An excellent opinion piece on the Reuters website by Bill Bishop concentrates on the question why compromise is so difficult.
The odds are that the extremely close national election wasn’t close at all in the place where you live.
And that’s a problem.
For the past four decades, Americans have been self-segregating into communities where they are increasingly likely to vote with their neighbors in overwhelming majorities. In 1976, only a quarter of voters lived in a county where either Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford won by 20 points or more. By 2008, 46.7 percent of voters lived in one of these landslide counties.
This year, the national margins narrowed still further. But more than half of all voters (52 percent) lived in a county where either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney won by 20 percentage points or more.
What’s true in counties is also true in states. In 1976, there were 20 states where either Ford or Carter won by five points or less. In 2008, there were seven.
This year, only four.
Why is this so? In one of the great ironies of all time, the harder we strive for “diversity,” the more segregated we become. Part of the reason is housing values, which tend to put people of similar income levels together in one community. And perhaps more than any other indicator, income level determines party affiliation.
But why does this clustering of like minded voters make compromise so difficult?
The problem with this increasing self-segregation is that there are now few places where voters (or their representatives) must fully contend with those from the other party. There is more danger (both socially and politically) in disappointing like-minded neighbors than in compromising with those who live elsewhere. Compromise isn’t rewarded in like-minded communities.
Compromisers are suspect members of the tribe.
And politics has much more to do with tribe than policy. Columbia University political scientist Donald P. Green says that people choose their political party the same way they choose their friends. They aren’t picking among policies. They are joining a social group — they are finding the people they would like their sons or daughters to marry.
This has changed the actual purpose of politics “from settling differences to giving people a chance to assert individual distinction and the righteousness of their group.”
Evil, not wrong.
In the face of this self-segregation, you would think it difficult to change anyone’s mind on election day. You would be right:
The Democrats hired the smartest of the sharp pencil boys in psychological and social media research to cajole, lure, manipulate and massage the vote. They were the best – and exactly 11 counties that voted Republican in 2008 switched allegiance and voted Democratic in November.
Over the last 100 years of presidential elections, on average, 24 percent of counties switch allegiance from the vote in the previous election, according to statistician Robert Cushing. This year, it was 6.7 percent, a 100-year low.
That’s the change that a smidgen more than $2 billion will buy you in today’s America.
In essence, it appears that millions of voters on both sides exist in their own echo chambers where the information loop is closed and outside influences — new ideas, a different way of looking at the world — are not only suspect but actively discouraged. It is disquieting to think that Republicans, at the moment, find themselves outnumbered in this universe with little chance of changing hearts and minds in order to win a national election.
Elections are only part of the equation. The other part is governing. Where it used to be thought that good governance demanded compromise with the other side, it now appears that, as Bishop writes, “[c]ompromise isn’t rewarded in like-minded communities.” In short, there is no incentive for politicians who wish to be re-elected to compromise. Only when faced with utter ruin — the debt ceiling, the fiscal cliff, sequestration — is there a hasty, reluctant effort at forging agreement. And in what might be viewed as black comedy, both sides then proceed to accuse their leaders of caving in to the enemy — of being taken in, fooled, outmaneuvered, and defeated.
For RINO’s like myself who believe the only way our country can be governed is through compromise, it is unsettling to think that the days when Americans could sit down and hash out an agreement for the good of all are behind us. This new paradigm promises nothing but division. In a time of crisis when unity of purpose is a necessity in order to face the threats of debt and deficits at home and terrorism abroad, we are paralyzed by our own parochialism and tribal loyalty.
It’s hard to see how this will lead to a happy and prosperous future.
Hey! The good news is that we’ve been here before. Of course, that’s also the bad news: 1860-1865.
The better news was 1776
Isn’t compromise, generally speaking, an intratribal thing? In order for there to be any sort of compromise, people have to agree to work together. Unfortunately for the US, it is fettered by very influential groups being guided by an ideology that strives to conquer our nation from within. These people should be considered enemies; we are supposed to work with them? IOW, this is hardly an environment for compromise.
Why should we be forced to live in a country where the sides are diametrically opposed?
It’s a sure thing that we would get along better with the blue state pickpockets, if we didn’t have to pay for their follies. I have strange relatives that I get along with just fine, because I don’t let them oppose their will on me. Granted, people like Moran seem to think it’s a good idea to ruin my life by allowing them to impose their crazy crap on me. But I don’t think it’s a good idea at all.
Yet I live in a country where a group that is far more dangerous than my strangest relatives has managed to force their way into a position where I have to do their bidding…at the point of a gun.
Wouldn’t it be swell if there was a solution to the problem that didn’t require a civil war? But there isn’t, because that would mean the other side would have to pay for their bat-shit crazy stuff out of their own pockets.
Except that the statistics aren’t that blue states are pickpockets.
California pays more into the federal government than she gets out, unlike, say the red state – south.
