Whatever happened to the fine art of compromise?
January 27, 2006
Posted by at January 27, 2006 10:11 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1232
Wisconsin may soon join 46 other states and allow its residents to carry concealed weapons. While Governor Jim Doyle vetoed the measure, there may be enough votes to override him. This is a contentious issue in the state that pits the right wing gun advocates against the left wing peaceniks. One side has to lose and everyone comes out of the battle a little bitter and a little angry. Is that the kind of atmosphere that's most conducive to effective lawmaking? Of course not. Lawmakers need to learn how to compromise. They need to get a little even when they lose and give a little even when they win. When the Founding Fathers left Philadelphia, no one got exactly what they wanted, but the United States emerged with one of the finest documents ever created. Sometimes when no one wins, we all win.
So in that spirit of compromise, I propose that some Democratic lawmakers vote for the concealed-carry law. In turn, some Republicans should vote against any measures to ban gay marriages and/or civil unions. Let the gun nuts pack heat. Let the gays get married. Let people vote without ID and let kids sing Christmas carols again. No one will be perfectly happy, but I bet we'll have a better country for it.
Posted by at January 27, 2006 10:11 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1232
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # January 27th, 2006 10:57 AM JohnTant |
| To me this sounds like compromise for the sake of compromise. I'm more of a fan of the "pick your battles" strategy. |
| # January 27th, 2006 11:03 AM james |
| yeah, that three-fifths compromise was the shining star of the constitution, wasn't it? compromise sure made us better. |
| # January 27th, 2006 11:14 AM james |
| my point, in case you missed it, is that compromise rarely makes anyone or anything stronger. without getting too far off topic, i'd charge that a representative who "compromises" an issue just for the sake of harmony has no business being a representative in the first place - she should instead be off on outward bound singing kumbaya and hugging her fellow man. we all lose when no one does what's right.
|
| # January 27th, 2006 11:20 AM kris |
| it's not just about compromise for the sake of harmony, it's about compromise for the sake of getting things done too. we all lose when everyone sits around arguing rather than trying to get crap done |
| # January 27th, 2006 11:54 AM JohnTant |
| Well, let's take the concealed carry bill as an example. There are likely enough votes in the legislature to override the veto. So with that fact in hand, why would those "gun nuts" want to "compromise" with the lefties and promise a vote for gay marriage or whatever? So the lefties can feel good about themselves in the face of a defeat in the form of concealed carry (finally) in The Cheese? I don't think rescuing lefty self-esteem ought to be a priority in government.
What's also really interesting is you don't see many lefties crossing the aisle offering this kind of compromise. There's a word for a party who keeps taking the high road only to get slapped time and time again. But Kris, I think your last line is interesting: we all lose when everyone sits around arguing rather than trying to get crap done I personally would rather Congress sit around and argue all the time rather than be getting crap done, mainly because that crap has to do with dollars being Electroluxed out of my wallet at an increasing pace. But with that aside, just because something is "being done" doesn't mean it's worth doing. In fact, I think losing sight of that is when we all lose. |
| # January 27th, 2006 12:29 PM kris |
| when I wrote that I was thinking of something like Social Security reform. What's Congress doing about that? |
| # January 27th, 2006 12:47 PM james |
I personally would rather Congress sit around and argue all the time rather than be getting crap done, mainly because that crap has to do with dollars being Electroluxed out of my wallet at an increasing pace. But with that aside, just because something is "being done" doesn't mean it's worth doing. In fact, I think losing sight of that is when we all lose. exactly. compromise is just "you appropriate for my bill and i'll appropriate for yours." congress is supposed to only spend on items that have broad support. instead, this system of deal-making and compomise leads to lots of spending on items that have very little support. |
| # January 27th, 2006 1:15 PM kris |
| you guys are just focusing on appropriations and pork, which my original article had nothing to do about. |
| # January 27th, 2006 2:04 PM james |
| i'm not focusing on pork, it's an example.
and i do admit, i'm confused as to what your article is about. are you proposing that people should vote for things that they don't believe in, just for the sake of doing so? maybe you should have voted for ralph nader last election, just because. (?) "One side has to lose and everyone comes out of the battle a little bitter and a little angry. " huh? so are you saying that to avoid making the other side "bitter and angry" the winning side should give just up? neville chamberlain anyone? you're saying that your original article had nothing to do with pork. what does it have to do with then? from what i can put together, the thesis sentence seems to be "Sometimes when no one wins, we all win." not only is that overarchingly broad enough to encompass all sorts of pork discussion, but it's not supported at all in the ensuing discussion. i really am very confused. |
| # January 27th, 2006 4:01 PM JohnTant |
when I wrote that I was thinking of something like Social Security reform. What's Congress doing about that? OK, but in your article you talk about Democrats voting for concealed carry in exchange for Republicans voting against gay marriage bans. I'm confused too. I was reading your article as wondering why those Republicans don't compromise with Democrats, when just before we learned that an override is quite possible (and even probable) without having to compromise. Another point I'd like to explore in this Intra-Dummocrat catfight: Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review once observed that if we *really* wanted great public schools, we'd already have them. Similarly, if we *really* wanted Social Security reform (to use your point), we'd have it. In my mind, the main thing holding back Social Security reform isn't a lack of compromise, but rather the general apathy of the US voting population on the issue. |
| # January 27th, 2006 5:19 PM Daddy |
| I'm with John. Pick your battles. And when you're right, do NOT compromise.
Example: Ya has ta have ID to votes. Peeryud. 'N I ain't compromizin'. |