General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's been said, "Politics is the art of the possible" ...
and the nature of politics (in our current system of divided government representing a politically divided peoples) that one can make one issue possible by trade on another, presumably of lesser a priority, issue.
Here's a political thought experiment:
What issue would you trade away in order to obtain passage of another?
For example, would you trade the passage of the XL Pipeline in exchange of the killing of TPP? Or, the passage of the closing of all tax loopholes that apply to $250,000 "earners" (increasing taxation on the wealthy to an effective rate of ~60%)? Or, Universal Healthcare?
What would you trade to get what?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Because for everything I might be willing to delay for tactical reasons, there's someone on this board who feels that that is a core Democratic value and my willingness to slow the push for it is betrayal of core principals. The other issue is that if you feel very passionately about an issue, it's hard to except a delay or a trade as a betrayal.
Selma is an interesting touchstone in this discussion (I think it's a great movie and everybody should see it) in that LBJ wants to push his economic program as having more long lasting effects, while Dr. King wants voting rights legislation as a priority. Since the movie is told from Dr. King's perspective he's shown to be right; when you consider how vicious the Whites of Selma were it's hard not to be on MLK's side in that argument. But stepping back, LBJ has a point too - the economic situation for a lot of black communities was (and still is) terrible.
Bryant
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This OP was prompted by the "3 Priorities to focus on" OP, posted earlier this week. It clearly demonstrated that we, Democrats/Liberals, have very different priorities. But, because of limited resources, we cannot pursue them all with equal vigor.
Further, we must understand/recognize/acknowledge that approximately 50% of the electorate has it's own set of priorities that in many/most cases is the exact opposite of what we want. It does not matter that (we'd like to believe) their priorities are against their interests or that their priorities are fed to them by whomever ... they want what they want and attempting to convince them otherwise is/should be less of a priority on our part, as it is a waste of resources.
My experience suggests that people are transactional beings - we are far more likely to give on/work with others, when it is clear that they are getting something that they value; more so, when the value of what we get is more than the value we place on what we are giving.
So it would seem that in order to get what we want, we must find the value equilibrium point on each issue, where what we want is equal to or (slightly) less than the value of what the opposition wants.
My experience, also, informs me that being in the weaker position (i.e., the minority party in Congress), the most effective route is to identify what the republicans really want (e.g., the XL Pipeline Project) and determine what we are willing to trade for that.
(I know ... I know ... that is "Spineless 3rd-Way 'triangulation' and selling-out principle (for a measure of progress)" ... but it is, also, the way things get accomplished in the real world.)
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but I'm wondering, how do you think they we the least bit responsive to my query?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Many people have made 'politics is' statements. So what? In terms of your post, that's not how our political system works. How would such a 'trade' be enforced, would there be a contract signed by each side promising to vote in trade? Does that strike you as legal?
Plus, when conservative straight folks start talking about making concession and trades for favor, I know they mean that they'd gladly trade away that which is mine to gain in return something for themselves. Back room deal making will never, ever serve the people.
My first quote comes from Marx. That would be Groucho. And here's one from Mel Brooks:
"Rhetoric does not get you anywhere, because Hitler and Mussolini are just as good at rhetoric. But if you can bring these people down with comedy, they stand no chance."
Mel's advice is good, so I quoted Groucho instead of some rhetoric.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)since when; politics is, and has always been, transactional ... it is/has been only a recent occurrence that "compromise" and "horse-trading" is/has been considered taboo or a sign of weakness.
Simple ... I days gone by, the comity of Congress made "enforcement" unnecessary. Now, not so much. So the trade can be enforced by having the traded policies/legislation go to the President for signature on the same day. Despite what many my think, there remains a measure of honor within our government ... if at no other level, than in the Office of the President.
This is largely true; but, that has nothing to do with Democrats being transactional.
I STRONGLY disagree ... the passage of Civil Rights Act (just to name one) was, after all, a "backroom deal."
jwirr
(39,215 posts)firm may lose me everything. Hard decisions and that is why I would never want to be the president of the USA. Or even a member of Congress.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you just have to ignore all/most of what your life's experience has taught you, and pretend a world where you get EVERYTHING you want and the other side gets nothing!
jwirr
(39,215 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As you pointed out, weighing our priorities against the priorities of others is difficult. But it is impossible when ones starting point is pretending that we live in a zero sum, all or nothing world.
