Con-promise

Some things are vastly over rated. Atlantic Coast Conference football is not good enough to merit an automatic BCS (Bowl Championship Series) bowl appearance for the conference champion. Rap music is over rated. We might describe it as monotonic anti-social indecipherable blather. Certainly, “Reality TV” is over rated. It is rarely true reality and barely qualifies as television….definitely not as entertainment television. Most political compromises are over rated. They are crowned with the mantle of wise accommodation, when in fact, they do little to achieve real goals or address pressing problems. In many cases the compromise may erect barriers to a satisfactory solution. A true compromise involves two directions of seemingly equal value that are bound and trimmed to provide a satisfactory workable solution for the advocates of each path. In my personal view the critical operative word is “satisfactory.” Too often political operatives adopt a compromise merely to put off the arduous task of arriving at the best answer to a vexing problem.

Compromise is never a good option in matters of principle. Where the underlying principle is intact, compromise may be necessary regarding an amount or a time frame to reach agreement among the parties. But compromising on principle is a losing proposition. When one yields on a matter of principle, one is, in effect, admitting that the principle has no value. Negotiations become browbeating and bullying because one side recognizes that the other has surrendered the moral high ground of principle. Compromising on matters of preference is a good approach in marriage, partnerships and ad hoc social encounters. We have all witnessed amazingly bullheaded people who had a “my way or the highway” attitude about unimportant matters. We should not ever confuse that immovable personality disorder with someone who stands his or her ground for a principle. There’s a Kenny Rogers classic called “The Gambler,” and one of the verses includes “know when to hold them and knowing when to fold them.” Always “hold” for principle, but be willing to “fold” on minor matters.

Now comes the big question of the day: Are most career politicians capable of detecting the difference between a principle and “small potatoes?” Is it possible that their arrogance is so great that they view everything, or at least most things, as unworthy of defending? It must be a flaw in the psyche of most career politicians that causes them to ignore or minimize some of the most basic principles of good governance. For them “the deal is the thing,” and they can smugly approach the cameras and crow about what a difficult process they endured while arriving at a ‘solution” that “serves the best interests of the American people.” In their feeble little ego-centric minds runs the following refrain: “Whew! That’s over for now. Time for drink.” How about drinking some hemlock, Clowns? Cut the DEAL and cut outta there….that’s no way to run a country.

Many politicians run for office while professing the love and loyalty for the Constitution. They glibly discuss the Founders and the Framers as they extol the wonders of our glorious democracy…..huh? Democracy? No wonder they appear so eager to ignore principles while engaged in the business of the nation. Democracies are popularity contests. Examine any statewide issue that’s on the ballot. Advertising, posters, troops of supporters or opponents appearing on radio and television attempt to convince the voters that their position is the best one. The purpose is to amass the greatest sum of votes on Election Day. In a Republic, on the other hand, citizens elect representatives to perform two major services. The first is to represent the people of the district or state and prevent their isolation or abuse by the Federal Government or other states. The second responsibility is to thoughtfully and fairly weigh the desires of the district or state versus the overall good for the nation. Elected officials are presumed to use their calculating powers for weighing the nation-district advantage….not to support noxious and costly proposals that aid their re-election prospects but subvert what is preferable for the country. This dynamic explains the prevalence of “pork” in so many legislative initiatives. Politicians sought favor with various constituencies using “other people’s money,” without measured consideration about the impact of such appropriations on the nation’s fiscal health. All “pork” spending is compromising. “I’ll vote for yours, if you vote for mine.” Principles are absent, and we get “bridges to nowhere” and projects that should be adopted locally.

People especially political types who refuse to compromise on basic principles are usually characterized as “obstructionists.”  Their strong stance slows or stops the unprincipled compromise from going through. If the rhetoric becomes more heated, we often hear terms like “ideologue,” “extremist, “ or any number of unflattering terms designed to weaken the holdout’s resolve as well as to activate his or her constituents’ pressure. One shouldn’t bend when critical questions are being decided. Holding to principle, standing firmly with the Constitution of the United States, and weighing every vote or decision on the scales of Liberty are absolutes. There is no nearly principled stance, no almost-Constitutional position, and definitely no approximately-free approach to Liberty. The debate should never be about the wisdom of a certain absolute because they are foundational and vital for the rebirth of our republic. Any other position, any nuanced compromise of principle condemns us to the quicksand of socialism and the quagmire of irrelevancy.