I don’t see how compromise is possible when Republicans are only holding on through misinformation like “blue state pickpockets” and as the man said, compromise, or in this case “truth” is considered a sign of treason to the tribe.
That is one of biggest lies that blue staters tell each other. There are three reasons why Federal revenues and spending are distributed the way they are.
(1) Defense Spending is not uniformity spread across the country. The location of military bases and defense contractors are biased toward red states for various reasons. Some blue states like California have been all too happy to close down installations in their states and drive out defense contractors.
(2) Federal lands and the expenditures that go with them are also concentrated in red states.
(3) Social security recipients tend to move to red states because of climate, lower taxes and cheaper housing.
Another part of this mythology is that everybody in a blue state is a Democrat and, like-wise, everybody in a red state is a Republican. Even the deepest red/blue state has a significant number of opposite color voters. When you look at the productive sectors of blue states you will discover that this is where the red voters are located. Conversely, when you look for blue stater in a red state they come from the same demographic that makes a state deep blue. This why California is in terminal decline. They do not want red voters in the state.
The bottom line is that most Federal revenues are allocated for national level public goods and not parsed out to the states on a per capita basis. If blue states want more federal dollars returned to them they should welcome back the military and defense industries. They can also keep their senior citizens home by reduce the cost of living. They can’t do much about the weather.
Compromise? How do you split the difference between Socialism and a Constitutional republic? Thirty years ago both parties were committed to the ideals of a Madisonian republic. Today, the Democrats have rejected the Constitution in favor of arbitrary rule by bureaucrats.
If you want to narrow this gap we must mend the allocation of the Electoral College. Electoral votes should be allocated by congressional district with a bonus of two going to the winner of the state. This would restore the balance that the founding fathers intended. Although it would have a bigger impact on the Democrats, It would force both parties to move to the center. There would now be a basis for compromise.
California doesn’t love the DOD? Heh. You’ve spent too much time smok’n the weed in San Fran, bro. Bring on that big ol’ sequester induced cut in Defense and listen to San Diegans squeal like little stuck piggies.
Heah dude, Most of the big installations in California have gone away. San Diego naval base complex is only big base left. The Edwards AF complex and NAWC WD are big but they employ huge numbers of people. Many defense contractors have left the state for economic reasons or the end of contracts.
Oops, a mistake here. Should read Edwards AFB etc do not employ. Missed a couple of articles as well.
Well, the naval base was my primary focus. However, DoD contracts are significant beyond basic installations. Sequestration will force roll-backs affecting the Silicon Valley and more importantly universities. Extend those cutbacks to DoE and DoT funding and you can add whimpering from the UC system to squeals emanating from San Diego. California won’t be alone in this, but given the current parlous of its finances may be in worse position than others to weather the coming shortfalls in federal funding.
good ole Joshua. You can always depend on him to invent an argument so he can knock it down.
There are too many things wrong with your statement and too little time, but here are a few.
1) it’s irrelevant which states pay the most taxes because red state are forced to pay for idiocies that blue states demand. If that isn’t having your pocket picked, what is? And, of course, I never made the claim that any states pay more. YOU DID, following your typical pattern of arguing against things nobody says but yourself.
2) anybody who thinks that that states like California, Michigan and Illinois won’t be demanding bailouts in the next few years is a fool. That would be you.
3) taxes, obviously, are not the only way that blue states prosper at the expense of red states. Have you heard of the great GM success story. You know, the one where taxpayers have flushed 35 billion + down the rat hole of a company destroyed by unions.
4) 9.5 million people on disability. Over 60% in states that voted for the Criminals.
5) etc., etc., etc.
You are an idiot. But I repeat myself.
It’s time to admit that we are not “one nation, under god (or not), indivisable”, but that we are, in fact, two seperate nations (and maybe more!). The best comparison to our disfunctional national state of affairs would be an unhappy marriage, where both spouses never agree and always argue. It’s time for a divorce.
OK, you’re right about the segregation; if you’re a Republican, you can go weeks or months without talking to a Democrat – and not miss it either. In my time as a Republican appointee, I really can’t recall a single time I ever had any social interaction with any Democrat. I had meetings with union reps I had legal obligation to meet with and answered a few questions in committee hearings from Democrats, but I never had any social interaction with any of them. In my capital city there were Republican places and Democrat places and the only times we mixed were significant social/political events such as inaugurations, funerals, etc.
The other part of this issue is that you simply cannot bargain with the modern Democrat. If they say the Sun is shining, you go to the window and check; these are people to whom truth has NO meaning, whose word is meaningless, and whose written bargain is valid only so long as you have a gun to their head. Sorry, Rick, that you miss a world of long ago, but the modern Democrat officeholder or apparatchik and the modern leftist activist, e.g., union reps, community organizers, interest group operatives, simply don’t think like real people. They think they are superior people and their arrogance is insufferable. They believe that their “enlightenment” excuses any bad act and silly stuff like truth and honor are for other people, not them. They’re good people as they define good people and therefore, as good people, they can’t do bad things. If you think they did something bad, you’re either stupid, a racist/sexist/homophobe/pick one or all of the above. One day we’re going to have serious disagreement with them.
