Yes, some “moderates” believed in compromise to the exclusion of principle and good riddance to them. But the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In the end, what is needed even more than compromise is the shared belief in the good intentions of both sides. This is impossible today considering the present ideological fervor that grips both parties, but is vitally necessary if an acceptable deal is to be reached that will avoid what many economists see as another recession if the country falls off the fiscal cliff.
Some of the most principled men ever to serve in Congress were also known as great compromisers. The most famous of these was Henry Clay, one of the most powerful individual congressmen who ever served. His overriding principle at all times was to save the union. To do that, he sacrificed his ambition to be president by angering his fellow southerners with the Compromise of 1850. No one much liked the bill, but it kept the union together until the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln made compromise with the “fire-eaters” in the south impossible.
Given the dearth of moderates, are there enough ideologues who will recognize the national interest and come to an agreement? Even if there are, it is doubtful the mass of partisans who make up the base of the two parties would allow them to take a single step back from positions on taxes and spending that are set in stone. Attracting the enmity of the tea party or the “reality based community” means political suicide for many members who might otherwise be inclined to support a deal. Hence, the notion that even a deal reached by the president and party leadership will probably fail when it comes to a vote in both chambers.
Perhaps it will take a calamity like another deep recession to wake us up. More likely, the partisans will spend the next 2-4 years blaming each other for something that could have been avoided in the first place if members had placed country over petty politics.
Related: Retiring Lawmakers Slam Increasing Partisanship on the Hill
Center of what? Straddling the undefined and the indecipherable?
Obama is a chimera, his opposition a nullity. Voters chose his Styrofoam over the opposing void.
Maybe some PJM writers will volunteer for a mock election where they convince the lumpen webetariat of what they offer in return for the vote.
The Democrats today do not compromise.
The Democrats today do not pass legislation with any chance of working.
What can a Republican do?
There is no center to be a part of.
Neither do the Republicans and certainly not the “conservatives”.
GOOD! Compromise in the past has ALWAYS meant that republicans give in on something (everything) and democrats give up NOTHING!
I’d prefer a stalemate!
The Republicans have been Clay in the hands of the potty progressives for some time.
Actually, the tradition of republicans (not called that then) caving to democrats (also, not called that back then) goes all the way back to the Constitutional Convention and them forcing not only the acceptance of slavery, but actually counting them to boost their numbers in the House.
I do believe this is the first time 8 have ever heard anyone refer to themselves as a RINO.
Republican
In
Name
Only
If the author is a republican in name only, if the author’s views don’t agree with the republican base’s views – then why be a republican at all?
I stopped reading at “Old RINO’s like me..”
I stopped reading at by Rick Moran. But the comments are always fun.
If one side wants to grow government a lot, and the other wants to shrink government, growing government a little isn’t a compromise. Sometimes governing means doing nothing. If the public believes idiotic ideas it is the responsibility of leaders to show them the consequences of their beliefs.
Another recession is coming, no matter what tax policy is enacted. The responsible course of action is to let taxes rise, refuse to raise the debt ceiling, and force the American People to choose higher taxes or smaller government. The course we are on now is unsustainable. There will be a crisis. We owe it to our children to face it now and solve the problem.
I agree. Republicans and Democrats no longer share the same vision of America and the same goals, which they arguably did until the 1970s. This welfare state on steroids is unsustainable, and, as Herbert Stein said, something that can’t go on won’t. In a two-party system, that means that the most important thing is for the opposition to be able to be able to say to the voters, “We didn’t build that.” Just like what the Democrats were able to say (dishonestly, in my opinion)in 2008. If Democrats want someone to compromise with, let them split into two left-wing parties (ultra and moderate). Otherwise, when Republicans meet Democrats half-way, the liberal media propaganda machine makes sure they get 100% of the blame when the s**t hits the fan (e.g.: the housing bubble and financial crisis of 2008). Leftist policies are a disaster–there’s no reason for Republicans to do anything but do good things when they can and obstruct when they can’t, but always explain why in terms of the big picture.
