US Politics: compromising positions

[DanteGabriel]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hasn’t much if not most of the Republican platform been a mess for the last few decades? Talk about cognitive dissonance on steroids.    

 

7 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It would be one thing if they just fucked up the small stuff. But, really, they always seem to blow it on the big stuff. They mishandled one war, botched a financial crises, and now they are set to blow it on one the biggest challenges facing humanity.

If you need a bomb defused, don't call the Republican Party or the conservative clown crew.

Republican "policy" for decades has been based on grabbing enough power to enable endless grifting for hacks and charlatans, but I am told there are "good people" somewhere in that caucus so we have to find some way to "compromise" with them when they want to destroy the ACA, restrict women's reproductive freedom, keep minorities and poor people from voting, and bury what's left of the middle class.

[OldGimletEye]

Yeah, lets take Mitch McConnell's latest attempt to punk out the Democrats by holding a New Green Deal vote.

Now, in my book, when a sorry ass chump like McConnell tries to corner you and pull your punk card, you really need to come out of the corner swinging. Dems need to take that little stunt by McConnell and then jam it up his ass so hard that he will be shitting blood for a month.

Sure maybe respectful conversation and compromise might be better. But, really, there is none of that to be had at this juncture. That's not the situation we are in.

[Kalbear]

I do think the news about the trade deficit and the border family immigration increases and the regular deficit all tell a good way to attack Trump - make it about policy and what he said he'd do and how he failed.

He failed at repealing and replacing the ACA with something better. He failed to reduce trade deficits. He failed to jumpstart the economy like he said he would. He failed to reduce the deficit, and in fact ballooned it. He failed to reduce immigration, and in fact it is worse than it has ever been. And he failed to make North Korea stop anything. Hammer him over and over on these failed promises, about this guy who alone could fix things. And then indicate how you would fix it.

The converse to that is that for a number of republicans he succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The regulations are super rolled back, the corporations have massive tax benefits, and the courts are absurdly being packed with young super conservative justices that will shape things for a generation. Somehow, though, I don't think the people who wanted a change in Washington will see that as a big bonus to them. It won't make Republicans vote for him any less, but you never were going to do that.

[OldGimletEye]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

, and the courts are absurdly being packed with young super conservative justices that will shape things for a generation. 

Yeah, this is pretty much a disaster. Watch us pass something like the New Green Deal, only to have it struck down by some Federalist Society, right wing kook of a judge, who thinks Lochner was all that and a bag of chips.

[Lollygag]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obama-vets-to-candidates-preaching-post-partisan-compromise-please-just-stop?ref=home

 

Quote

Even self-identified progressives in the field nod to the utility in having to win over Republican votes in order to move bills. In an interview on Monday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) expressed optimism at getting Republican votes for the Green New Deal resolution.

The refusal of most candidates to embrace these ideas has created a bit of a divide within the party writ large, with one camp believing that voters still yearn for an element of compromise (or an attempt at it) and another arguing it would be criminally stupid for Democrats to waste their time.

Hickenlooper is firmly in the former camp, having launched his campaign by stressing his work with suburban mayors, some of whom were Republicans, to support a tax hike for a light-rail system when he was mayor of Denver. In a statement to The Daily Beast, Lauren Hitt, communications director for the former governor’s campaign, chalked up skepticism among some Democrats about his remarks to the jaded mindset of “beltway insiders.”

“That’s exactly why Americans are hungry for someone like John Hickenlooper, who has a record of bringing people together to tackle our country’s biggest challenges—like beating the NRA and passing major gun reform in a purple state,” she said. “Of course conversation won’t solve every problem but acting as if we shouldn’t even try is exactly what’s wrong with DC.”

...

Scott Jennings, a longtime McConnell ally, said that working with the Kentucky Republican could still bear fruit for Democrats.

“[McConnell] will never give in on his core principles and values. That's true. He's not going to give away the farm to make some Democratic president happy,” Jennings told The Daily Beast. “But time and again he has proved that he is a deal maker and he values things like keeping the government open and using moments that are coming to a head to get both sides something they feel is worth having.”

Pfeiffer, by contrast, said that Democrats need to realize who they are dealing with, without mirroring their opponents’ tactics.

