(Compromise in Politics) and Tweets

The United States is rightfully proud of it’s origins. There is an underlying premise in the tweets from that country that comes from the First Amendment of their constitution – that they have freedom of speech. It’s a premise that all of us who live in democracies based on Enlightenment ideals rely on.

But politics is broken in the US. It’s been getting worse for years. Those in power have no incentive to change and those without power have little ability to do anything. There are multiple issues, and it would take a book and far more knowledge than I have to discuss them all.

One of them is the failure of many politicians to do what politicians should do: compromise. Politicians are elected to represent all their constituents. Their job is to negotiate and cooperate with other representatives to run the country. Politics is the art of compromise.


But compromise is not what many of them do. Politicians who look out for their constituents, like those Republicans who regularly voted against the disastrous GOP Healthcare bills, are being vilified. There were other GOP politicians whose choice would have been to vote against those bills too, but they didn’t need to stand up, so didn’t.


Other politicians do the opposite of what they are there to do. They take a “my way or the highway” approach on every piece of legislation. As a result, virtually nothing gets done. “Compromise” has become a dirty word, a sign of weakness.


If they got together and did their jobs their collective knowledge could produce some good legislation. But it’s not going to happen in the current atmosphere.


It would help, too, if money didn’t have such a big influence on how politicians vote. But discussion of that opens up a hole new can of worms …


Political Tweets

One of my pet peeves about the US (and other) political systems is that they aren’t fair. In the US, gerrymandering is a major problem and few politicians are ethical enough to do anything about it. Both major parties do it, but there’s one that’s much worse than the other. Guess which one?


Dino Manalis Added Oct 12, 2017 - 7:22pm
Exactly, compromise is essential, that's why Trump has to stress bipartisanship on all issues and triangulate legislators, like President Clinton, with centrist proposals to force legislators to negotiate and compromise on the president's agenda.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Oct 13, 2017 - 5:17am
One of my pet peeves about the US (and other) political systems is that they aren’t fair.
Your mistake is in thinking they would be. 
Don't compound it by thinking it ever will be.
Utpal Patel Added Oct 13, 2017 - 7:10am
I think politicians in power change things far too much.  They should spend their time eliminating laws other politicians have made and let the free market work its magic.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 13, 2017 - 12:07pm
Since 2008 the democrat party has lost 1000 legislative seat in Congress and the States, lost control of Congress, White House, state Legislatures, and governor seats.  The voters have spoken loudly as the founders and colonies.   Those that replaced them promised the voters things to get their vote.  In Congress the house passed a repeal only bill for Obama Care about 50 times.  Until the GOP took control of the Senate those bills died in the Senate on Reed's desk.  One repeal only House bill was approved by the Senate and placed on Obama's desk at the end of 2015.  Obama as expected vetoed it in January, and he did which killed it also expected.   The house had other tools that the did not use, the power of the purse.   We have discovered that since 2016 the GOP members mostly have been performing Kabuki theater since 2008. 
This is the situation that you are commenting on Heather.  The citizens of the colonies knew through history that a pure democracy doesn't work.  You can not have a government that is driven by the whims of voters since fake news is as old as stone tools.  Roman tyrants figured out the solution, welfare creates self interest.  That is why the founder's Federal Government does not have the numerated power to provide welfare.  FDR used a crisis to introduce massive welfare that has never been reduced.  And yes the Roman solution still works.   Western Socialist have added health care as another self interest that maybe cheaper for government.  
So we can throw out the bums every two, four, or six years if we that separate out fake information.  That Heather has been the cause of your complaint.  Fake information has destroyed good replacement leaving us the choice of bum A or bum B.  And who paid for their destruction?   K street lobbyist which includes associations of corporations, unions, and do gooders. 
The whole government can not be replace in one election cycle.  House two year term representatives also have the smallest number of voters needed to throw them out.  They control the spending and taxes.  All bills have to start in the House which directly effects our pocket book, our self interest, the founders also learned from Rome.   Heather FDR help shield the representatives by accelerating the growth of the bureaucracy and using regulations to actually govern.  So now Representatives point to them for corruption, and spending.  Off budget spending is defined by the numbers of people that fit the requirements to receive benefits.   Social Security and welfare like Aid to Dependent Children and Public Housing were boosted by FDR.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 13, 2017 - 12:57pm
Heather I did not talk about compromise because the bums are compromising all the time with their K street donators that pay for the ears of our Representatives.  That is why the Paul Ryan, McConnell 'Repeal & Replace' for Obama Care is almost indistinguishable from Obama care.  they kept all the regulations and insured the insurance companies could not loose money.  They also prevented any effective competition.  Obama Care or its replacement will never lower cost because they are government regulated monopolies.  Obama Care replaced state regulated monopolies with federal/state monopolies.
So long as fake information gets them elected nothing will change.
wsucram15 Added Oct 13, 2017 - 6:39pm
Well Gerrymandering is on the debate for the Supreme Court this term.  We shall see how that comes out.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 13, 2017 - 7:08pm
Gerrymandering is very old wikipedia says, "originally written (Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812.  I believe it was a stronghold for Irish immigrants that voted Democratic.  Both parties do it and have done it since 1800.  The reason the Democrats in Wisconsin filed the suit in the first place because governor Walker made public worker unions 'right to work' places.   So for the first time in decades  state and local public employees that had to join the union to work.  The union used their dues to elect democratic representatives.  The had not choice even if the opposed the representative.   The public union membership dropped significantly which means the republican and democratic candidates for a seat are not one equal footings. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 13, 2017 - 7:11pm
sorry about the errors in words.  
state and local public employees did not have
They had no choice
republican and democratic candidates for a seat were on equal footings.
Heather Hastie Added Oct 13, 2017 - 7:22pm
Thanks for your comments everybody.
This post from my website is directed at my regular readers who have a good knowledge of my views through a series of posts about things like healthcare, the US electoral system etc. It is actually just a short comment that introduces a selection of tweets, the first of which is about gerrymandering.
You can see the original post here: http://www.heatherhastie.com/10-oct-2017-daily-homily-compromise-politics-tweets/
There are several posts about my views on the US healthcare system. This one covers most things: http://www.heatherhastie.com/universal-healthcare-just-makes-sense/
I'm very pleased SCOTUS is looking into gerrymandering in at least one district. A logarithm has been developed that may be able to judge in a non-partisan way whether there is gerrymandering in a particular district. Most modern democracies, including mine (New Zealand), have independent electoral commissions that set electoral boundaries to ensure there is no gerrymandering. We also have one of the fairer electoral systems in the world. It's fairly new - the old one wasn't fair as a political party could become the government without getting the most votes. That happened to us, and, of course, it's just happened in your presidential election. The people demanded change. Here is what another US commentator has to say about NZ's electoral system: https://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral
Those who say foreign interference is always going to be an issue are right. However, the effect of that can be minimized by an educated population, good laws, a well-designed system and more. The effect of Russia on France's election was minimized by tens of thousands of fake accounts on social media being taken down. There was no effort to do anything like that in the US. Fake accounts do NOT have rights to freedom of speech.
This is getting a bit long - I'll stop! :-)
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 13, 2017 - 8:45pm
Thank you for trying WB.  The rules require that authors comment on other posts and will have comments on their post.  It is a conversation.  We assumed you understood that from the start.  Others have also tried to use WB to present an opinion.  They however did not consider commenting.