The great political art of compromise

Thread starter #1
Having seen quite a few posts proclaiming the importance of compromise in American politics, perhaps someone could tell me: what are the issues where we should expect (and appreciate) the GOP to move to the Democrat perspective?
 
Last edited:

redlevel

Senior Member
Let's not do that. I haven't seen in the last few days anyone calling for more compromise with the Democrats. What I did see was a thread lamenting the fact that Liverterrions are left in the cold, that they are inconsequential, that they are outside the tent peeing in, all because they stick to an unworkable, untenable set of beliefs and planks. What the discussion was about was the Republicans and Liverterrions compromising on some issues, so that they might present a more unified front.

I'll start. I would never agree to a blanket legalization of drugs. I can, though, accept a legalization of marijuana, handling it sort of like we do alcohol, except with stricter penalties for the misuse of either. That would be a start, and I could move more toward the Liverterrion position, but I will never, ever agree that all dangerous drugs should be legalized and made available to everyone.

I could see some movement toward the Liverterrion call for isolationism and abandonment of allies, but no one, at least not more than one or two percent, are going to accept the extreme Liverterrion position.

Once we get some agreement, we can start taking about incrementally moving the Democrats more toward the center from the left where they are now.

Right now, I won't even consider some of your personal beliefs that I believe are even more extreme than the official Liverterrion platform.
 

Balrog

Senior Member
If you vote for Romney, get ready to have the 2nd amendment compromised. He seemed proud of the fact that he compromised away 2nd amendment rights in MA.
 
Thread starter #6
Let's not do that. I haven't seen in the last few days anyone calling for more compromise with the Democrats. What I did see was a thread lamenting the fact that Liverterrions are left in the cold, that they are inconsequential, that they are outside the tent peeing in, all because they stick to an unworkable, untenable set of beliefs and planks. What the discussion was about was the Republicans and Liverterrions compromising on some issues, so that they might present a more unified front.

I'll start. I would never agree to a blanket legalization of drugs. I can, though, accept a legalization of marijuana, handling it sort of like we do alcohol, except with stricter penalties for the misuse of either. That would be a start, and I could move more toward the Liverterrion position, but I will never, ever agree that all dangerous drugs should be legalized and made available to everyone.

I could see some movement toward the Liverterrion call for isolationism and abandonment of allies, but no one, at least not more than one or two percent, are going to accept the extreme Liverterrion position.

Once we get some agreement, we can start taking about incrementally moving the Democrats more toward the center from the left where they are now.

Right now, I won't even consider some of your personal beliefs that I believe are even more extreme than the official Liverterrion platform.
Inconsequential
Irrelevant
Insignificant

Thanks for the contempt and the "offer" of a truly ridiculous compromise, but I'm going to have to pass, tempting as it is. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It is far better to keep fighting against both wings of the intrusive, invasive big government party.
 

weagle

Senior Member
It seems that many folks don't understand the basic principals of negotiation.

Since we do not have absolute rulers, in order to get anything done our elected officials must negotiate on our behalf. The term "bi-partisan" is throw around like it is a good thing. In reality what we want are partisans negotiating as effectively as possible for our side.

An "all or nothing" type of negotiation gets you nothing unless you have absolute power, which none of our elected officials have. Therefore we must elect as many partisans as we can to negotiate in our favor and incrementally move things in the right direction.

We can all wish things were different, but that's just the way things are here in the real world.
 

redlevel

Senior Member
No contempt. I just don't understand why you choose to remove yourself from the process and stand on the sidelines.
 
Thread starter #9
It seems that many folks don't understand the basic principals of negotiation.

Since we do not have absolute rulers, in order to get anything done our elected officials must negotiate on our behalf. The term "bi-partisan" is throw around like it is a good thing. In reality what we want are partisans negotiating as effectively as possible for our side.

An "all or nothing" type of negotiation gets you nothing unless you have absolute power, which none of our elected officials have. Therefore we must elect as many partisans as we can to negotiate in our favor and incrementally move things in the right direction.

We can all wish things were different, but that's just the way things are here in the real world.

How about a nationwide hand gun ban? Would you be willing to "negotiate" on a hand gun ban if it meant everybody got to keep rifles and shotguns?


How about an increase in your tax rates? Would you agree to an increase in the taxes we all pay in exchange for a promise to cut spending?


How do you move things in the right direction if Republicans are continually compromising and negotiating away our rights and liberties?

What example do you have of the government getting smaller, less intrusive and less expensive because of some compromise the GOP negotiated?

When do things get better?
 
Thread starter #10
No contempt. I just don't understand why you choose to remove yourself from the process and stand on the sidelines.
If I play on your team, on your field, with your ball and your rules, having compromised everything I stand for and believe in, I have essentially become just like you. There's no point in both of us advocating for the same big government policies.

I want radically different government, not shadings of degrees of the same thing, with vague promises of incremental slowing in some distant future.
 
