Author Topic: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate  (Read 9191 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« on: April 27, 2018, 07:59:46 »
According to Pew Research Centre,

Quote
There is now no difference between Republicans and Democrats in their views of compromise. In six previous surveys conducted since 2011, Democrats were consistently more likely than Republicans to say they liked those who compromised. As recently as last July, 69% of Democrats said they preferred elected officials who made compromises; today just 46% say this.

It's obviously in response to Trump, but frankly it's long, long overdue. Imagine if Democrats didn't compromise on the warcrime in Iraq, if Obama didn't compromise with Romneycare and stuck to at least a public option, if Obama had stuck to his guns about Bush' tax cuts for the rich, if the flat-out theft of the Supreme Court seat presently held by Gorsuch was fought against with even a passing degree of outrage.

Democrats have been "keeping their powder dry" for as long as the Clinton's rammed third-way centrist neoliberalism down the throats of the American left-leaners in the '90's. It's about time they said enough's enough. It took a crypto-fascist to do it, but at least it's something.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 149,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,889
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2018, 10:36:53 »
...and the tone of your post suggests you'd really be up for compromise.

We wrote new rules for the politics section for a reason.  It seems you're here to scream and shout.  I recommend re-reading them.

Consider this strike 1.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 10:47:51 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2018, 12:52:51 »
I doubt compromise is dead; what is dead is slow-moving progress and concensus that governments should mainly see to the mundane business of the day and effect large-scale changes only occasionally and only once the case has been sold to the people sufficiently to convince a large mass of them.  People seeking change today want a great deal and they want it almost immediately.  (It doesn't help that when change is "won", some of the victors make a point of punishing those who stood against them.  It hardens the will of those who count themselves among the punished to resist in future.)

For compromise to work, both parties must be willing to make concessions: of equal value, subject to modification depending on the relative political strength in the legislature.  And: they must stick to the terms, including the substance informal preliminary agreements (don't renege on a commitment made when a one-two phasing favours your aims first).

It is illustrative that although the Democrats had nothing they were willing to concede to Republicans in order to pass the PPACA, a great deal of compromise within Democratic ranks was necessary.  What they got was as much as was practical; had anyone held out for much more, I doubt they would have passed anything.

The animations of Pew surveys here - which I have linked before - illustrate the growing divide.  Worth noting is that the position of Republicans has not shifted much (which we should expect for "conservativism") whereas the position of Democrats has shifted considerably.  How can anyone expect their relative expectations to be easily reconciled?  If you select for "Politically Active", the shifts and gap are more pronounced; since the "politically active" are the ones writing and talking, it feeds a perception that the country as a whole is more divided than it really is.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,543
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,758
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2018, 13:51:36 »
I doubt compromise is dead; what is dead is slow-moving progress and concensus that governments should mainly see to the mundane business of the day and effect large-scale changes only occasionally and only once the case has been sold to the people sufficiently to convince a large mass of them.  People seeking change today want a great deal and they want it almost immediately.  (It doesn't help that when change is "won", some of the victors make a point of punishing those who stood against them.  It hardens the will of those who count themselves among the punished to resist in future.)

For compromise to work, both parties must be willing to make concessions: of equal value, subject to modification depending on the relative political strength in the legislature.  And: they must stick to the terms, including the substance informal preliminary agreements (don't renege on a commitment made when a one-two phasing favours your aims first).

It is illustrative that although the Democrats had nothing they were willing to concede to Republicans in order to pass the PPACA, a great deal of compromise within Democratic ranks was necessary.  What they got was as much as was practical; had anyone held out for much more, I doubt they would have passed anything.

The animations of Pew surveys here - which I have linked before - illustrate the growing divide.  Worth noting is that the position of Republicans has not shifted much (which we should expect for "conservativism") whereas the position of Democrats has shifted considerably.  How can anyone expect their relative expectations to be easily reconciled?  If you select for "Politically Active", the shifts and gap are more pronounced; since the "politically active" are the ones writing and talking, it feeds a perception that the country as a whole is more divided than it really is.

Great post and thanks for the link.  Very good read.  Thank you again.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,224
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2018, 14:23:01 »
This is all about 2 party politics.When the dem's are in power they wont compromise.The Republicans have power but little stomach to use it.Then you have divisions within the parties.There are neverTrumpers who dont want the President to succeed so they obstruct him at every turn.Here we are over a year later and he hasnt got his selections in place there are too many democrats still in government.Usually when a new administration comes in the old resign.This time the dem's are staying which will bite them in the behind if they ever win the Presidency.