When you get to the fork in the road, you take it.
– in name only, “Oh, I agree with you, Rick!”
Under such political circumstances, the president should become a figure who would seek a compromise.
The problem though is that the current occupant of the WH is an ignorant puppet manipulated by his commie masters – Axelrod and Jarrett to name a few.
They want the Republicans in Congress to surrender knowing that it will destroy the Republican Party.
Boehner has a choice to make.
Compromise means that each side gets some of what they want in return for sacrificing the rest of what they wanted. Over most of my political involvement, I have seen precious little to indicate that there is any meaningful compromise going on in Congress. Time and again, we get a so-called compromise where the Democrats get their goodies right away and the Republicans get theirs at some indeterminate future time that never materializes because future Congresses don’t make good on the promise. In practice, the Democrats ask for the moon, get what they were really after all along, promise the Republicans some stuff that they were get about 10 years down the line (read never), and both sides vote on it (Yay! bi-partisanship and compromise and the Democrats get to blame Republicans when no one likes the inevitable bad results, but they can claim all the credit for gettings things done in the meantime).
So, yeah, I’m done with the whole compromise charade. It accomplishes nothing but ever more bad legislation.
Well the deal was: a one year extension on the tax cuts in exchange for a one-time debt ceiling raise.
Very simple and moderate: a deal made is a deal done.
Go back on that and you have bargained in bad faith. Obama wanted it, the Democrats wanted it, the RINOs wanted it so they may now have it.
Or is keeping your word and your deal too much to ask of ‘moderates’ in the ‘center’? And if they can’t keep their words and their deals, why should the ‘moderates’ and ‘center’ ever be trusted with anything at all?
2 Chronicles 16:
In the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.
2 Asa then took the silver and gold out of the treasuries of the Lord’s temple and of his own palace and sent it to Ben-Hadad king of Aram, who was ruling in Damascus. 3 “Let there be a treaty between me and you,” he said, “as there was between my father and your father. See, I am sending you silver and gold. Now break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel so he will withdraw from me.”
4 Ben-Hadad agreed with King Asa and sent the commanders of his forces against the towns of Israel. They conquered Ijon, Dan, Abel Maim[a] and all the store cities of Naphtali. 5 When Baasha heard this, he stopped building Ramah and abandoned his work. 6 Then King Asa brought all the men of Judah, and they carried away from Ramah the stones and timber Baasha had been using. With them he built up Geba and Mizpah.
7 At that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah and said to him: “Because you relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lord your God, the army of the king of Aram has escaped from your hand. 8 Were not the Cushites[b] and Libyans a mighty army with great numbers of chariots and horsemen[c]? Yet when you relied on the Lord, he delivered them into your hand. 9 For the eyes of the Lord range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.”
Good advice for those that will listen. Notice that Washington, Franklin and others took that advice and didn’t try to compromise with Parliament. Today’s Republican Party??? Nuff said.
I am pretty sure that Franklin was part of an effort to avoid an actual Revolution, but Parliament did not take the Colonies seriously enough. Had Parliament even just allowed the 13 Colonies representation, things might have been different.
It is essential to be open to Compromise, but to know how to and be willing to close the door on negotiations if the other side’s idea of Compromise is for you to just give up.
Franklin was done with the Motherland when they hauled him before Parliament and raked him over the coals and publically humiliated him.
Besides, we didn’t want representation. What good is it have a line voice in the Hall of many when you can be king of your own kingdom? We knew what that ocean betwixt us meant.
line=LONE! Lone voice in the hall of many!
That makes sense.
My sense is that the best and most positive Revolutions are started by people who want to avoid them, and find themselves forced into prosecuting them.
Charles Wesley tried first to lead a reform movement within the Church of England, and only founded the Methodist Church after his efforts were rebuffed.
People who set out to start a Revolution from Day One tend to be Anarchists, or just planning a Coup. That’s what the French got.
