|
Question of the day
Thursday, Nov 11, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller * From Gallup…
Gallup used a 1 through 5 rating system, where “1″ meant it is more important for political leaders to “compromise in order to get things done,” while “5″ meant it is more important for political leaders to “stick to their beliefs even if little gets done.” * The Question: Based on that 1-5 rating system, where do you stand? Explain.
|
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 11:59 am:
It’s a false choice.
Say two parties are debating issue X.
Say party A is 70% wrong on X and party B is 70% wrong on X.
A & B compromising can lead to a policy that is less than 50% wrong or it can lead to policy that is almost 100% wrong.
The issue is not whether to compromise for the sake of compromise or not. The point is to create policy that works.
If climate change is a problem, does it make sense to compromise with people who deny climate change is a problem?
If Iraq doesn’t pose a threat, does it make sense to compromise with people who insist Iraq is a threat?
If the pooling of money in two few hands, thereby reducing flow in the larger economy, is a major cause of the recession, does it make sense to compromise with people who want to further concentrate wealth in fewer hands?
Many of these policy questions have right and wrong answers. Some of them are about splitting the difference.
Unfortunately we seem to be led by elites who split the difference on the right/wrong questions and deal with the split-the-difference questions by picking the wrong policy after having a black-and-white discussion.
- Aaron - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:01 pm:
I stand at a 3. Yes, it is important to have strong beliefs, but at that same time ideologues have to realize that when they are lawmaking, their ideology isn’t necessarily the best fit for the entire country/state/city/etc.
Compromise is overrated when it becomes nothing more than a mashing up left/right principles that have no business being mixed together because they do not create good policy. Compromise is acceptable, necessary, and good when it is a legitimate compromise based on policy beliefs.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:12 pm:
I take the “yellow button - Present” number of 3. 1 and 5 are too extreme of either belief or compromise. Either you have no backbone, and will sell your mother or your soul for paperclips or socks. The 5 is the type that you can try to compromise to save the “idea” of their belief, but will cut off thier nose to spite their face. Legislators who are 1s or 5s are usually not legislators for long, or worse, they do have long careers, but never looked upon as leaders.
2s and 4s I can see myself, but it better be an issue/s that compromising a belief is for the betterment of the overall, or if I am going to stonewall, it better be for the betterment of what I am not going to bend for.
3 … 3 is the “yellow button -Present”. If you are thoughtful, and open to looking at issues in a fair-minded way and you can sleep easily by going against your party or belief to move the ball forward, or you look at something in a different light and are swayed by the “merits”
It would be great if 60% of any legislative body were 3s, however, party leadership, the reality of politics, and ego play the role of spoiler of this Utopian legislative body of 3s.
I would say I hope I would get to be a 3 … but the process would have to make me be a 2 or a 4 too often, but hopefully not too often.
- Ahoy - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
2 we set up a whole system of government on compromise, even our constitution was passed on compromises (even though they were bad compromises). We live in an age where we need government to work and we need those who are governing to get things done.
Just look at recent history, presidents perform better when there is a minority party that forces compromise. The healthcare bill would have been a better bill if there was more Republican input forcing compromise. Heck, Bush might have been a better President if he didn’t have Republican’s just cheering his horrible policies on.
Sometimes you need to stand with your beliefs, but wisdom comes with knowing when to stand with your beliefs and when to compromise. Besides, there is some goofy beliefs by people in government, just look at the tea party.
- Wumpus - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:18 pm:
Depends. They all need to compromise. If they don’t, you have the ILGOP of the past few years with purity tests and such. Everyone has their own core value which no compromise is acceptable, but some change is better than being a stubborn ass.
- One of the 35 - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:19 pm:
I would say a 4. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, “Building concensus may an abdication of leadership.” This same analysis could be applied to the process of compromise. I.e. if you compromise, you may have failed to lead and obtain what you thought was best. In theory, the voters elected you to exercise your good judgement on their behalf. Have you partially abandoned what you thought best in order to reach a compromise?
- Wensicia - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:30 pm:
2 or 3 is the easy answer, but in some cases, compromise may end up in losing a particular goal, like giving in to civil unions rather than demanding marriage equality for gay couples. But such steps do advance your cause. I believe 5 is ultimately self-destructive.
- Fed Up State Employee (Thank a veteran on Veteran's Day) - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:43 pm:
Life is full of compromises so I have to vote middle of the road at 3.
If politicians lean to a 5 and stick 100% to their ideology it seems nothing gets done, unless one party has a veto-proof majority. We know how those situations work, or don’t. A policy is instituted by one party, then when the other party takes control they want to rescind it. Back and forth.
If they lean to a 1 and concentrate on compromising to get things done, I think they become irrelevant.
Of course there are political situations where you don’t want to compromise certain values, but overall I believe compromise creates an environment that the majority of both sides can come to agreement in the best interest of the majority of the people.
