A simple question...
Why would anyone seek compromise when their position is that of the stronger one?
If need be you compromise with other reasonable people to achieve a goal but never with people whose only goal is to obstruct you in an effort to make you fail. Right now all that that remains of the conservative movement is unreasonable obstructionists trying to further their failed political agenda. There are times to compromise...but this isn't one of those times nor are the current conservatives opposition to compromise with.
Use the Bully Pulpit Mr. President. Make the tough choices that need to be made while you still have the political capital, it is not only the right thing to do morally it is the right thing to do electorally. Not too long ago the conservatives thought they had a permanent majority and their hubris did them in...political power is fleeting.
If need be you compromise with other reasonable people to achieve a goal but never with people whose only goal is to obstruct you in an effort to make you fail. Right now all that that remains of the conservative movement is unreasonable obstructionists trying to further their failed political agenda. There are times to compromise...but this isn't one of those times nor are the current conservatives opposition to compromise with.
Use the Bully Pulpit Mr. President. Make the tough choices that need to be made while you still have the political capital, it is not only the right thing to do morally it is the right thing to do electorally. Not too long ago the conservatives thought they had a permanent majority and their hubris did them in...political power is fleeting.
Advertisement
Just sayin' 'for what it's worth'...that's all.
April 27, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thought on this before I turn in...
Some people might want to say 'what you recommend that Obama do isn't anything different than what Bush did.' I disagree. Basically Bush said 'here is the policy, support it or we'll ram it down your throat.'. So the D's compromised by agreeing to go along with the conservative agenda. I think that Obama should try to reach out in good faith but I am sure that the conservative's idea of compromise remains unchanged. That is Obama needs to take their position on the issues while their position remains intact. That isn't compromise it is unilateral capitulation, in this case to a weak political adversary...that is the only thing that has changed.
April 27, 2009 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh, that's why I was a Hillary girl :) She kicked GOP ass in that hearing last week. I'm all for compromise and collaboration, but on some things we just have a fundamental disagreement. Either you believe women's reproductive health includes abortion, or you don't. Either you believe we should engage our adversaries in meaningful diplomatic dialogue or you don't. And if you don't you have the right to scream to your heart's content. (That's what I basically did for the GWB years). But we have one president at a time and some things are too important to compromise our core principles on.
April 27, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have nothing but praise for Hillary, dijamo. She has been an asset to Obama and VERY effective in doing her job...without compromising her core positions. I saw the clip of her just tearing Chris Smith apart which MJ linked to...vintage Hillary.
April 27, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I ditto that Libertine. Hillary is the best. Good solid voice for a new foreign policy. 44 heads of state visited by our new President. Could not do that without a strong viable state department working with a real plan.
Good post. See ya later.
April 27, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey dd...glad to see you back. I knew your return was imminent glad to see you are back in the house.
I had been following along about your problems on the various threads. I wish I could have got more involved but life has kinda jumped up and grabbed me by the short hairs and demanded tribute. The people here are truly beautiful human beings though. When I get down in the future I will remember that good people can join together and do good things for other good people...for no other reason that it is what we should do for each other when we can.
But I am really glad to see you back. I missed all the great posts, comments, fun and 'WOTS?'...
:-)
April 27, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If all we do is compromise when we hold the power...and all they do is dictate when they hold the power...
I mean, it's not a zero-sum game for some issues, but for others, it is. And it means the progressive point of view loses ground as the years go by.
I've been saying this all day: We need leadership. We the People have already spoken--protested, written the editor, sent email petitions, donated to causes and candidates, et al, ad nauseum.
The leaders know what we want--the vast majority of Americans. It's time for them to LEAD. And if that means making Republicans look like the fools they already are...that's too bad.
April 27, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "conservative movement" isn't what Obama's compromising with; its membership is yesterday's news. As you say it's a "weak political adversary."
Just as Clinton kowtowed to the so-called "bond vigilantes" based on the advice of Robert Rubin* Obama's kowtowing to the Wall Street bankers based on the advice of Lawrence Summers.
* I used to think if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody. James Carville
No, Jimmy. It's only if you listen to Summers and his mentor, Robert Rubin, and allow yourself to be intimidated.
April 27, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I view the R's as the agents (a la Scott Boras) for those Wall Street types like they were high priced athletes...they are negotiating on their behalf. I think both are weakened adversaries so in theory this could be applied to both.
Good point though...
April 27, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you asking why "might makes right" is not our guiding principle?
April 27, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No I don't think so Karl. I think I am saying, try to seek political accord but when/if that cannot be attained don't compromise for the sake of compromising and forge ahead.
April 27, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't understand your blog, L.
"Why would anyone seek compromise when their position is that of the stronger one? "
I suppose that was meant rhetorically. But to answer it straight, one compromises on A (on which one is strong) to build support for B (on which one is not strong). That's sound use of "political capital".
Are you talking about compromising priniciples or about seeking common ground or what?
April 27, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am talking about compromising principles in a futile attempt to seek 'common ground' with a party that believes compromise is you abandoning your position and accepting theirs.
April 27, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's triangulating. The Republicans are totally falling for it though and his ultimate success will be the evidence.
April 27, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope you're right Professor...I am waiting for the evidence to become evident.
All I know is if it were me I would not show as much deference as has been shown. The R's are not operating in good faith imho. Make the effort but if they just trot out the same discredited ideas that got us here as a solution I say forge ahead without them.
April 27, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink