...and implications for propaganda?
The Displaced Plainsman finds this remarkable chart illustrating what might be the most important distinction between Republicans and Democrats:
Two thirds of Democrats appear to choose practical compromise as a superior value. Two thirds of Republicans appear to prefer unyielding, absolute principles.
YouGov.com presents this chart in a discussion of the national debt ceiling crisis, a crisis Republicans have manufactured and which they appear determined not to let go to waste.
This chart appears to support an observation I made over the weekend, that Democrats are actually the center, seeking practical solutions and good government, while Republicans are the wild-eyed ideologues, who view compromise as the root of our problems.
In certain areas (freedom of speech, human rights), compromise makes me queasy. But compromise lies at the heart of good governing. Compromise is how adults get things done. And if you're looking for compromise, it appears you're much more likely to find a home in the Democratic party.
I continue to look at these political games in D.C. with pure: "WOW?!" We are near the edge of a huge economic catastrophe for most of us if the Congress fails to act in good faith by August 2 and yet the D.C. Circus continues unabated like nothing big will happen. Again: "WOW?!"
I have watched american politics closely since jimmy carter was elected in our bicentennial year. I watched as reagen was elected in 1980. I voted for john anderson, the independent candidate. I was very worried then, am even more worried now, by the predominating republican view that only 'conservatism' can save this country. Republicans have had help from the entrenched democratic party interests in getting us to this current mess. But, I sincerely believe the preponderance of evidence shows that republican policies have failed the majority of U.S. citizens. Now this party is threatening to take the country to the cliff because of teapot politics and we south dakotans have an idiot like noem that swears she will help. if there is a good god, may god save us.
Well Curtis, the media is not helping matters. Corey, Curtis, et al: have you not noticed how all the TV stations in the Sioux Falls Media Market have failed to present the other side on all these issues including the most important one of them all: the economy? This includes "that Sioux Falls Paper." All we get almost on a daily basis is a cute Kristi Noem sound bite. Every station has played these Noem sound bites and press releases without covering the other side. This is not journalism. This is the Kristi Noem News Network starring Kristi Noem. I doubt the entire state is in love with her and agrees with her. After all, she only won the last election by 2%. Come on media, there is another side to all of these stories. When will the media act like the responsible media again?
Guy, regarding your comment about the lame right-wing media, as a member of the progressive choir, i can only refrain, hell yeah!
Good graph showing the problem in DC & Pierre & our cities & our homes....
We all have different ideas people - but we must learn to compromise. I'm shaking my head at how STUPID people are! COMPROMISE!
Whew - I feel better.
In general, compromise is a fine thing. However, when one side is completely unreasonable and rooting for disaster, compromise is pointless.
Imagine: You and a friend are deciding where to go for dinner. You say, "I'd like pizza." Your friend says, "No! I want anthrax!" There's not a lot of middle ground for a compromise.
obama needs to show all the balls we think we think we and he have and make this religious-right dominated republican party back down from it's morally/fiscally/politically/suicidal/ untenable position. Time to call the bully's bluff.
Right on!.
Or should that now be LEFT ON!
I believe the President should NOT take Mitch McConnell's deal. That McConnell Deal looks like a poison pill placed in a cocktail drink. The President better think long and hard before dealing with McConnel. If I were him, I would say "NO" to his deal and tell McConnell that he MUST share the responsibility since he wanted to be in Congress. The President should say when we vote on raising the debt limit, "that includes you Mitch" or NO deal. "Mitch, not so fast...you are not getting out of this one like a weasel"
Today's latest news is that Moody's will soon downgrade the USA's bond rating. This change will force a huge liquidation of holdings by funds who must maintain only the highest-tated bond. Enter instant market turmoil. A downgrade will cascade to all gov't securities causing greater interest costs.
Congress has decided not to pass a debt ceiling increase and the US will not be able to pay the obligations that Congress passed into law. The problem is that the Treasury Department will now have to decide who will get paid, how much they will get and when they get it without any legislation dictating the process. This gives the executive branch a huge amount of power.
We can only take our politicians at their word that they will not compromise on taxes and spending cuts. We can point fingers and assign blame but that will not help us deal with the repercussions coming very soon. We need to start having conversations among ourselves about how we will take care of our own because of our lawmakers failure to reach an agreement. For example, when my retired parents do not get their social security checks, what will we do to deal with housing, food and medical care?
No one really knows what will or might happen on August 3rd. The best the media can come up with is "I don't know, but it will be bad."
We can only hope that Congress can someday figure out how to pass a budget before their fiscal year starts.
I read that too Mr. Black, but, Michael, the President MUST NOT take this Mitch McConnell deal. It will be toxic to Barry and allow Mitch to play his game and get away with not taking responsibility. Mitch's feet have to be held to the fire on this one.
I believe if the President comes out with a Press Conference tomorrow saying NO to Senator McConnell's bad deal and calls Mitch out for his "playing politics"with the nation's economy, then, he will gain the majority of support from Americans to forge a real deal for the common good. Mr. President: you must FIRMLY deny Mitch his trojan horse and call him out as a wolf while you still support Speaker Boehner.
