Confusing Principle with Intransigence
in•tran•si•gent [in-tran-si-juh nt] adjective 1.refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible. noun 2. a person who refuses to agree or compromise, as in politics.
It is not an understatement to say this country was built on compromise. Fence sitters and wishy washy compromisers have had some of the most profound and lasting impacts on our country. Documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to name just a few were all controversial to say the least. The impact of many historic documents like these were actual bullets and burials. The leaders and patriots who compromised, who met sincere disagreement with centrist solutions are the ones we remember, the ones who made history. The ones who couldn’t make a deal were swept away by history.
We have all heard the story of the Constitution. The former colonies already had the Articles of Confederation. Those men could have walked away but, they knew the status quo wasn’t good enough. Negotiations were tough and in votes on close to a hundred resolutions, only a handful were unanimous. Truth is, they agreed on nothing really. From the very basis of government like the branches to seemingly insignificant details, they fought about it all. They kept at it through principled differences and we were the beneficiaries. No one calls them sellouts. Their constituencies didn’t send them toy weasels or disown them. They were even human enough to try and perfect their work with the Bill of Rights.
Today, somehow compromise has become a dirty word for the left and the right. It is said of centrists that since they are perceived not to stand for something they will fall for anything. We are called fence sitters and worse. The left and right love to quote the Constitution but, won’t give credit to the mindset that wrote it. They tell us the country is headed for the crapper if we don’t do it their way. They demonize the opposition, they call them names, they question their patriotism and finally, they try to embarrass them in front of their children. They seem to find contemptible the very process of making laws they claim to hold sacred. Their jaded speeches and actions belie the offices they presumably fought to hold.
Instead of sharing power over the country they presumably love, they would rather burn it down. Remembering your utopia could be someone else’s hell and settling for the middle is not only pragmatic, it is the American way.
13 Responses to “Confusing Principle with Intransigence”
You may be mistaking the two, and don’t forget whether or not you agree that in any case if it’s impossible to get a Grand Agreement, it can be scrapped and actions limited to the originally sought suitable debt limit increase. It probably would carry borrowing into 2013, too. (preventing further conflict in this regard before the 2012 elections) I wouldn’t be surprised if in the end it’s just a debt limit increase without anything else.
No telling if all the conflicts to date aren’t political posturing and testing political positions and ideas on the public before November 2012.
DLS,
I hope you are right. Contrary to prevailing wisdom on the far left and right, default is the “burn it down” option I fear. As the Speaker said, we really don’t know what will happen. If burning it down causes a million more to lose their jobs, this situation will be a special kind of sad I can’t even contemplate.
If this is posturing as you suggest, that says there is a perceived constituency for the “burn it down” concept. That fact scares the hell out of me.
one other thing,
The people who frequent this website are presumably the moderate middle who may be able to affect compromise. Call your congressman today and tell him (his aide) the story of the Constitution. Tell them you will hold them responsible if this thing does not get done. Call them especially if they are one of those wild-eyed wingnuts.
Maybe I missed something – has either side even tried to compromise on this – offered concessions or accepted that they may need to give something up? That would be the centrist approach you’re talking about.
The Republicans – no, no concessions.
The Democrats – hmmm, trillions in cuts.
Maybe I’m not the one who’s confused about this after all.
“The Democrats – hmmm, trillions in cuts.”
Maybe, maybe not. The “trillions” in cuts may really be trillions in future spending increases. The old guard Republicans may also be refusing to cut defense. The real question is whether we can avoid building up so much debt that the markets rebel.
And of course, none of us know what’s really going in there. They could be screaming bloody murder over shrimp subsidies, or they could have written the deal last week and are now discussing their respective grandchildren.
If this is posturing as you suggest, that says there is a perceived constituency for the “burn it down” concept. That fact scares the hell out of me.
It isn’t just percieved. Go to the right wing blogs. They really want to burn us all down. They have no idea it is suicidal. No clue. They are impervious to facts, reason, arguement. Anything you say that contradicts what they already believe is at best ‘liberal bias’ or at worse liberal efforts to destroy America. You can point out all the Conservatives who are saying the exact same thing, and all those people instantly become RINOs. If they took us over that cliff, I honestly don’t think these people would be capable of realizing what they’ve done.
Z5 (I hope you like that abbreviation; if not, kindly say so),
Ah, so you and D. R. Welch really believe that they think that way?
http://www.ewtn.com/gallery/oldtest/ot10s.htm
[grin]
Please, an end to the faux equivalence. It’s not only lazy but it’s inaccurate. The GOP seems incapable of functioning at all. The democrats have offered plenty and the Cantorites won’t budge. Let’s try and be honest about this OK???
Okay, JS, let’s not only be honest, but truthful.
All we know is what the pundits are saying. Is the 4 trillion any more than unspecified promises of future cuts? Will the cuts be in the actual bill? Will the cuts even be spending reductions, or just limits on future growth?
We’ve been through this enough times to know that:
a. There’s going to be at least one more act of screaming about how the deal is impossible before they supposedly discover a compromise. Most likely, the debt ceiling will be raised, with only one loophole closed, and some future cut that must be passed separately.
b. After the election, we’ll have another, eerily similar confrontation, because the revenue will fall short of expectations, while costs will exceed expectations.
c. The large amount that they announce will include unrealistic assumptions like the “doc fix”, no downturns, 3% or more constant growth, and unlimited low-cost pollution-free oil. Well, maybe not the oil, but if you’re going to dream, you might as well dream big.
Prof,
You are probably right. A deal has probably been signed, sealed and delivered. The politicians are probably waiting only on the political theater to run its course.
They probably also have an agreement to execute the plan upon a bad credit market response. I and others wonder, worry if the political machinery can respond in quickly enough to fend off disaster. We have all seen the markets reach a kind of critical mass of contagion which is hard to reverse. By the time congressional operators respond it could be too late.
Just my thoughts
dr
I also worry about the politics involved here, but with a little less short-term panic.
Right now, the best deal mentioned was 4 Trillion over 10 years. Our current deficit is 1.5 trillion (~10% inflated GDP) and our current debt is 14 trillion (~100% GDP). We probably can’t make it to 200%. Yet, even the 4 Trillion would mean 10 trillion more in debt over 10 years, assuming no growth in the deficit.
Now we can’t precisely predict when the next crisis will hit, but it’s safe to say that there’s going to be more. We can’t predict GNP growth, but it’s safe to say that it will be lower than estimated. When the markets see that the US simply can’t sustain, much less pay off, its debt, then no act of congress or the Fed will be able to stop the crash.
If you’re going to fall, it’s better to fall from a low height.
Yep — we don’t have a debt trap, not yet, but when we do get into it…
Story about the “GOP Intransigents”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us/politics/17debt.html