Rick Moran: it is far worse to be a Blue Dog dem, watching the hardening of partisanship of what I now call the Pelosi Party. Obama2008 did not want us (actually his campaign was totally void of any position on the economy), and now the liberal rump is as intolerant as the Norquistians on the right.
Try being a dem and criticizing ACA, or Obama’s absence of leadership. The firing squad takes aim immediately.
If only someone would gather the RINOs and DINOs together, because we ARE the majority. Unfortunately also the vast majority of those who gave up on voting.
Governance? None since 2000. It may be too late.
In light of the massive federal budget deficits since 2002, it is fair to say that conservatives have had no place at the table. In light of our falling birthrates, the acceptence of ObamaCare, and the continuing high rates of cohabitation, the bastarsization of childhood, and the high number of abortions, I would say that Conservatives are not the problem. The new “norm” is anything but Conservative. So, by all means team up with RINOS or DINOS. But please stop complaining about Conservatives. This is a bed you people made; what you really are complaining about is notion that you will have to sleep in it.
Boehner & McConnell are great little compromisers. Try reasoning with Pelosi & Reid, Ricky. Or better yet, try to do so with the Congressional Black Caucus. See how far you can get.
The only things found in the middle of the road are yellow stripes, trash and roadkill.
One way compromise for 50 years got us where we are.
Compromise is not possible if we follow the current direction where government always gets bigger. There is no choice except to cut federal government spending and increase economic growth. We can compromise on what we cut, but the direction must be toward less government spending to match realistic revenue. If we continue our current path eventually interest rates will rise and just the interest on our accumulated debt will exceed our ability to pay. The dollar will fail. The United States is too big to default on its debt without taking down the entire world economy with it. The end.
Some compromise is possible on the margins if some federal taxes and spending are shifted to the states. For example, my home state of Texas could take responsibility for transportation spending in Texas in exchange for taking over all excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel in Texas. We would likely choose to spend more money on highways and less on public transportation, but that is our choice and it doesn’t affect other Americans. Good luck running an economy on subways, bike paths, and smugness, but that would be your choice.
Compromise is also possible regarding federal regulations and economic growth. Maybe we could have two sets of EPA regulations, one for Red States and one for Blue States, like we have separate California air quality regulations. Give the Red States a little autonomy to create some economic growth.
During the Cold War, negotiating with the Russians was useless. The US position was that a gradual reduction in nuclear arm would preserve life on the planet. The Russian position was that we surrender unconditionally immediately and beome their slaves.
Compromise wan’t possible.
How is negotiating with the Demorats any different?
0 doesn’t recognize the word “compromise.” His entire reign has been one of “my way or the highway.” In which endeavor he has been aided and abetted by the MSM and Hairy Reid. Senate budgets proposed and passed: 0. House budgets proposed and passed: 4. ‘Nuff said.
Published on Nov 13, 2012 by: Rand Paul
George Orwell’s dystopian novel continues to come true in too many ways.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ALN7LTeLxtI#!
All the more reason to reestablish federalism. Let Red states address things their way and blue states do the same. The differences between Left and Right are an unbridgeable chasm. As a result there will never be compromise in DC. Best to devolve power back to the states, where it constitutionally belongs, and let the people’s elected state representatives resolve issues as desired by the state.
A recent article noted that fully 1/3 of House Democrats come just from CA and NY. That means those two states have an overwhelming say in national policy and can in effect overrule entire regions if the country. That is not how it was ment to be and that’s why the Founders developed our system of federalism and the 10th Amendment.
It’s past time for states to seize back the powers that have been steadily usurped for decades.
See my writings on how federalism can save our republic and preserve our liberties: http://newsonsofliberty.wordpress.com/
Correction: let red COUNTIES do as they please and BLUE counties do the same. Look at the election map by county.
One step at a time.
Eric, I would love to see this happen but the Progressives would sooner reverse the tax tables (so higher rates were on lower incomes) than allow something like this to happen.
For one thing they cling very firmly to the principle of externalities, i.e. you only have unfettered right to do something if it does not affect another in any way and that means that second hand smoke gives New Mexico the right to demand that the federal government ban smoking in Texas.