Good for him! I just read that the President walked out on a meeting today with Republicans who were pushing Mitch McConnell's bad deal. It sounds as if the President "ain't" falling for the crap. After all, the President made it very clear in his latest press conference that all had to share responsibility on getting a deal passed. He even warned the Republicans today as they kept badgering him with the McConnell deal that he would "take his case to the American People [again]." Way to go Mr. President! The Republicans are not looking good at all on this and Barry senses it as well as he knows he's done what is right and good faith and they haven't and the American People see this.
We need to be as pragmatic as possible. A deal may not be coming any time soon. In Minnesota, they are now talking 6 to 8 months before a compromise may be reached. On a recent trip to Marshall, I heard about the dissatisfaction and frustration Minnesotans have with their state gov't. That does not mean that the two sides are talking or coming closer to a compromise.
LEFT ON! Douglas. I'm sick and tired of (mostly) republican assholes running our government, state and federal. WE NEED TO LET POLITICIANS who just want to SCREW (THE MAJORITY of US) KNOW that WE WON'T LET them do it to us ANYMORE. We need to be pissed-off and remind other people why we are po'd. We need to pick smart and coherrent people to run and SUPPORT them with door-to-door and money. mcconnell is as big a snake as cantor and should not be trusted.
I understand pragmatism, but, there is fine line between that and stupidity. The President wants to compromise, but, it can ONLY be done with SHARED responsibility. The McConnel Deal is NOT SHARED responsibility and an attempt to threaten the President. Barry is right to balk at this garbage.
Congress has had months to come to a deal on legislation that allows them to keep spending money. We should not assume that they will magically now come to agreement on this the 11th hour. Even if a compromise could be reached, it will be rushed with no time for proper consideration or review.
Just as in Minnesota, the division and bashing between the two sides grows stronger every day.
At some point down the road, we will all have to decide as Dr. Phil says: "Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?"
Assume the worst is going to happen. Get your financial house in order. Make a Plan B, C and D.
It's isn't about being "right" it is about "shared responsibility," two entirely different points. The Congress must be forced to share in their responsibility to govern, period.
Someone please forward kwn's message to our Congressional delegation!
Chris, you point to another interesting inherent disadvantage we Dems may have, alongside the seeming propaganda disadvantage. If both parties had equal proportions of compromisers and hardliners, then over years of negotiations, we would expect outcomes to balance out 50-50, half what Dems want, half what GOP want. But if our party is dominated by people inclined to compromise, and the party we are negotiating/competing with knows that, maybe they figure they can always push harder for their hard line and, more times than not, draw us closer to their side. More of the folks on our side will say, "O.K., compromise is good," and the balance of results will shift 40-60.
Anyone care to draw a tactical analogy to Redcoats vs. Minutemen? British soldiers all in neat, civilized rows, American rebels ducking behind trees... oh, dang! But that analogy makes us Dems the Brits!
i was brought up with teachings of get along, turn-the-other cheek, the golden rule. For too long i have seen a republican party dominated by people who don't give a damn about the common weal. Look at cantor and mcconnell, go down the line of their mouthpieces, do you see (hardly) anyone who seems like they care for poor people, the struggling, the crippled, the despised. they like to call themselves christians, but they are just assholes.
Just once it would be nice to hear a rational discussion on how increasing revenue, closing gaping loopholes and ending a few subsidies shouldn't be part of the equation.
What I can't figure out is why we aren't hearing from Tim, John and Kristi everyday on what is happening and where they stand. Of course, I easily forget that congressional salaries, healthcare and pensions are safe, they are rich and things like medicare and social security don't mean much to them or their donors.
Tim? John? Kristi? You out there?
Of course that's wishful thinking. While the average citizen is worried about what the debt means to the kitchen table discussions, I'm guessing that they are worried a little more about their political futures and that of their donors. Tim? John? Kristi? If I'm wrong let us know, but we elected you to represent us good people of South Dakota and part of that representation is communicating back to us where you are at and what you are doing.
We elected you not the media, so don't wait for them to ask. Speak out now, we deserve to know.
they just want to be re-elected, and if we democrats and independents don't get our crap together, noem will be in the club. i'd like to see some balls from johnson. i really don't see what he has to lose. i don't expect anything from thune or noem, who have plenty of years of power ahead for them and their buddies.
Tim, John and Kristi. As long as we're talking, what are you doing about creating jobs? That seemed to be all the rage during campaign time and that was a promise you all made.
Not that I'm counting on you three to post on a political blog, but what the heck, give it a try.
you want chamber of commerce to create jobs? good paying jobs? they will do whatever it takes to keep wages low, that's the way it works in Huron, SD.
As a full-time writer who has bucked the headwinds of society for thirty years, I see nothing more that I can do to "prepare for the worst" besides moving to Alaska and living off of bear meat and berries.