“This is not to say that Democratic voters or Democratic activists demand that we become like McConnell and Trump,” he said. “It is that we recognize who McConnell and Trump are and adjust our strategies as such.”

 

https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/12/klobuchar-grassley-introduce-new-bipartisan-legislation-to-crack-down-on-anticompetitive-pay-for-delay-deals-affecting-biosimilars-as-well-as-generic-drugs

Klobuchar has an extended history of bi-partisan work. Warren has worked with Grassley on ridiculous hearing aid costs. She was booed and had to correct the crowd which is good on her. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/sherrod-brown-wall-street-2020-1176016

Summary:

1. Yes, the Republicans have been complete a*holes. But so have the Democrats. Lots of blame to go around. Remember how the ACA was passed?

2. The Democrats have a big strategy problem. It's a well-earned reputation by now. They have argued from a position of actually expecting Republicans to have a come to Jesus moment (!!!) rather than arguing from a position of convincing them with arguments geared to how Republicans view things. But to some at least, compromise seems to only be defined by a full holy conversion to the other side. The far left is weirdly evangelical in how they approach things sometimes. Some are starting to get it though. Gillebrand does - see the link above "expressed optimism". 

3. There's also a failure of imagination problem which exacerbates the strategy problem. If one way doesn't work, way too often, Ds back into a corner to lick their wounds rather than trying to figure out plan B, plan C, etc. 

3. As evidenced by the Warren booers, sometimes "we can't" is really a cover for "we don't want to", even when the outcome is a win-win. I'd rather people just owned not wanting to compromise if that's the case. 

 

 

-----------------------------------

 

As for AOC's and Warren's tax rate on the rich being extreme: it is. To the average American. Especially a younger one. Extreme and normal are relative terms and it's just weird how this forum tends to discuss whether ideas are radical from a perspective of the world rather than what's radical to the average US voter. This is the US politics thread, not international politics thread. I've lived my whole life in a system of trickle-down economics. I had to be told that before trickle-down, the tax rate looked more like what Warren and AOC are suggesting. That makes it extreme, as in a really big change and well outside what's considered "normal" in the US and would have a very large impact on the country. Also, extreme =/=  wrong or crazy, not necessarily. It may actually be right. Seems like a lot of arguments over perceived extreme policies are people actually arguing over different definitions of extreme and taking different perspectives on that definition. I get why some see it as not extreme. I don't get how they don't see why some see that it is. 

[Martell Spy]

BOC
The Daily Mail tried to spring a “gotcha” interview on AOC’s mom. The result was extremely wholesome.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/03/aoc-mom-blanca-ocasio-cortez-daily-mail-interview-beautiful.html

Quote

The only minor grist for the scandal mill was BOC’s offhand explanation for why she moved to Florida from New York: “I was paying $10,000 a year in real estate taxes up north. I’m paying $600 a year in Florida. It’s stress-free down here.” Conservatives have latched onto that as a scathing indictment of New York’s high taxes. Fox and the New York Post covered it, and conservative dingus Charlie Kirk went the extra mile by pumping the $10,000 up to $100,000 in an anti-AOC tweet that has been retweeted 14,000 times without correction. For what it’s worth, Blanca says she paid $87,000 for her “crumbling” home in Florida, on a dead-end street with a cemetery at the end and at least one house where drug deals went down. This is a possible clue to the decline in her taxes and other expenses. I’m sure Kirk will be moving next door soon.

 

[OldGimletEye]

After LBJ pretty much smashed Goldwater in the 1964 election, movement conservatives had a choice to make. They could moderate or keep pressing for their point of view. And it seems to me, they chose the second option and were largely successful. They had managed to push politics to the right.  Old New Deal type democrats were basically on the run. 

And as a response, Democrats tried the triangulate thing. And how did that work out? I'd say it largely backfired. Republicans didn't see that as attempt to move to the center in good faith. Instead, Republicans moved to the right, always trying out to conservative one another, and probably pushing things to the right again.  At the time the Democrats tried to triangulate Puke Gingrich declared his side must go on permanent offense.

And then Obama pretty much tried work with Republicans, after the disastrous presidency of Bush, and Republicans didn't want anything to do with it. You'd think after the disastrous presidency of Bush, Republicans might rethink their whole approach, just a little. But, they weren't having any of that.