Offline Pencil Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 328
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2018, 15:17:37 »
It's very disturbing how entrenched the two sides are there now. I don't see how they can ever come back together. It's like they're speaking two completely different languages.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2018, 18:40:06 »
This is all about 2 party politics.When the dem's are in power they wont compromise.The Republicans have power but little stomach to use it.Then you have divisions within the parties.There are neverTrumpers who dont want the President to succeed so they obstruct him at every turn.Here we are over a year later and he hasnt got his selections in place there are too many democrats still in government.Usually when a new administration comes in the old resign.This time the dem's are staying which will bite them in the behind if they ever win the Presidency.
Canada has 3 parties and it's not any better here.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2018, 18:41:50 »
6 parties

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2018, 18:45:49 »
6 parties
Lib,Con,NDP, Bloc,Green....?

And really, only the big three are in positions where they may actually need to compromise on things
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,338
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2018, 19:01:53 »
According to Pew Research Centre,

It's obviously in response to Trump, but frankly it's long, long overdue. Imagine if Democrats didn't compromise on the warcrime in Iraq, if Obama didn't compromise with Romneycare and stuck to at least a public option, if Obama had stuck to his guns about Bush' tax cuts for the rich, if the flat-out theft of the Supreme Court seat presently held by Gorsuch was fought against with even a passing degree of outrage.

Democrats have been "keeping their powder dry" for as long as the Clinton's rammed third-way centrist neoliberalism down the throats of the American left-leaners in the '90's. It's about time they said enough's enough. It took a crypto-fascist to do it, but at least it's something.

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

― Mark Twain

 ;D
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,224
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2018, 23:12:33 »

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 159,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,256
  • It's all good
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2018, 23:32:12 »
Ryan has fired the House Chaplain.The dem's are outraged. :o

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/27/paul-ryans-firing-house-chaplain-outrages-democrats.html

The comments section accompanying this piece was.....illuminating
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 483,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,717
    • The job.
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2018, 23:44:04 »
Ryan has fired the House Chaplain.The dem's are outraged. :o

Some Republicans grill Ryan over House chaplain firing
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/politics/chaplain-dismissed-house-ryan/index.html

QUOTE

“I’m not aware of any discontent or any criticism, and to be the first House chaplain removed in the history of Congress in the middle of the term raises serious questions, and I think we deserve more of an explanation of why,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who asked Ryan in the GOP meeting Friday to detail the reasons for his decision. “Paul said it was solely because he was not giving good service to the members. Again, I never heard that before.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/ryan-seeks-to-defend-ouster-of-house-chaplain-as-members-question-his-motives/2018/04/27/70937e8a-4a0f-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html?utm_term=.09d92b6600ef

END QUOTE


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2018, 10:54:58 »
He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 298
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2018, 16:34:21 »
He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.
Not like you can make the argument that members of Congress are unable financially/logistically to find new supports while in D.C., unlike e.g. service members.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 151,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,751
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2018, 17:01:23 »
He may have been the first Congress Chaplain to be fired but you  may recall that long ago, there wasn't any such Chaplain, and the crafters of the Bill of Rights who were still around when Congress tried to hire the first one vehemently opposed the move, particularly on the ground that it broke the first Amendment "no establishment" rule.

The whole thing makes me marvel at the hypocrisy behind these things.

Wikipedia's article on the chaplaincies are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate

Despite the Constitution there has almost always been a chaplain in each house and, until 2000 and with one exception for a year in 1832, almost always some form of Protestant. Anyone want to lay bets on when the first Jewish, or Muslim or Scientologist chaplain will be appointed?

Note that the court issues on this have always ruled on the side of "tradition" or the right to appoint "officers" despite the clear language in the Constitution. I guess anyone who has "In God We Trust" inscribed on their money can't be too serious about separation of church and state.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 483,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,717
    • The job.
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #16 on: April 28, 2018, 18:34:47 »
The whole thing makes me marvel at the hypocrisy behind these things.

 :cheers:

I don't know who said it first, just reminds me of something I read,

"The most difficult choice a politician must ever make is whether to be a hypocrite or a liar."  :)


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2018, 18:37:38 »
Anyone want to lay bets on when the first Jewish, or Muslim or Scientologist chaplain will be appointed?