An interest-rate hike would actually benefit me, as all my "assets" (besides my house) are in Certificates of Deposit. I have no skin in the stock market; let it fall a thousand points or three, so what? I live in my house full-time and it's paid off; let them take away the mortgage interest deduction, so the heck what? My overhead business expenses are near zero thanks to computer storage media and the Internet; let them take away all my deductions, and it would hardly make a dent, so the freak what?
My income has dropped by more than 50 percent in the last three years, but I've always run a tight ship. Now that I have no extra money to throw around, I'm writing like the devil, because there's nothing else for me to do, and, thank God, my publisher is still in business and still seems to want me. Bring on the hurricane, you Washington idiots, bring on the tsunamis and volcanoes and earthquakes; but if you expect me to die for you, then you can jolly well go jump in the lake.
The voters have a lake of fire waiting for you in November 2012, you masters of humanity!
Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance, but to do what lies clearly at hand. -- Thomas Carlyle
Cory: this is utter nonsense. In the first place, it is what the President likes to call a false choice. The whole point of compromise is get as close as one can to one's principles when other people are involved. You acknowledge that you yourself don't like compromise when the principles are really important. So let's not kid ourselves that you are more flexible than the people you criticize. How flexible are you on abortion?
There is a very good reason why a lot of Republicans are skeptical of compromise. They think that politicians go to Washington promising change and then do business as usual. They think that compromise means making promises you can't keep and spending trillions you don't have.
Nonetheless, I am tempted to accept your view that Republicans have principles and Democrats don't. You'd think that when Obama criticized Bush's national security policies, that the former was speaking from principle. If so, he compromised his principles in a hurry. You'd think that Democrats had a principle that a President can't start a war without consent from Congress. Obama surely compromised that principle in a hurry, with his utter contempt for the War Powers Act. So maybe you're right. Compromise is the way to get things done. Principles are just obstacles to good government. Thanks for setting me straight.
[CAH: I knew someone would say, "So Dems really have no principles!" But "utter nonsense"? No, there appears to be an important value difference here that could tilt propaganda and negotiations. My man Leo responds to Dr. Blanchard's point on Displaced Plainsman.]
A couple notes of clarification as a "rantscript":
(1) I should have started a new paragraph with "Bring on the hurricane" because at that point I turn my attention east toward Washington. (I don't mean to rage at anyone here on this blog!)
(2) I should not have said "you Washington idiots." I should have said "you Washington pinheads."
On a more serious note, I do hope that the two sides can come to a compromise and fine some common ground that benefits the American people, you know, those three-hundred-and-some-odd-million folks who want decent lives for themselves and their loved ones.
Unfortunately, the conflict appears to have begun to feed on itself like a wildfire out of control. The end result might be nothing more than a whole lot of scorched earth.
Cory, this is like trying to deduce something when the two sides see the issue different.
For a conservative, every "getting something done" results in bigger government, higher taxes, and less individual freedom. Thus they see compromise as a bad thing.
Conversely, for a liberal "compromise" still results in bigger government. Thus, they see compromise as a good thing.
The debate today proves it. Since Obama became President the 10 year forecast for spending went up $9trillion. Boehner is asking for this to be reduced $2trillion.
In two years, if Boehner gets all he is asking for, Obama still get $7trillion in more spending.
Cory, when compromise goes one way, after awhile, both sides learn to see it differently.
Troy, when a company gets bigger, expenses necessarily go up. Hopefully so does revenue, or the company goes out of business. Right?
When can we stop talking about cutting expenses and start talking about revenue increases (aka "jobs")?
Because as ling as we keep getting more people, were going to have to see increases in the cost of government. This seems so obvious.
..."long"... not "ling" sorry.
Bill,
The GOP opposed the stimulus, bailout of the auto companies, HAFA, HAMP, Obamacare, and just about every other effort to manipulate the economy because it would be counter-productive to the economy and job creation. Now that we have wrought what we said would happen, shouldnt all those Dems open to compromise and start listening to us?
Sure. I think they are listening. Obama just put $4 trillion in cuts on the table and Cantor turned his nose up at it. What's that all about?
One of my friends told me this morning that they favor a gov't shutdown in order to stop the madness. This is not an isolated view.
I take issue with the name-calling: my parents and many of my close friends are Republican. They are not A-holes.
Cory, pragmatic compromise is just another label for Hegelian Dialectic.
Grover Norquist said it did not make any difference if a Democratic president was elected. They would make the government ineffective to the point it was essentially ungovernable in any meaningful way by a Democratic President.
Taxing the extremely wealthy is not making the government larger. It is an essential requirement of keeping even fundamental government running and getting the debts and deficits under control.
What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD?) heh, heh, heh....
Democracy does not exist without compromise. The only political system that exists without compromise - no matter what they call it to justify it - is dictatorship. Democracy is based on majority rule, which means that sometimes I'm fed up to the back teeth with what's done, sometimes someone else is: but no one gets to hold the country hostage to their particular point of view. Democracy is supposed to be a messy, pragmatic, philosophically and politically impure way of governing: but I think it beats the alternative.
It appears that Grover Norquist is now calling all the shots. Maybe the president should be negotiating with him directly instead of the elected representative in Congress.