Politics: The Art of Compromise

[amicus]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n3-6.html

Search: Politics the art of compromise

I also searched: philosophy: compromising principles…but found nothing worthy of copying and pasting.

I personally have no aspirations to be to be a politician or a businessman as both avocations, by definition, require compromise for success.

I also bypassed on all levels the teaching profession as that too, requires compromise.

I am not a very ‘social’ person which I am sure comes as no surprise to anyone here.

In passing, briefly, I note the Left celebrating, here, on television and the Blogs and also note the absence of the ‘whining’ from Conservatives, so prevalent following the 2000 and 2004 elections by the social liberals.

It is amusing, again in passing and briefly, to note the social liberals in many instances became pro family and pro gun and anti gay marriage in contested districts so as to pander to the electorate.

Congratulations to the Left! You have perfected the art of compromise and the violation of whatever principles social liberals claim.

Ah, sorry, Liberals are also secular humanists, or relativists, which means they have no basic, absolute principles to corrupt in the first place…sorry.

I am not sad, disappointed or surprised by the results of Tuesday’s elections and thanks to Pure, who, on one of the threads at least understood partially, those of us who do have ethics, morals and principles that we always advocate with as much consistency and congruity as possible who will not compromise or corrupt those principle except in a life threatening circumstance, such as a gun barrel to the head.

Weeks ago it was noted that there are 300 plus paid staffers already working in the States of Iowa and New Hampshire, early primary States for the 2008 elections.

Let the games begin.


Amicus…

 

[oggbashan]

Politics is the art of the possible

Compromise is a failure of politics.

The parties present the electors with starkly contrasted views of the issues and the candidates yet the reality of government is that the issues are not as clear cut as an election manifesto would suggest.

Many items of legislation are not contentious. They don't get reported on commented on because they are sensible and rational. The bills that get the column inches and the TV pundits attention are those that are NOT compromises, but are hated by the opposition. Yet it is those very bills that attracted the electors' attention and made the difference between one party being in power and the other not.

If an administration can pass legislation that their opponents would not agree to - and has the votes to do it, then it should. If the administration changes, the new administration can repeal or replace the legislation. How often do they?

Politics is the art of changing government to adapt to the world as it is. It is a slow process.

How is this relevant to the current US situation? The President will have to adapt to the reality of changed power around him. He can still act on those matters where there is no disagreement; he will have to negotiate very carefully where the parties are at odds. Deals will be done, reluctantly perhaps, but they will be done.

What has happened is perhaps a result of taking a weak mandate too far. The President was elected on a tiny majority but behaved as if he had a massive one. That, and some other issues that are nothing to do with the work of the administration, alienated enough people to swing the voting.

A few less scandals or a few on the other side and it might have been a different result. It is no way to decide the political future of a country.

Og

 

[amicus]

Dear Ogg...that is somewhat of a surprise, coming from you.

That 'politics is compromise', since Aristotle, has been pretty much accepted, if not embraced as a working definition.

There is logic and reason, I think, when considering a multi-party system of government, to consider that differing, often opposite views, are held passionately by those who participate in the process.

The process engages debate and discussion and eventually taking sides to determine the 'approved' action to enforce.

In that, neither side gains exactly what they wish, but compromises to the extent necessary to fulfill the function those representatives are paid to accomplish.

Through personal comments you have offered on this forum, my understanding is that you have been and perhaps are, actively engaged in the political process in your local area. As such, I suppose you do not appreciate having your chosen profession as being one of 'compromise'; however, by definition, it is just that.

My concern is really not the compromises that take place, rather the lack of 'principles' expressed by either extreme. Politics seem to have taken a direction away from principle and taken up a position of pragmatism, pretty much what you said, what ever works.

In the absence of extreme polarity, both claiming to adhere to cherished principle, we are left with what I so often choose to identify as a, relativistic philosophy, in which there are no absolute principles on either side and very little else is 'possible' to use your term, as a guideline to reach a compromise.

So you see, I want passionately held opposing viewpoints and I want them exposed, discussed, debated and voted upon in a public forum. To me, that is the democratic process, not the mealy mouthed settling of issues within the controlled parameter you are defining as the art of the possible.

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If the government borrows about a gozillion dollars and spends it at home buying goods and services (war), the result will be a short term increase in productivity and government income.

The borrowed money has to be repaid either through increased taxes or by printing more money.

Printing more money devalues the currency and results in inflation (Reagan years) which is the same as increased taxation.