Thread starter #11
Come on, guys. The GOP shares the field of power with the Democrats.

That's where the real game is, not on the sidelines...right, redlevel?

Since that's where the game and the power reside, let's go right ahead and tell me where I can expect the Republicans to exercise the art of compromise with their Democrat counterparts.

Where can I expect y'all to cave next?

How about I offer y'all a little jumpstart?

Romney will "repeal and replace" Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, streamlining both while keeping what he considers the "good parts" of each.

Just a spoonful of socialism, y'know.

Romney and Ryan and pretty much all the GOP..."Oh, no! NO, we don't want to end socialist programs like medicare and social [in]security. NO sir! We want to keep them around for years and years and years to come. We just need to tweak them to ensure Americans will have do deal with them forever!"

Good ol' compromise. Great negotiating, guys. Really.
 

weagle

Senior Member
How about a nationwide hand gun ban? Would you be willing to "negotiate" on a hand gun ban if it meant everybody got to keep rifles and shotguns?

If negotiating from position of weakness a ban on handguns might be better than a 100% loss of 2nd Amendment rights. If negotiating from power then maybe we get nationwide concealed carry.


How about an increase in your tax rates? Would you agree to an increase in the taxes we all pay in exchange for a promise to cut spending?

Am I negotiating from a position of power or not?


How do you move things in the right direction if Republicans are continually compromising and negotiating away our rights and liberties?

See above.




What example do you have of the government getting smaller, less intrusive and less expensive because of some compromise the GOP negotiated?

More GOP especially tea party types in office means more of a position of power. You get the point. This ain't rocket science.

When do things get better?
This really is not hard to understand.

I'll make this analogy. We will all die someday. We will get older and weaker and eventually die. There is no way to avoid it. My goal in life is to live the best life I can and leave the best life for my children and grandchildren, although they too will eventually grow old and die.

The only alternative is to die young and leave a good looking corpse.

Our nation will someday die too. It is inevitable. It will almost certainly be from internal deterioration not an invasion. However my goal is to prolong what we have as long as possible to pass down to my kids, grand kids, great grand kids.. as long as we can maintain this great nation.

Our nation can have a very, very long life. Or we can be stupid and die young and leave a good looking corpse.
 
The founding fathers compromised when they wrote the Constitution.



T
 

redlevel

Senior Member
I want radically different government, not shadings of degrees of the same thing, with vague promises of incremental slowing in some distant future.
You are speaking of revolution. That is what you are describing in the above paragraph. See my signature. You are not speaking of working within Constitutional parameters. We didn't get in this mess overnight, and we won't get out overnight. Unless there is a revolution. Who knows what would happen after a revolution? I have a pretty good idea. There is at least a 50% chance there would be a reaction that would bring on worse than we have now. You are living in a fantasy world.
 
Philip what was it like when you were really active in the libertarian party as far as getting the group to make decisions? Did they all stand on their own personal principles and nothing got done but a lot of arguing or did they all sit down and compromise a little so the bigger picture could get accomplished? Was everyone representing theirselves when a decision was made or did you have a board of directors, etc that made decisions for the group??

T
 
You are speaking of revolution. That is what you are describing in the above paragraph. See my signature. You are not speaking of working within Constitutional parameters. We didn't get in this mess overnight, and we won't get out overnight. Unless there is a revolution. Who knows what would happen after a revolution? I have a pretty good idea. There is at least a 50% chance there would be a reaction that would bring on worse than we have now. You are living in a fantasy world.
IMO it is MUCH greater than a 50% chance of happening.


T
 
Thread starter #19
This really is not hard to understand.

I'll make this analogy. We will all die someday. We will get older and weaker and eventually die. There is no way to avoid it. My goal in life is to live the best life I can and leave the best life for my children and grandchildren, although they too will eventually grow old and die.

The only alternative is to die young and leave a good looking corpse.

Our nation will someday die too. It is inevitable. It will almost certainly be from internal deterioration not an invasion. However my goal is to prolong what we have as long as possible to pass down to my kids, grand kids, great grand kids.. as long as we can maintain this great nation.

Our nation can have a very, very long life. Or we can be stupid and die young and leave a good looking corpse.
The GOP had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress under George W. Bush. That's total power.

Did things get better or worse under Dubya? Did the size, scope, cost and intrusiveness of government get smaller, or did Leviathan continue to grow and to consume and destroy?
 
Thread starter #20
You are speaking of revolution. That is what you are describing in the above paragraph. See my signature. You are not speaking of working within Constitutional parameters. We didn't get in this mess overnight, and we won't get out overnight. Unless there is a revolution. Who knows what would happen after a revolution? I have a pretty good idea. There is at least a 50% chance there would be a reaction that would bring on worse than we have now. You are living in a fantasy world.
Then so be it; revolution it is.
 
Top