 The fellow in yellow will be appointed as soon as Tom Cruise wins the presidency.  ;D

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 87,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,912
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #18 on: April 28, 2018, 18:40:45 »
The fellow in yellow will be appointed as soon as Tom Cruise wins the presidency.  ;D


Hmn.  So he could be both president and congressional chaplain at once...
Optio

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2018, 10:20:31 »
Unclear why there is a need for one in the first place?

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 97,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,224
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2018, 16:29:24 »
Your Parliment lacks a chaplain ?

Offline PPCLI Guy

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 159,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,256
  • It's all good
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2018, 16:34:44 »
Your Parliment lacks a chaplain ?

Not that I am aware of...and religion has no place in our politics at all.  We do not care where or even if our MPs go to church.  It is a complete non-issue......except that most know who the Sikhs are, and most know who many of the Muslims are, but that is a matter of dress as a means of self-identification, as opposed to proclamation.
"The higher the rank, the more necessary it is that boldness should be accompanied by a reflective mind....for with increase in rank it becomes always a matter less of self-sacrifice and more a matter of the preservation of others, and the good of the whole."

Karl von Clausewitz

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 87,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,912
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2018, 17:03:29 »
Not that I am aware of...and religion has no place in our politics at all.  We do not care where or even if our MPs go to church.  It is a complete non-issue......except that most know who the Sikhs are, and most know who many of the Muslims are, but that is a matter of dress as a means of self-identification, as opposed to proclamation.

Not quite true as a prayer is part of parliamentary proceeedings. See here: http://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure-book-livre/document.aspx?sbdid=af057bd0-f018-4fb4-bd75-4a2200729f05&sbpidx=2

Also there is a chaplain assigned to the speaker in the British system.  Not sure if Canada has one or not.
Optio

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 151,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,751
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2018, 21:41:24 »
Your Parliment lacks a chaplain ?

Not that I'm aware of as the prayer in the House of Commons is given by the speaker.

There's a fundamental difference between religious freedom in our Constitution and that of the US.

Canada recognizes in it's constitution in the preamble that states "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God." This however is an anachronism that was put into the document in order to resolve some compromise. Pierre Trudeau himself didn't want it and was quoted as saying "I don't think God gives a damn whether he's in the constitution or not." The phrase has been generally interpreted as having no legal effect and being a "dead letter". See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

The substantive freedom of religion clause is in Section 2 which provides that "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms a) freedom of conscience and religion ..." As such it is a permissive right given to people to use or not to use.

The US Constitution, on the other hand, provides at the 1st Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." This is a restrictive as well as permissive law which puts a prohibition on Congress (and government in general) in this field.

I quite frankly prefer the US provision as it appears at first blush to be clearer. Unfortunately what ought to be clear provisions are ones that are inconvenient to many of those who just can't stop themselves from proselytizing.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #24 on: May 05, 2018, 09:21:31 »
So we can see that compromise has died in the American independent and left-leaning voters, but why has never really existed in "conservatives"? Glad you asked!

Quote
Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century. Plenty of people don’t want to directly engage with this fact, but this [piece] will be getting into it in full. All too often I see the framing that “Hillary lost to the worst candidate in history.” But I think this framing has always been wrong, and it allows people to bypass a question that they don’t want to grapple with: why was Trump electorally viable to the degree that he was? Do not construe this as me arguing that Hillary’s campaign didn’t make mistakes, but I want to laser focus on why people voted for Trump, and what that says about where we are as a country.

“He promised to shake up the establishment.”

“His campaign resonated with those who have been left behind.”

“It’s just so refreshing to hear a candidate speak his mind.”

“Trump voters responded to economic anxiety.”

But these theories do not have any explanatory power regarding why the vote broke down the way it did demographically. Only one broad demographic seemed to be receptive to the kind of campaign that Trump ran on: white people.

We must be cognizant of what Trump ran on: calling Mexicans rapists, banning Muslim immigration, building a wall to keep undocumented immigrants out, national stop-and-frisk. And he has a track record of questioning the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. We know that denial of racism, alongside hostile sexism, predicted a vote for Donald Trump significantly more than other factors like economic dissatisfaction.

This kind of correlation between racial resentment and the probability of voting for Trump has been observed in other studies.
Lack of education predicted support for Trump because of its strong relationship to ethnocentrism, not so much income and occupation. Trump voters thought that a hierarchy that prioritized white people was under attack. Trump helped cement that belief.