Comment:    cearlwriting@hotmail.com            or            www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Heard Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo, Ohio

www.wspd.com

   

Diving for Cover

There is a term that all career legislative politicians know and cherish. It is “voting from cover.” This is a device whereby your typical unprincipled politician can vote either way on a piece of legislation, but the leadership allows him or her to vote according to which way would most assist the politician’s re-election because the leaders had enough votes to pass the measure. In other words the politician was willing to vote for passage but voted against it because his vote was not needed. Given this frequent scenario, it is no wonder that citizens have become as cynical as their elected officials.

When one examines the voting record of a political professional, one often discovers some contradictory results. A politician may vote for a measure the first time around, but vote against a nearly identical version on the second pass. The suggestively schizophrenic behavior is generally an indicator that the so-called public servant was voting from cover. You may recall the legendary John Kerry statement from the 2004 campaign that he “voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it.” There were some commentators and of course, Republicans, who ridiculed Kerry’s apparent two-faced approach to such a vital issue. Many in the mass media, however, did not condemn Kerry because they understood that his votes reflected a total self-serving attempt to appear on both sides of the issue. They correctly understood that Kerry’s waffling…his unprincipled position…was not rare, but it was all too common among our United States’ political class.

At first blush an observer might seek to find some mechanism or penalty for those who choose to vote from cover to enhance their political fortunes. The problem with a remedy that directly addresses the issue is that there is no allowance for the politician who actually changes her or his position because of conscience, principle or payoff. We cannot fully trust the politician’s explanation for the position switch because so many of them are either slick liars or self-delusional. The observer can assume from the beginning that the leadership allowed the member to vote from cover if the vote was close, and the member voted against the majority. An overwhelming vote on either side of an issue is not a good barometer for testing the legislator’s principles because aside from the chicken or weasel, congress critters most often resemble lemmings. One of the first skills developed by a legislator is learning how to jump in front of a parade and pretending to lead it.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect which unprincipled politicians were voting from cover on any particular bill unless one is closely observing the roll call on C-SPAN. If the watcher knows who the Whips are for the party, they can see who they’re “babysitting” as the vote rolls in. As the numbers of “Ayes and Nays” approach finality, the Whips will release their wards to vote. If the Speaker “needs” their votes, they’ll vote for his position, but if there are a sufficient number supporting the Speaker’s stance, the captive Congresspersons will be allowed to vote consistent with their constituents’ preferences. So, what if the leaders are wrong (we have 100 years of recent history to suggest that our political leaders are often wrong)? Are our elected representatives so politically motivated that they would sacrifice principle in order to prevent embarrassing the leadership? Apparently so and historical evidence supports the premise. Certainly it is helpful if there is unity within the caucus when they are pursuing an ideal or policy that is based on principle and integrity. Unity for unity’s sake, however, when promoted and enforced to achieve damaging compromise merely reinforces the cynicism of the voters. Deal-making, deal-cutting and bet-hedging are reprehensible positions when the integrity of the nation is at stake. Yes, this type of legislating has been in place since the beginning of our Republic, but heightened scrutiny and moments of sustained crisis have illustrated the folly and damage that such an approach creates. “Business as usual” should become unusual and undesirable.

Our political system has become so corrupt and decayed that fixing it seems nearly impossible. I am convinced that most of those who are first elected to Congress or their respective legislatures enter with high hopes and sincere desires to make a difference. They become part of the system without realizing how compromised they are. Voting from cover is just another example of how unrepresentative our political system is. If you recall, 22 House members voted against Boehner’s sell-out deal on the debt ceiling, but the real number of steadfast fiscally-responsible patriots is 19. Three Members were being herded by Whip Kevin McCarthy until the vote was “locked.” They were willing to vote with Boehner, but because there were sufficient votes, they were “allowed” to vote for principle. I’m still trying to confirm who those three were, and they do not merit inclusion in the roll call of courage and conviction. There were 19 Spartans standing at the gates as the Persians advanced. There were three opportunists standing behind them….under cover….away from the arrows. Luke’s Gospel is good. Lukewarm is tepid.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com