Secondly, they know that the boom times, good will and better lifestyles in the red states will make them look bad and cause people to flee their clutches in droves. But they are convinced that they know best and will develop a better world eventually – and they are determined to drag us to their fantasy land with them.
NewsFlash: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did not select themselves as Leaders.
The GOP (Genuflecting Obama Pansies) folded again like a cheap suit. That is why so many people did not vote. The word is out. They are all there greasing their rear ends and waiting to be sodomized one more time. They are even more despicable than the Democrats. I am so sorry their mothers did not abort them.
Fox News: “More congressional Republicans, including Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, break long-standing tax pledge before returning to Washington to keep U.S. from going over ‘fiscal cliff.’”
Democrats say “Let’s raise taxes! A LOT!”
Republicans say “Let’s raise taxes…a little.”
Conservatives say “Let’s cut spending.”
Who’s gonna win?
Conservatives say “Let’s cut spending.”
What spending?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
According to the site the lion’s share of taxes are spent on the aging. Do you want to cut off grandma’s social security? Yeah defense shows 20% but this also includes retirees. How much of the defense outlay is for retirees? Bueller? Anyone?
If you look at Obamacare this is a form of tax apparently aimed at getting income into medicare. Face it most folks under 40 don’t need big outlays for medical, so med insurance isn’t what they really need most. Big medical outlays for heart conditions, cancers, etc is retired territory.
So what do you think you want to cut? Big bird, at .0001% of the budget? Yes a penny is a penny but you could go blind figuring out what programs to slash and still leave most of the budget intact percentage-wise.
So what do you want to cut?
INTO medicare? Are you kidding me? They are gutting medicare to PAY for obamacare!
Look for deathpanels (already happening!) to take “care” of the aged in our country.
Look for deathpanels (already happening!) to take “care” of the aged in our country.
Yeah, nice way to stay on point. Clearly Obamacare is intended to fund health care for the aging. Try staying on topic. I’m sure there will be a “death panels: the wingnut view” article in a few days.
Follow your own advice! YOU brought it up!
Obamacare CLEARLY guts medicare and the elderly are already being denied care they received even a year ago.
Obamacare was also DEEMED passed (no compromise THERE!) with not a single republican vote. Again, no compromise there!
What I would like to know is what part of the US Constitution should we compromise on?
Please respond Rick Moran.
The Democrats say 2 + 2 = 16,000,000,000,000.
Should the Republicans compromise on 8,000,000,000,000?
Obama keeps yapping on about Romney “not doing the arithmetic”, when nothing in Obama’s proposals comes anywhere near closing the budget gap. More Democratic projection of idiocy. Where is there room to compromise with that?
Democrats want to throw gasoline on the fire, you want to throw water. Compromise by throwing half and half?
“Compromise” got us to where we are today. F*&K anymore of it. We have nothing left to lose, so I want open political warfare. I feel no kinship to anyone in this country who voted for obama. And yes, I realize that that puts me at odds with half the voting populace. Let’s get it on, or just go our separate ways.
You only say the because you know the half that voted for Obama are the Half that Opose the ownership of Guns.
Last time I checked “political warfare” doesn’t involve guns. Read more carefully next time.
Compromising with the principled opposition on the means to achieve a commonly desired goal is one thing. Compromising core principles to avoid having to apologize to the media is quite another. For too long republicans have been compromising core principles and now I hardly even recognize our country any more. I would prefer stalemate if it means we stop the slide into totalitarian government in which we now find ourselves. My preference is for the republicans to “man up” and vote to opposed ANY legislation, ANY appointments, and ANY treaties which take us farther and farther away from constitutional limited government.
Besides, where was the call for compromise when obamacare was rammed through the congress with virtually no input from republicans, or when Harry Reid stated he would guarantee opposition to anything coming from a Romney administration, or when Obama stated We Won-Get over it. To democrats compromise is only called for when they are in the minority party.