So, I just think the strategy of triangulation isn't a good one and it is for suckers.  Time I think to get tougher on the conservatism.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

Republican "policy" for decades has been based on grabbing enough power to enable endless grifting for hacks and charlatans, but I am told there are "good people" somewhere in that caucus so we have to find some way to "compromise" with them when they want to destroy the ACA, restrict women's reproductive freedom, keep minorities and poor people from voting, and bury what's left of the middle class.

Well to be fair, the people I would call good Republicans are the people who are currently deeply struggling with their political identity. I've made a lot of friends working in politics who were Republicans, and trust me, basically all of them are having a crisis of conscience at the moment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, this is pretty much a disaster. Watch us pass something like the New Green Deal, only to have it struck down by some Federalist Society, right wing kook of a judge, who thinks Lochner was all that and a bag of chips.

Speaking of the Federalist Society, Democrats need to do a much better job at explaining to people who they exactly are. For a group of people who claim to be the most loyal to the Constitution, they sure do love destroying the spirit of the Judiciary.

[DanteGabriel]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well to be fair, the people I would call good Republicans are the people who are currently deeply struggling with their political identity. I've made a lot of friends working in politics who were Republicans, and trust me, basically all of them are having a crisis of conscience at the moment.

Yeah, it was easier to be a Republican when the racism and worship of plutocrats was more subtle.

[Martell Spy]

If only there was a candidate running to unite the Center and tackle the deficit....

[Gertrude]

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

As for AOC's and Warren's tax rate on the rich being extreme: it is. To the average American. Especially a younger one. Extreme and normal are relative terms and it's just weird how this forum tends to discuss whether ideas are radical from a perspective of the world rather than what's radical to the average US voter. This is the US politics thread, not international politics thread.

While true, there is nothing wrong with looking at other systems and seeing what works and what doesn't and how we can apply it to the US. We do this on a smaller scale with the states. We are a huge country and we largely don't even know what systems are working already in our own country to borrow the good ideas. I learned fairly recently that Tennessee has had free higher education (two year community college / technical school) since 2014. It's a very popular program and they've expanded it. That's a hugely radical idea according to some, yet here is a red-state who is quietly going about its business and making it work. 

I get frustrated by the US mindset that 'well, that wouldn't work here!' Why not? How could we modify it to make it work? I'd like to see these discussions because, you're right. Right now it's 'too extreme' because we're not framing the conversations for the average, low-information, sound-bite loving, tribal voter.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

During her first hearing before the new Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen insisted that the cages Customs and Border Protection (CBP) used to detain migrant and asylum-seeking kids aren’t really cages.

“Sir, they are not cages, they are areas of the border facility that are carved out for the safety and protection of those who remain there while they’re being processed,” Nielsen said during an exchange with House Homeland Security Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS).

Thompson, unimpressed with Nielsen’s euphemistic description, responded by telling her, “Don’t mislead the committee.”

Thompson wasn’t the only Democrat who didn’t buy Nielsen’s semantic games. Under questioning from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) a short time later, Nielsen had a hard time differentiating between CBP’s facilities for detained kids and dog kennels.

“Does it differ from the cages you put your dogs in when you let them stay outside?” Watson Coleman asked.

“Yes ... it’s larger, it has facilities, it provides room to sit, to stand, to lay down —”

“So does my dog’s cage,” Watson Coleman interjected.

 

DHS Secretary Nielsen’s first public hearing before the new Congress was a disaster
Elections have consequences.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/6/18253396/nielsen-cages-family-separations-house-homeland-security-committee

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

As for AOC's and Warren's tax rate on the rich being extreme: it is. To the average American. Especially a younger one. Extreme and normal are relative terms and it's just weird how this forum tends to discuss whether ideas are radical from a perspective of the world rather than what's radical to the average US voter. 

Look I don't believe in "anything goesism". And I'm willing to be critical of some left wing ideas, like the belief that a lot of these proposals can be simply paid for by running the money printing press. I believe that is a mistake both theoretically and empirically.

That said, a lot of the stuff coming out isn't crazy. There are good reasons to think they will work. But, you know, they will always seem "radical" if you are not willing to go out and make the argument.