Separate point: perceptions of the economy don’t really determine political preference. Rather, it’s the other way around; political preferences determine economic perceptions. Bearing this in mind…

We’ve seen something analogous under President Obama; racial resentment predicted perception of the economy (note the blue curve). The more racially resentful, the poorer the perception of the economy.

So yeah. You see the theme. Of course, it’s not enough to grapple with what the appeal of Trump’s campaign was. We must also be cognizant of the fact that that appeal was propelled to the White House while Trump has demonstrated he's thoroughly unfit.

We know Trump’s temperament is horrible, he lacks the qualifications to govern effectively, he doesn’t know the ins and outs of the issues, he has no real desire to learn, he is obsessed with denigrating his opponents and not being humiliated, and he’s a lecher. We can’t just say “Donald Trump won by cultivating bigotry” though because that still leaves some things ambiguous. Donald Trump won because affirming the primacy of whiteness is still an issue of importance to too many white voters.

What white supremacy greatly fears is a genuine meritocracy, a society where anyone, regardless of race or gender, can rise according to their talents and diligence. For white supremacy to guard against a trajectory toward meritocracy, this requires everything of merit must be sacrificed, which brings us to a terrifying conclusion: the various ways Trump was unfit for the Presidency were features to his voters, not flaws. Trump won the GOP primary and was propelled to the White House because a swath of white voters wanted to send this message to people of color after 8 years of a Black President who successfully governed: “The worst of us should still be given deference over the best of you.”

Furthermore, this entitlement is so profound that many white voters have been willing to sacrifice benefits to their class in exchange for seeing institutions uphold the primacy of whiteness. In W. E. B. Du Bois’s Black Reconstruction in America, he wrote about the psychological wage of whiteness; in exchange for experiencing potentially low economic wages, white people were given a psychological wage in the form of ubiquitous deference.

If you find it hard to conceive of people forgoing fiscal wages for the sake of a psychological wage, consider that similar behavior has been observed in non-racial contexts. A Harvard study asked people if they’d rather make $50,000 when everyone else around them makes $25,000 OR if they’d rather make $100,000 when everyone else around them makes $200,000. Fifty percent of respondents opted for the former.

Wild, right? People will opt for a job that pays absolutely less so long as they know they make more relative to everyone else over a job where they make absolutely more but relatively less than everyone else. Because people want to know they’re on top. But if that’s how people behave in non-racial contexts, then it’s actually not a wild leap to conceive of white people forgoing economic benefits so long as they get institutions and politicians upholding white supremacy. They want to know they’re on top.
This is actually why many fiscally left-leaning policy positions that we support run into brutal opposition; the real undercurrent is too many white people do not want to share the safety net with anyone else. Then they wouldn't be on top.

Here’s a specific example: we could have had something akin to single-payer during the Truman years. But white southerners opposed it because they feared a national health insurance program would force hospitals to integrate. Seriously.

The 60s marked a period of significant success for the Democratic Party and civil rights. It also led to a flight of white southerners from the party and the end of bipartisanship on redistributionist policies.

Reality: This country was founded upon building an economy on top of exploiting Black labor, concentrating wealth produced from that labor in the hands of white people, and deploying all kinds of terrible tactics to ensure that rigid social stratification was upheld. And when that status quo has been challenged, our country has experienced its most significant upheavals.
The U.S. fought its bloodiest and most destructive war over whether the enslavement of Black people should continue. Eras of relative stability for the United States, on the other hand, usually relied on people with power tacitly (or explicitly) upholding racial exclusion from democracy.

As minorities increasingly got to participate in democracy—both in terms of voting and participating in government—we saw a decline in bipartisanship, a trend which effectively exploded when Barack Obama was elected President. This isn't a coincidence.

The unfortunate truth is Trump is the culmination of a force that has always been here, namely the tendency to undermine and destroy institutions that do not show extraordinary deference to whiteness, and instead, propping up new and regressive systems in their place. The White House did not show extraordinary deference to whiteness for the past eight years because the President was Black, so the institution was undermined by a majority of white people who voted for a man thoroughly unfit to run the institution but promised bigotry.

I made this [piece] because I am sick of the bullshit excuses for voting for Trump as well as the attempts to obfuscate what happened in 2016. Regardless of your opinion of Hillary Clinton, this was my attempt to explain what happened in 2016. Thanks for reading. I think it's only fair for me to add that many of the observations in this thread conform to what people of color have been saying for years and years. That shouldn't go unacknowledged.

Source