What is compromise today?

[Hygro]

Once upon a time government ruled by the common consensus. The did so through compromise.

Compromise used to be the side in power saying: "this is bad, this is good, lets do XYZ" which was respond the minority power with "no, that's not bad, and that's not good, but this is bad so let's do VWX" and so they both do X and everyone's a little happy and the nation moves forward. Now they won't even pick the X because it loses political points. Republicans keep retreating from their own positions to win politically, and Democrats don't do much on their end either.

Obviously to have effective government again, we need to bring back the culture of compromise.

But do we want compromise? What is compromise today?

The only thing Congress DOES seem to compromise on is giving the state more power to police its citizens, be it the drug war or the terror war or other law enforcement driven culturally driven conflicts.

This is awful!

Let's say Republicans and Democrats kept to general, average positions they've held the past 10 or so years. Let's say this so that they don't include play-by-play political flip flopping.

Now let's say, sticking to their own views, what is the common ground? What is the compromises we would see?

Do we want those compromises?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Origin of the Word Idiot

I learned today that the word idiot originates from the Greek word idiwtes (idiotes), which refers to a person disinterested in participating in democracy and public life. These people were viewed as selfish, contemptable and stupid as they were more concerned with their daily personal affairs than they were of the good of the society. Later in the Middle Ages the word took on additional connotations associated with being stupid, such as being mentally incapable.

So don’t be an idiot… get involved in your democracy.
Freedom isn’t free. (pay attention, vote, run for office)

Now this definition seems to run counter to Mark Twain’s statement “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” However, at this time, most people in Congress are more interested in their careers than they are interested in our democracy. This is evident by the ease with which they make compromises and give up their powers (our powers, since they are our representatives) so that they don’t have to make the hard decisions that may upset voters. In the original Greek sense of the word, today’s Congress is full of idiots.

My friend James Kurien once told me a quote that goes

“Stop acting like an idiot you moron!”

What is funny about this is that it is entirely a reasonable thing to say since by today&#8217;s definition, a moron (50 < IQ < 69) is slightly more intelligent than an idiot (IQ < 20).

Apparently morons are the people who vote.

http://www.huginn.com/knuth/blog/2007/11/22/origin-of-the-word-idiot/

 

[History_Buff]

Obviously to have effective government again, we need to bring back the culture of compromise.

But do we want compromise? What is compromise today?

I contest that we need to bring back compromise. It's a rather stupid idea, as it's based on trying to make sure nobody loses, rather than figuring out the best thing to do, and then doing it.

What you should be doing is sitting down to examine the country's biggest problem: the economy. Now, both sides have very different views on the subject, to the point where compromise is no longer possible. Making a compromise solves nothing, since nothing major can be done; then someone would have to be seen to lose. Even if you could find one, it would just be delaying the problem rather than fixing it (i.e. the debt ceiling-super committee debacle).

If the U.S. government has any hope of fixing this, it has to go through basic problem solving steps:

• 1. Figure out what we want the economy to look like.
• 2. Compile the most complete data possible as what the economy actually does look like.
• 3. Have the parties brainstorm possible solutions to make 2 become 1.
• 4. When the parties inevitably disagree, let an actual discussion break out. Not a debate, and not an argument, but a discussion. Take the time to look at the people's underlying assumptions. If there's dispute over the validity of the assumptions, try to test them (or, given the nature of economics, consult scientific economists. This means 'derive from first principles' types only [communists, von Mises and co. do not count.].)
• 5. Using what you've learned, build a solution. Accept that not everyone gets to win. Have the politicians take the time to explain that to the electorate. Sacrifices must be made for the good of the whole.
• 6. Implement solution.
• 7. In 2-3 years, you'll be out of the woods.

Of course, that ever transpiring is so incredibly unlikely, it's hardly worth thinking too much about. Thus, I present my 'Bold Action Alternative'.

• 1. Find a county who's banking system didn't wreck the country.
• 2. Copy it completely, including it's regulations.
• 3. Buy all the countries media outlets. Have them go around telling everyone everything is fine.
• 4. Profit.

Of course, even that would require letting 'Big Government' exist. Nourishing the beast as it were. Thus, the actual solution will continue to be the one used for the last 30 years:

• 1. Wait for the always forecasted next great political revolution to sweep into power.
• 2. Either try to fix the problem, or just sit back and hope that less broken countries can fix it for you.
• 3. Lie, gerrymander, cave to lobbyists as needed.
• 4. Profit?