Eddie the Economist

During the Reagan presidency, the inflation rate dropped from 13.6% in 1980 (President Carter's final year in office) to 4.1% by 1988.

 

[kendo1]

I know I'm requoting, but...

From 'Yes, Prime Minister' -

Sir Humphrey-

Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that your new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval in principle.

And another, for ami. I know how much he loves government.


Jim: Who else is in this department?
Sir Humphrey: Well briefly sir I am the Permanent Undersecretary of State known as the Permanent Secretary, Wooley here is your Principle Private Secretary I too have a Principle Private Secretary, and he is the Principle Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary, directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, eighty-seven Undersecretaries and two hundred and nineteen assistant secretaries, directly responsible to the Principle Private Secretaries are Plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Undersecretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary.
Jim: Can they all type?
Sir Humphrey: None of us can type Minister, Mrs McKay types, she's the secretary.


And...

Sir Humphrey:-The Public doesn't know anything about wasting government money, we're the experts.

Or:

Sir Humphrey: Yes, yes, yes, yes I do see that there is a real dilemma here, in that while it has been government policy to regard policy as the responsibility of Ministers and administration as the responsibility of officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts or overlaps with responsibility for the policy of administration of policy.

Betty Oldham: Well that's a load of meaningless drivel, isn't it?

Sir Humphrey: It is not for me to comment on government policy. You must ask the Minister.



We have a fond disregard for our government over here.

 

[amicus]

My ex wife, many years ago, gave me two gifts, a 30-06 hunting rifle, which I had to sell as I may have shot her with it, and an Unabridged Random House Dictionary of the English Language, (why you want a dictionary for a present I will never understand, but...oh, well) (it was my money that bought it anyway)

But...from that rather aged and abused and well used dictionary, I type:

"Bureaucrat: an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment."

And that is to whom the left wishes to leave the decisions of mankind. I can only sigh and roll my eyes.

amicus...

 

[kendo1]

Sir Humphrey: Minister I think there is something that perhaps you ought to know.
Jim: Yes Humphrey.
Sir Humphrey: The identity of the official whose alleged responsibility for this hypothetical oversight has been the subject of recent discussion, is, not shrouded in quite such impenetrable obscurity as certain previous disclosures may have led you to assume, but not to put too fine a point on it, the individual in question is, it may surprise you to learn, one whose present interlocutor, is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun.
Jim: Beg your pardon.
Sir Humphrey: It was I.

 

[amicus]

I knew it was you!

 

[kendo1]

So, why are you up so late?

 

[amicus]

Hmmm...no answer to that, dunno...your public profile leaves a lot to be desired, red wine? okay...


amicus...

 

[kendo1]

A drink to appreciate, not overdo.

And yes, I do have ethics, morals and principles. They differ from yours.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The form of government that doesn't allow for comrpomise is properly known as a "Dictatorship."

The type of government organized around a set of absolute values has a name too: Theocracy.

And here's another quote, the one from Otto Von Bismarck: "Every war is a failure oif politics."

 

[oggbashan]

The compromises of politics have to be made within the party in power. No party that can form an administration has a single agenda among all its representatives. The junior ones have to follow the party line. The senior ones argue among themselves before a policy is decided. Then they SHOULD accept the policy - often they don't and the party is divided against itself.

A party in government with a reasonable size majority can ignore the protests of the opposition but not the opposition within its own ranks.

Internal party politics may be about compromise - but with whom? and why?

Influencing party politics requires a knowledge of the internal compromises that have been made and why they were made. Individual politicians can only change policies by altering the balance.

Og

 

[amicus]

dr_mabeuse]The form of government that doesn't allow for comrpomise is properly known as a "Dictatorship."

The type of government organized around a set of absolute values has a name too: Theocracy.

And here's another quote, the one from Otto Von Bismarck: "Every war is a failure oif politics."

[/I]

~~~~~

My oh, my, Mab, you wiggle like a fish on a hook to avoid the concept of values and principles.

I suggest that there can be other, absolute principles and values that reflect humanity than those adapted and adopted by dictatorships and theocracies.

I fact, I suggest that they have and are well expressed in the founding documents of the United States.

That you do not wish to support those values, or advocate them, is purely your choice, you a guaranteed the 'freedom' to disagree, at least here, you are.

I continue to be amused at the left, while as they deny any possible existence of values, ethics, moral or principles in absolute terms, they claim with absolute certainty that their own set of values are absolute beyond question.

Don't you find that at least mildly amusing, my forum friend?

amicus...