“but the modern Democrat officeholder or apparatchik and the modern leftist activist”
This is the crux of the problem. They are not actually Democrats. They are Communists. They have the same agenda and the same attitudes.
The problem, also, Mr. Moran, is that, you do not understand the term RINO. It means you are not actually aa Republican. You are a Democrat who is not a Communist.
The political Center is not between Dems and Repubs. It is between Republicans and Democrats-in-Republican-clothes, like you.
Furthermore, compromise is a sh*t sandwich. That’s when both sides lose. A bargain is when both sides win.
It’s the Democrats who make compromise out to be a good word. Then, it actually only means that only the Republicans have to give ground.
This has been explained many times here on PJM, but you seem to not get it, and so, you remain a RINO. May I suggest some long, hard introspection of your beliefs?
See my comment in the thread above.
Democrats = communists, another 100% lie. Amazing.
The problem is not “you can’t negotiate with a Democrat” but rather than in order to negotiate with a Democrat you’d have to admit truths that would mark you as a traitor to your totally dishonest tribe.
Except that the entire CA economy is built on federal expenditures and trade with the other states, moron. It was said that the CIO in AFL-CIO stood for California Improved Okie because of all the transplanted Okies working in defense industries in CA in the late-’30s and ’40s. The Kaiser steel-making and shipbuilding, the aerospace industry, the space program all flooded money from the other states into CA. The federally subsidized west to east railroads threw CA agrculture on the National and World markets.
As to the rest of the Blue states, they have corporate headquarters of companies that make their money off things produced in the resource states. The effete snobs with Ivy MBAs don’t want to live in the places where the wealth is actually generated so the live in the urban cesspools that spawn degenerates like you. One day we’re going to have a serious disagreement.
The terrible truth is that most people who think differently don’t even want to have discussions with the “other” side. I am a conservative union officer and I’m a member of the Republican Central Committee in my community, so you can imagine that I often run into political confratations. I listen to others speak their mind, but then when I begin to give a contrary position the conversation is abruptly ended by them. Rather than debate facts and discuss opinions, they only want confirmation. Whatever facts I have are wrong or I’m supposedly getting my info from tainted sources. The few times that I have them actually show me the facts and figures, they match mine exactly. But their underlying assumptions never change. People are just more interested in believing they already know the answer than learning anything new.
As for compromising with people who obviously do not know what they are talking about, there have been plenty of compromises over the past 50 years. Which ones were good for our nation’s economy? And don’t include the Gringich years. Most of those deals were out and out victories for the conservative side with little or no compromise, the result of which was the best period of spending control we’ve seen over the past 30 years and true reform that benefited the nation. Reagan compromised. Higher taxes for spending cuts. Still waiting on those cuts.
How do you compromise with people who openly dream of dragging you behind a truck?
Maybe let them drag me for HALF a mile instead of the full mile?
Perhaps compromise on being dragged from a hybrid instead?
How do I compromise with people who publish a “proof” (in this case from Breitbart.com) that Obama is a radical racist…
And when I read that “proof” it was a bit from a rather old speech where Barry, brace yourself, quote George Herbert Walker Bush’s famous “compassionate conservatism” speech and agreed with it. The horror!
That’s the new definition of racist radical communist.
Or it’s just the way you lie about the other tribe, take your pick.
Add to that Kenyan, Islamist, etc etc etc
– the point?
Actually, I see the problem a bit diffferently and circumvents all the verbage of the article.
The disfunction of congress is where the problems starts and ends. Once elected into office from any district of the land and go trodding of to Washinton, you get a really quick wake up call and your first introduction into the reality of what has syemically become a failed system — a corrupted system!
Rather than being free to represent the people of the district that elected you, you are now ‘obligated’ to the party leadership. If you try to remain independent, you’re relegated to a corner dust bin and ignored. — crappy assignments, bill drafts ignored, and on down the line to non existant thus you cannot represent or be heard on behalf of your constituents in many instances. parety leadrship decides everything and you’re either aborad or a lone ranger.
Today, the debates of the two party’s in congress are confrontational rather than adversarial on real merits of the best interests of the people. Its all about “party” politics and the people be-damned!
Representation of the people, is a slow process within each party. Representation by a political party’s leadership and their special interest bindings is much faster — all predetermined and in draft ready for conference and committies. Join the leaderships demands or get beat down — your choice! You chose to get beat down you’ll have no re-election help from the party at any level and in fact they’ll do everything they can to get you defeated on next go round.
Until this corruption is cleaned up in congress, the people will not be represented rightfully — only the deep pocketed special interest groups and their causes will continue to be represented. These probelems are equal to either party — not just one!
10th amendment