 

[warpus]

If the U.S. government has any hope of fixing this, it has to go through basic problem solving steps:

• 1. Figure out what we want the economy to look like.

• 
  
  The people who are happy with the way the economy is (because they are making a crapload of money) are the same people who are giving money to your congress to not only keep that way, but change it even more in their favour. Of course not all of them agree on all the details, and it's not some big conspiracy where they meet every thursday and smoke cigars together, but as long as your politicians are more influenced by the money of powerful people than the democratic vote of the citizen, you guys are SOL

 

[History_Buff]

The people who are happy with the way the economy is (because they are making a crapload of money) are the same people who are giving money to your congress to not only keep that way, but change it even more in their favour. Of course not all of them agree on all the details, and it's not some big conspiracy where they meet every thursday and smoke cigars together, but as long as your politicians are more influenced by the money of powerful people than the democratic vote of the citizens, you guys are SOL

I know. I was going to write something sarcastic to the same effect, but then I forgot.

Really, my complaints about the insanity of the modern political process just sort of grew out of the 'compromise is stupid' idea. The real problem is indeed this. If there was any sort of consensus on the issue, the mess would never have developed in the first place.

 

[Zelig]

I contest that we need to bring back compromise. It's a rather stupid idea, as it's based on trying to make sure nobody loses, rather than figuring out the best thing to do, and then doing it.

That's pretty cynical, I'd say the entire point of compromise is to get stuff done.

 

[Hygro]

History Buff, I like your post except that as Mars said in other words, you basically articulated what compromise would be in an idealized form. That'd be awesome and that's what we all want.

But the real question is, in that rational, reasonable setting, what kind of legislation would actually emerge?

 

[Ajidica]

Compromise has become saying the word 'Compromise' so loudly nobody else can hear you.

 

[History_Buff]

That's pretty cynical, I'd say the entire point of compromise is to get stuff done.

I don't think it will; or it won't get the right things done anyway. Compromise is all about getting something done; usually the most desired or less objectionable portions of your two platforms.

But nowhere in that process does it explicitly say, what are we trying to do, and how does our compromise achieve that? If both parties platforms were perfectly rational, then it might get there on it's own, but that's not really the case for Dems or Republicans.

History Buff, I like your post except that as Mars said in other words, you basically articulated what compromise would be in an idealized form. That'd be awesome and that's what we all want.

But the real question is, in that rational, reasonable setting, what kind of legislation would actually emerge?

Well that's a tricky question, since I haven't gone through the steps myself. But if you'd like a sort of thought experiment:

• 1) The American economy needs to increase the wealth of the middle class, in order to drive demand, as well as generally reduce inequality, because it's the right thing to do.
  
  
• 2) Right now the system is doing neither of those things. A regressive tax code, lack of corporate responsibility, weak unions, and a decaying public sector are allowing all the gains to go to the rich. The lack of growing income has hamstrung demand (because the middle class can't afford to buy anything with credit harder to come by).
  
  Also worth addressing: the main avenue of social mobility (education) is becoming more exclusive. Also, the productivity-pay link seems to have dissolved.
  
  
• 3) In order to make 2 into 1, I think we need the following. Higher taxes in general, significantly higher taxes on the rich. Not necessarily 1950s level, but that should be the goal. This will provide the funding for the government to invest in both infrastructure rebuilding and education programs. The infrastructure project should provide enough skilled labour jobs to stimulate demand in the short term.
  
  Serious bank reform is needed. What exactly I don't know, but everyone seems to agree that Canadian banks performed excellently during the financial collapse, because of tight regulations on what they were allowed to do. Regulators need to be strengthened, the big banks broken up, and lobbying holes closed such that these measures won't be undone again. Personally, I think an election funded entirely from the public purse is the way to go, but I have few statistics to go on.
  
  
• 4) These aren't particularly popular ideas amongst Americans, particularly the older generation. Discussion will obviously be required, though I suspect it will descend into the same old norms.
  
  
• 5) I think politicians could explain it to the electorate easily enough. Everyone wants to get back to work. How you sell it to the small government types I don't know, but there has to be some way. For the politicians sake though, I think removing the need for corporate donations should take a lot of the stress off. They can always sell themselves to the public as people who are doing something.
  
  
• 6 and 7 follow. Difficult to discuss here without diving into very complicated details.