Welcome to our brand new feature called Jammer’s World. Jammer is a guest columnist whose essays I will be posting from time to time. I hope you enjoy reading his view as much as I do!
Stephanie
Compromise is not the answer
How many times have we heard the call for compromise in Washington DC? It seems like every day there is a call from somebody that we need to find politicians that can put aside their political differences in order to reach compromise on legislation that will move the country forward. Well, I would like to say that compromise is not the answer; in fact it just might be the problem.
It was many years ago that I was attending a business meeting when the meeting leader informed us that we had the most difficult job in the universe facing us. We were a committee that was assembled to find a solution to a problem that was facing the company. That didn’t sound too difficult. However, I was shocked when the meeting leader put a picture of a horse “as designed by a committee” on the overhead projector. It was an awful looking creature that did not resemble a horse by any stretch of the imagination.
I thought to myself, just what is this awful looking creature and how could it ever be functional for anything? It was at this point the meeting leader informed us that we would be challenged with avoiding a similar monstrosity because our task would require reaching a consensus of the committee.
Sure enough, the eight members of the committee were going to have to COMPROMISE on a number of issues if we ever hoped to reach a consensus. That meant we were assured of coming up with a plan that would probably never work as it was intended. Just like the committee that designed a horse with only three legs in order to get one committee member’s favorite wheel as part of the horse, we were also going to have to make compromises.
It didn’t take me long to understand that compromise was not the best path to arriving at the right answer. We needed to correctly identify the policies that would require implementation if we ever hoped to reach a successful conclusion to our assignment. It was apparent that compromising on these things was not going to produce the right solution.
So, why is everybody calling for compromise in the US House and Senate when it comes to passing legislation? Just like the horse “as designed by a committee” was a disaster; is it any wonder that nothing coming from Washington works?
When it comes to passing legislation and governing, I am steadfast in my belief that principles can never ever be compromised. However, that does not mean the right and the left cannot work together.
Just like the American eagle has a left and a right wing with both needing to work together to fly straight ahead, the same can be said for our government. The traditional liberals are very good at identifying the unmet needs of the citizens. However, they are terrible at prioritizing and designing the programs to meet those needs. On the other side of the aisle, conservatives are concerned about the conservation of the nation’s assets and resources. They are also very good at designing and managing the programs to obtain their objectives.
The way the left and right should work together to move the country forward is to have each do what they do best. Liberals should identify the unmet needs of Americans. The liberals and conservatives should then agree on the priority list of which needs to address first. We simply can’t afford to do them all at one time even if the liberals think money is not an issue. Yes, it is OK to compromise on WHAT to do, but not HOW to do it. There is a world of difference in this critical issue.
Once the priority list is determined, the conservatives should design the programs to meet these needs and put management systems in place to ensure the programs are both effective and efficient. At that point, the traditional liberals should take over once again. They should monitor and ensure that the programs designed and managed by the conservatives are actually meeting their desired objectives. If they are not, then both sides need to work together to determine what corrective action is required.
I believe if the left and right worked together in this manner, we would be much better off. Right now, whichever side is in control determines what they are going to shove through. At that point they often compromise in HOW it is going to be done and that is where the proverbial horse “as designed by committee” is born. The result is a program or a system that does not properly work and always runs short of money.
Therefore, I would like to say that Democrats and Republicans need to COMPLEMENT each other, not compromise with each other.
Jammer
If you want to end up complementing something you will have to compromise. What you are saying is a play on words.
According to dictionary.com, “complement” means:
1. something that completes or makes perfect: A good wine is a complement to a good meal.
2. the quantity or amount that completes anything: We now have a full complement of packers.
3. either of two parts or things needed to complete the whole; counterpart.
While compromise is defined as:
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.
It seems to me that there is a difference. It is possible for two ideas to exist together while complementing each other; however, both are equally necessary to complete the whole. But a compromise appears to mean that each side needs to tweak or amend its separate ideas in order for both to reach an agreement.
However, I will ask Jammer to weigh in to further explain his comment.
Stephanie, you said it quite well. My point was that the way for liberals and conservatives to work together is they should utilize their different skill sets to work together to reach a common goal.
I was hoping that the use of the example of a horse “as designed by a committee” would help explain the the problems we encounter when we COMPROMISE. We always end up with something that doesn’t work as intended.
However, when liberals use their skills (which are typically different that a conservative) they end up complementing each other in ther effort to reach a common goal.
Another possible way to explain this is to use the American eagle as an example. If liberals and conservatives COMPROMISE that the left wing will fly during the day and the right wing will fly at night, it doesn’t work that well. However, when they complement each other and work together (COMPLEMENT) the eagle flies straight ahead.
That’s a great analogy, Jammer. I agree with you that there is far too much animosity between liberals and conservatives now when, as you explained it so eloquently, it doesn’t necessarily need to be that way. Until I read your essay, it never occurred to me that both skill sets could be used to solve one problem. You definitely opened my eyes to new possibilities. I hope others can also benefit from your wisdom.
Grover wont allow it. Read my post below.
This all sounds quite wonderful in theory but how are we supposed to start this complementation process when these days every conservative running for office is forced to sign away their right to govern. In the words of former President Gorge H. W. Bush: “Politicians can’t be wedded to some formula by Grover Norquist.” Democrats may be as liberal as you say they are, but at least they don’t shackle their candidates with pledges as if they were entering a fraternity or sorority, which sounds pretty collegiate to me. It seems to me that they are signing away their ability to “design and manage” anything even before they arrive.