- D.P. Gumby - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 12:49 pm:
The first question is “what is the issue?”
The second is “what is the data?”
For example, in the past consensus existed that scientific data was scientific data. Now, the flat-earthers make-up data to refute science. Bush trashed science for political gain evolution was treated as “equal” to creationism. On an issue like that there can be no “compromise” because there is no legitimate opposing public policy…it is a religious position that is not relevant to the debate.
On the other hand, tax policy is all fiction and fantasy. It’s a battle between greed and altruism that is made for compromise.
- Tom - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 1:14 pm:
on a scale of 1-5, the only thing I’d give Gallup is the finger. Talk about an outlier. A 15 point enthusiasm gap my butt. I know it’s off topic, but hey, it’s open line Thursday.
- dc - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 1:25 pm:
It seems to be 3 is the compromise choice for the question. Somewhat ironic. (Rich you really should have taken today off too. I have no idea why I’m on here on my day off either.)
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 1:36 pm:
===(Rich you really should have taken today off too. I have no idea why I’m on here on my day off either.) ===
That was the plan, but I really wanted to post the Cheesehead story, so I kinda got sucked in. I’m just doing fun stuff today. No real work. Plus, I have to write my Sun-Times column.
- Highland, IL - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 1:49 pm:
“1″ - You can argue all day long about varying degrees of compromise. I go by the definition of compromise being everyone isn’t totally happy because they didn’t get their way but their satified they accomplished something.
- anon sequitor - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 1:54 pm:
1s are wheeler dealers with no back bone.
5s make governing impossible.
3s stick their finger in the wind as a substitute for thoughtful consideration.
2s try to have a conscience, but crumble too easily.
4s make governing possible.
So I’ll hang out with the 4s.
- Responsa - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 2:24 pm:
2.5 for me.
Equifinality is the principle that in open systems a given end state can be reached by many potential means.
“It is a profoundly simple idea in contrast to the obscure word, but I could not grasp equifinality until I read a symposium in a woodworking magazine on how to sharpen chisels. Some twenty experts swore by water stones or oil stones, artificial or natural, from the quarries of Arkansas or the factories of Japan. One expert said rub the chisel back and forth on the stone, another said side to side, a third in small arcs, a fourth in large circles, a fifth in figure eights. Each asserted his combination worked best, some with elaborate scientific rationales backed up by diagrams.”
“The outcome of equifinal processes depends on the moment-to-moment opportunities available in the immediate environment. Equifinal processes generate emergent structures when living structures are systeming, that is, open to each other’s openness” (quotes clipped from allexperts website)
- CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 2:35 pm:
Hopefully the Sun TImes column will be the challenge to the reformers to start knocking on Corporate doors and demanding to know how much the spent in dues to the U.S. Chamber etc.
- Reformer - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 2:45 pm:
Compromise is a necessary part of governing. Unfortunately, the two parties are not equally willing to compromise, and that leads to gridlock where the public interest is sacrificed.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 3:02 pm:
5.
If you do not bring your principles, you do not know where to begin a debate. If you have no beliefs, then you cannot know a solution. Life is full of truths. Find them. Stick up for them. Compromise is what happens after the deals are done. You stick with your principles.
If you are willing to compromise your principles, then they are not principles.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 3:15 pm:
CircularFiringSquad, sorry to disappoint. It’s about hoot owls and leaping Copperheads.
- soccermom - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 3:29 pm:
Oh, Rich, you’re going to start a new column on life in the great outdoors. That’s lovely. Leave no child inside!!!
- wordslinger - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 4:45 pm:
I’m definitely a “one” in dealing with honorable people in good faith. If it’s Blago, I’m a “five.” I wouldn’t deal with him at all. He’s bad news.
There certainly are problems that aren’t dealt with because of emotion. There’s way too much irrational emotion — and ignorance — in public discourse.
I’m a kitchen-table economist, Missouri kind of guy. Show Me, brother.
Put it this way: Who can you work with?
Who protected America more? Dick Cheney or Dick Lugar?
We all know what Cheney pushed. Lugar’s work decomissioned 7,500 nuclear warheads aimed at the United States. Their radiation provides 10% of our electrical power.
I’m a “one” with Lugar.
- sal-says - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 4:46 pm:
I’ve been thinking of the word: ’statesman’ recently, wondering mostly, why we don’t seem to have them any more. Tho they’re sorely needed.
To refresh: “statesman
1. a person who is experienced in the art of government or versed in the administration of government affairs.
2. a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues.”
Some balance between 1 & 5 is always needed. But staying with 5 does not solve any of the critical problems facing the country and IL. 5 has helped us get where we are now; just fighting and complaining with NO successful outcomes. And, I suspect, no bill that gets passed is ever ‘perfect’; but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been passed.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Nov 11, 10 @ 6:22 pm:
1. Stick to your principles.
2. Solving problems should be one of your principles.