 

[Lollygag]

8 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

While true, there is nothing wrong with looking at other systems and seeing what works and what doesn't and how we can apply it to the US. We do this on a smaller scale with the states. We are a huge country and we largely don't even know what systems are working already in our own country to borrow the good ideas. I learned fairly recently that Tennessee has had free higher education (two year community college / technical school) since 2014. It's a very popular program and they've expanded it. That's a hugely radical idea according to some, yet here is a red-state who is quietly going about its business and making it work. 

I get frustrated by the US mindset that 'well, that wouldn't work here!' Why not? How could we modify it to make it work? I'd like to see these discussions because, you're right. Right now it's 'too extreme' because we're not framing the conversations for the average, low-information, sound-bite loving, tribal voter. 

Totally agree. 

I think there's a huge missed opportunity, maybe a tragically missed opportunity, to test out wilder ideas on a smaller scale at a city or state level where there's less consequence if the experiment doesn't quite work out. Cities and states also have an easier time of tweaking something if it doesn't work making for a more dynamic and informative experiment.  If a lot of smaller places test out ideas in different conditions, we can gather the results from all of the experiments to pull out what works and what doesn't and create a more sound form of execution on a national level. I'd like to see a national push to encourage city and state governments to find solutions locally which could be tapped at least in part for national solutions. 

[S John]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

And then Obama pretty much tried work with Republicans, after the disastrous presidency of Bush, and Republicans didn't want anything to do with it. You'd think after the disastrous presidency of Bush, Republicans might rethink their whole approach, just a little. But, they weren't having any of that.

Obama getting elected scared the shit out of them and, being the miserable bastards that they are, they couldn't let his presidency be widely regarded as a smashing success.  I could be completely wrong because I was swept up in it too, but when Obama won it really felt like there was a minute there where even (most of) the folks who didn't vote for him were kind of excited about it.  There was major Bush fatigue, and even Obama's opponents could acknowledge that the man could deliver a damn good speech.  I think the R leadership felt that in the air and knew they could be fucked for a generation. 

The shit conservatives accuse Obama of to this day still blows my mind.  I still sometimes visit a way more conservative board than this one and when people point out the laundry list of shit that Trump has done they typically throw back Obama lines like "the police acted stupidly", "a pen and a phone", and various other out-of-context phrases in an attempt demonstrate how much of a divisive dick Obama was.  It's ridiculous.  They rage against this avatar of Obama, drummed up by right wing media that bears little resemblance to the actual man.  I don't know how any objective person could say that Trump is an upgrade over Obama.  Obama was, at the very least, a steady hand on the wheel of American Democracy.  Trump is a fucking drunk driver on his way to 711 to pick up another case.  

I too thought Obama getting elected, and then reelected, would force the R's to reevaluate.  Instead they have doubled down and that really took me by surprise.  Even more surprising is that it kinda worked.  

[OldGimletEye]

1 minute ago, S John said:

snip

What they were seeing was Herbert Hoover and FDR all over again. And that scared the shit out of them.

[S John]

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

Totally agree. 

I think there's a huge missed opportunity, maybe a tragically missed opportunity, to test out wilder ideas on a smaller scale at a city or state level where there's less consequence if the experiment doesn't quite work out. Cities and states also have an easier time of tweaking something if it doesn't work making for a more dynamic and informative experiment.  If a lot of smaller places test out ideas in different conditions, we can gather the results from all of the experiments to pull out what works and what doesn't and create a more sound form of execution on a national level. I'd like to see a national push to encourage city and state governments to find solutions locally which could be tapped at least in part for national solutions. 

That would require government to work at any level, which hurts Republicans.  Examples of government failures strengthen their cause, not successes.  It's why its all so fucked up.  

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, S John said:

That would require government to work at any level, which hurts Republicans.  Examples of government failures strengthen their cause, not successes.  It's why its all so fucked up.  

All I can say is that I'm glad that the "Brownback Boom" was kept in Kansas and wasn't inflicted on the rest of the nation.

We already had the "Bush Boom" and "Bullish on Bush" inflicted upon us.

[Lollygag]

Just now, S John said:

That would require government to work at any level, which hurts Republicans.  Examples of government failures strengthen their cause, not successes.  It's why its all so fucked up.  

Republicans aren't trying to destroy socialistic programs like SS, Medicare, etc. They don't go after public education unless it's clearly not working in a particular locality. Lots of examples. They'd get creamed by voters if they even looked like they were considering these things. 

Republicans =/= anarchists.