I think you entirely missed the point. You seem to still be stuck on the conventional wisdom that politicians must compromise on their principles. I maintain that is what has us saddled with so many programs that simply don’t work as intended.
I also realize that any change like this would never be easy and the first obstacle that we will encounter is when people immediately fall right back into the trap of using their same old talking points like “Grover won’t allow it”.
I am also quite pragmatic about this and realize that this will not automatically happen just because I “wish” it would. But I do hope that there will be a few people that take the time to think about this issue and maybe come to the realization that there just might be a different way to attack the problems facing us. Not everything has to be a horse “as designed by a committee”.
I couldn’t agree with you more, and I am not arguing about what should happen, I am just pointing out (some) obstacles. It is not I who is stuck, it is all the politicians who have signed ridiculous pledges that do not allow compromise, much less complement. Heck, they do not allow conversation! I do get your point, working in government I am quite frustrated by and aware of programs that do not work. However I do not think a two-party system which looks more like a couple going through a divorce will ever be able to complement each other. And the Tea Party, which looks more like the angry child of the divorcing couple (we can call him Grover) isn’t helping either. We could go on forever on this, complement and even compromise on this, but there is too much money and greed involved at the level where this needs to happen, I’m sure even Grover is lining his pockets with his silly collegiate pledges. I do not know how old you are, but you seem much more idealistic, not to mention hopeful, than I.
I would have to read the pledge that Grover had the politicians sign as I must admit that I do not know the details. However, I was under the IMPRESSION that it dealt with conservative principles. If that is accurate (and I don’t know that it is), then the pledges would have no bearing on the theoretical case that I presented.
I agree with you that something that sounds so logical to me, will probably never happen because of our current political state. However, I strongly disagree with you that the TEA Party plays a negative role. They are the people that are demanding that Republicans stick to their principles and I see that as a possible small first step in the right direction.
If we could move this political fight out of the ’emotional’ gutter and get away from the constant arguments over ‘my gang is better than your gang’, we might actually move toward working together. The issue and argument should be over which PRINCIPLES are the correct ones that will help us reach our goals. PRINCIPLES should also be what elections are about. We should only be voting for people to represent us that share OUR PRINCIPLES.
Thanks for the discussion.
Happy to discuss. By the way, when you look up Grover’s pledge, be sure to look up all of the other social-issues pledges that Republican candidates are forced to sign in order to prove their “purity,” which is a pretty scary concept if you ask me. There is the Susan B. Anthony Pledge, the Cut Cap and Balance Pledge, the Marriage Vow Pledge and the Pledge to America Pledge among others.
CT4STR – For some reason the system would not let me reply to your message, so I will start a new message thread.
I will eventually get around to checking this out. While I was aware of the tax pledge, I have not heard that much about the others.
If these pledges are to hold Republicans to conservative PRINCIPLES, I really do not have much of a problem with them. You have to look at this from a conservative’s viewpoint. Over the last several decades, there have been a tremendous amount of traditional liberals that have migrated to the Republican Party.
As a result, it is very frustrating to see politicians running as a Republican, but not adhering to conservative principles. I fully understand what some on the right are trying to do. They would sooner see a RINO go down to defeat rather than have them get elected and then not support conservative principles.
So I would not be so harsh on them if that is in fact what they are trying to do. The left does not have that problem as there are no conservatives in the Democrat Party and all of the Democrats toe the line on every vote. Try to see some of these issues from the perspective of a conservative.
I will say one last thing: I hope you don’t wake up one day and find that some of these “PRINCIPLES” have made their way into your bedroom. But since you seem to be on the right side of all these “PRINCIPLES,” you have nothing to worry about.
I am not sure if I understand what you are saying. While I am both a fiscal as well as a social conservative, I am really only passionate about the fiscal issues. Just what social conservative principle is going to find its way into my bedroom?
None of them of course. As I said, being on the right side of issues, you have nothing to worry about. I wish my life was so black and white.
It was a serious question. I do not know of the particulars that you talk about. Is there something that is imminent?
I really was hoping for a reply on that question. But without further data, I strongly suggest that we draw a line at the bathroom and defend ourselves at that point. I think the following will help to clarify.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/the-federally-mandated-toilet-still-doesnt-work/
I think you may have missed the battles that we have already lost in the war to protect our individual rights to live our lives.
CT4STR – I went and found the pledge and will copy it below:
————————-
Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I,_________ , pledge to the taxpayers of the state of ________ , and to the American people that I will:
ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.
————————————-
I really don’t have a major problem with that pledge. I personally think this country is faced with a SPENDING problem and we have got to get that under control. Raising tax rates in my opinion is not the answer.
We currently have the highest corporate income tax rates in the world and it is making us non-competitive in the world economy. We actually need a drastic cut in the rate and the elimination of all deductions, credits, allowances and any other loophole.
Someday I will put my thoughts together regarding taxes. I personally think we have the worst tax code in the world. I believe that when you have a tax it should do one and one thing only and that is RAISE REVENUE. Tax codes should never be used to influence behavior.
We have a major problem with all of the loopholes that politicians create because they end up abusing them. They use them to buy vote, influence votes and every other type of political trick in the book. If you are going to have a tax, make it BROAD BASED, keep the rate as low as possible and then apply it to everyone without all of the exceptions (loopholes).