want to play nice, or are pretty damn centrist, any extreme left groups are ridiculed and called communist.
In the interests of being "nice" and "reasonable" to compromise, the Democrats agree to something farther "right" than they'd like, but not as extreme as was originally suggested. If it stopped there, or had anybody pulling on the other side, that wouldn't be a problem. But there's not. So, two weeks later, the Republicans suggest their original extremely reactionary idea again. And go "Well, you already agreed to X, how is Y that much different?" And the pundits and talk radio switch into full gear, and the whole cycle repeats itself. And the "compromise" and "center" end up moving "right" each time, until the farthest "left" thing you hear is barely "left" of the original "compromise".
Why this happens is the modern Republican party doesn't give a damn about compromise, bipartisanship, or the good of the country, they just want to win. While the Democrats were (and are) trying to be "nice" and "reasonable", when their Republican counterparts aren't. So to be "reasonable", they keep getting dragged toward more and more unreasonable things. You can see it happening on Social Security, with the exception that the Democrats have actually NOT been playing along, for once. Read some editorials, and you're bound to see somebody babbling about the Democrats "not offering an alternative" to President Bush's plan. Well, yes, they are. They're offering the alternative of NOT FUCKING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY. Social Security WORKS. Social Security is NOT in imminent danger. And President Bush's plan wouldn't "fix" anything except to make it worse. All the Social Security crap is about trying to destroy Social Security and distract from the government's real financial problems, the huge deficits that Bush and the Tax-Cut and Spend Republicans have run up. With such marvelous balancing as cutting 10mil from Food Stamps, and cutting $100 million in taxes for the rich. Which makes the deficit $90 million bigger.
When your opponent's not playing to be reasonable, nice, or interested in real compromise, you need to stop playing that game too. It's the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the Democrats really need to learn to play it before the Republicans finish dragging the country off a cliff.
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles, Language
For example, the current Republican party has gone so far off the extremist right wing edge that Richard Nixon would be an evil liberal in this day and age. Now how, you may wonder, did they manage that? They managed that because the Democrats were too nice. And because there's no extreme left-wing party pulling in the opposite direction. So what happens is a dance usually something like this. The Republicans propose something ludicrously reactionary and extreme. The Democrats go "WTF?" Conservative talking heads and media folks get up and shout that the Democrats are being "obstructionist" and offer a "compromise" that's extremely reactionary, but not as nutty as the original proposal. "Liberal" pundits want to play nice, or are pretty damn centrist, any extreme left groups are ridiculed and called communist.
In the interests of being "nice" and "reasonable" to compromise, the Democrats agree to something farther "right" than they'd like, but not as extreme as was originally suggested. If it stopped there, or had anybody pulling on the other side, that wouldn't be a problem. But there's not. So, two weeks later, the Republicans suggest their original extremely reactionary idea again. And go "Well, you already agreed to X, how is Y that much different?" And the pundits and talk radio switch into full gear, and the whole cycle repeats itself. And the "compromise" and "center" end up moving "right" each time, until the farthest "left" thing you hear is barely "left" of the original "compromise".
Why this happens is the modern Republican party doesn't give a damn about compromise, bipartisanship, or the good of the country, they just want to win. While the Democrats were (and are) trying to be "nice" and "reasonable", when their Republican counterparts aren't. So to be "reasonable", they keep getting dragged toward more and more unreasonable things. You can see it happening on Social Security, with the exception that the Democrats have actually NOT been playing along, for once. Read some editorials, and you're bound to see somebody babbling about the Democrats "not offering an alternative" to President Bush's plan. Well, yes, they are. They're offering the alternative of NOT FUCKING WITH SOCIAL SECURITY. Social Security WORKS. Social Security is NOT in imminent danger. And President Bush's plan wouldn't "fix" anything except to make it worse. All the Social Security crap is about trying to destroy Social Security and distract from the government's real financial problems, the huge deficits that Bush and the Tax-Cut and Spend Republicans have run up. With such marvelous balancing as cutting 10mil from Food Stamps, and cutting $100 million in taxes for the rich. Which makes the deficit $90 million bigger.
When your opponent's not playing to be reasonable, nice, or interested in real compromise, you need to stop playing that game too. It's the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the Democrats really need to learn to play it before the Republicans finish dragging the country off a cliff.
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles, Language
