Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Hmm... I kind of find myself agreeing with Ace's last post here. It all relates back to my first campaign boss and what he called his Grand Unified Theory of American Politics: "We like winners and don't like wussies. Act like a winner."
Now I can't go so far as to say any "give and take" is wrong. Negotiating has its place - politics isn't as simple as a price range, but is instead more like a prioritized list of demands. Conceding one demand in order to get support for the other, more important, demands can be an acceptable practice.
|
My first political boss was Sen. Jennings Randolph of WV. A tough old southerner and man of principle who know when to compromise. I worked on his staff in his last two years in office and learned more about politics and being an effective legislator than ace will ever know.
He was the the leading force behind the constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 18. He fought for it through 10 sessions of Congress, horse trading each time until he finally had the votes.
As I pointed out earlier, Reagan compromised (caved?) on raising taxes.
And yes, despite ace's blindspot to the truth, the framers of the Constitution, those from the north, compromised core beliefs on slavery in order to form the union. There would have been no union w/o that compromise.
Quote:
|
My problem with Obama (and Democrats in general) is that they don't act confident while making these negotiations with Republicans, even when they are the ones in power, and even when the polls show the American people support their agenda (despite Fox News' assertions otherwise). Part of the problem is that the Democratic Party currently represents a much wider range of political philosophies than the Republican party, so I get that it's not so simple as saying all the Democrats should vote for the Democratic agenda. Nonetheless, when you have the presidency and a majority in chambers, you need to act - as a party - like you have that power. Yes, the filibuster rule is totally broken, and it's absurd that Republican obstructionism has forced a de facto requirement of 60 votes in the senate to pass most bills, but a party with as much power as the Democrats had should embrace that fight and highlight that obstructionism. Instead, they mentioned it infrequently and without urgency, making it look like they were complaining instead of shedding light on abusive practices of the opposition.
|
I do agree that the Democrats have not been forceful enough in calling out Republicans for their obstructionism and hypocrisy, despite the fact that the Senate Republicans had the votes to block any meaningful legislation.
And the fact that the bigger tent of the Democratic party makes it much more challenging.
Extreme ideologues (on either end) are great for political debate, but rarely achieve their political objectives....without compromise.