What is “compromise”?
by Greg Krehbiel on 2 January 2013
I just heard an amusing commentary on what “compromise” in politics means. People often complain that Congressmen used to be able to compromise, but now we have all this gridlock because people can’t work together.
Grover Norquist says that it was easy for Nixon to compromise with Kennedy, because Nixon wanted more government and Kennedy wanted much more government, so they’d compromise with something between more and much more. But now we have people going in opposite directions — more government vs. less government — so it’s harder to compromise.
I’m not sure that’s true — the Republicans were happy to expand government during the Bush years, and I don’t believe any of them are actually proposing less government — but it is an amusing way to describe the issue.
-- 2013-01-02 » Greg Krehbiel
3 January 2013 @ 1:26 pm
The way I have put it is that when one side says 1+1=3, and the other says 1+1=7, the compromise position isn’t really very desirable.
I don’t really believe that the questions are big government/ small government, or balanced budgets / deficits. Those are smokescreens. If you want to know what somebody wants to do, look at what they do, what they are satisfied with doing, and what they are willing to give in on.
The Republican party has had a single core concern throughout its existence– cutting taxes, mainly on the wealthy. The social issues; gun control, civil rights, everything else, have shifted with the political expedience of the times, but the central mission hasn’t changed.
Just look at what they are willing to give in on, and what they aren’t. Also, look at the specific tax cuts they draw the line on, and the ones they don;’t care about.