About Henry Clay and his ability to effect compromise-the division between the limited government seeking southern states and the centralized government northern states touted by the author as a lesson in statemanship merely served to prolong the decision of the issue not solve it. It took the war for southern independence to settle the question. I fear the divisions taking firm hold in this country are only going to be settled eventually in like manner.
The Hard Left are in leadership positions – Reid, Pelosi + President Obama
Moderates are in leadership on the right – McConnell, Boehner, Cantor
Conservatives are fought equally by the Left and cocktail party and not just elected positions but by DC insiders such as Rove and Kristol. The Democrat Media Complex uses its full force to attack conservatives while embracing the Hard Left. Who loses? The American people.
Who sets the agenda? The Hard Left – Unions, environmentalists, Valerie Jarrett, Axelrod and other Alinskyites led by Soros / POTUS
How do you compromise with someone who wants to bankrupt the country and devalue the dollar until it is worth nothing? Debt enslaves as the low information voter will one day find out. Elections have consequences, Greece, here we come!!!
Lugar loved every treaty that came across his desk, he willingly votes to give up US sovereignty at any chance he gets. McCain and Graham are also willing to give up sovereignty along with Murkowski and Collins. Conservatives have an uphill battle.
the “center” is already long gone
as it is now the “right wingers” are the center and actually “center left” to be more accurate
the wishywashies, moderates, and other fence sitters who once were near the middle are now comfortably in the la la land of liberalism since the hardcore statists have lurched so far left that everything followed in its wake
Bingo!
Compromise would be like asking Santa Claus to deliver only those ‘toys’ we can afford while leaving the rest in the sleigh and discovering later that he wasn’t even listening. Then, as the bills start piling up you begin to wonder, why even go to the mail box?
“…[Clay] sacrificed his ambition to be president by angering his fellow southerners with the Compromise of 1850. No one much liked the bill, but it kept the union together until the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln made compromise with the “fire-eaters” in the south impossible.”
No offense, but that’s simply a terrible reading of history. The Fugitive Slave Act (1850), the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and the Dred Scott decision (1857) had far more to do with the breakup of the Union than anything Lincoln had to do or say.
If voters don’t like “partisanship”, the so-called centrists would have been re-elected unto kingdom comes.
Countries that were ruled by non-partisans: Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Hitler’s Germany, Castro’s Cuba.
In the US, a non-partisanship i.e. a single party rule gave us Obamacare.
Viva Partisanship!
Lets see here. We have a government that ignores its limits, and then when we the people simply want government to stay in the box of the Constitution. If the later is extreme. Then I am extreme. What a laugh! The only extremist are government wanting and taking more of our money to be extorted from us for what? If anything we all need a refund! Government spends to much, and taxes to much. Sorry big government your days are numbered!
VIVA LA TEA PARTY!
Moran’s beloved center is the left. Also there are some issues that are best left unresolved. Since the pros and pragmatists that Moran praises will never in a million years CUT SPENDING, it is better that sequestration, which is cutting across the board, go into effect as the result of a failure to do another can kicking deal. Going over the cliff will be the start of the default that MUST HAPPEN first if the sickness of government spending unhinged from reality is ever to end.
“The question in my mind isn’t so much ideology as it is temperament. I have absolutely no problem with so-called “strong” conservatives just as long as they are interested in governing the country. And for 235 years, that has meant compromising with those on the other side of the aisle in order to achieve a legislative goal. Allowing ideology to cloud one’s judgment and prevent government from acting — especially in an emergency like we have today — is a betrayal of the public trust.”
Where were you in 2010 when thecongressional dems broke every rule in the rule book to pass ObamaCare? Where were you the last 4 years when the Dems refused to craft a budget let alone pass one? Where were you when the President refused to give on any spending programs and almost forced a shut-down as a result? Where we you when Sen Reid, President Obama, and Nancy Pelosi demand that we continue to spend $5.6 trillion we haven’t got? Where have you been when Sen Reid now is on the verge of dismantling the Senate filibuster?
And you have to gall to demand comity in the Senate.