Point to ponder: would Democrats be in better shape today if they’d only compromised with Republicans?
It’s a bit of a loaded question since one, congressional liberals didn’t “compromise” when they had the chance, and two, just like you can’t un-ring a bell or retreat to a cliff once you’ve already leaped off it, what’s done is done (or not done) and there’s no going back from there.
Some argue that it’s not too late for Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and “Chucky” Schumer to make a beeline for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office to beg the bespectacled Republican “turtle” to settle for a token morsel of input and support on Democrat priorities, but there’s nothing indicating the Kentuckian would welcome such an overture now that the November midterm elections are less than six months away.
Meanwhile, Democrat Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have not signaled they’d reverse course on their pledge to keep the filibuster tradition in place for most legislation, so even if “Cocaine Mitch” showed interest in caving to the opposition leaders’ ultimatums, Democrats would still have a heck of a time corralling sixty votes to get anything passed.
“Compromise” is a dirty word in Washington because neither Republicans nor Democrats appear willing to bend. Some old school political observers lament the lack of bipartisan comity these days, but there’s little to be done about it short of electing more politicians from one or the other ideological viewpoints. Democrats wouldn’t give an inch when Donald Trump was president, so what did they expect Republicans to do when senile Joe Biden took over?
No matter how you slice it, Democrats look like do-nothing losers who failed in their mission to transform (disfigure?) the country after the 2020 election. What a pity! In a piece titled, “Democrats used to win and here's how they still can”, moderate Democrat and former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. wrote at Fox News:
“Sadly, too many of today’s members of Congress have forgotten or reject [the late Sen. Orrin Hatch’s] example and spend their time trying to denigrate, marginalize and cancel each other out, rather than seek common ground. So, one is left to ask: if either the Democrats or Republicans are in the congressional majority, what good is it if they don’t use the power to pass legislation to improve the lives of all Americans, not just some?
“Hard-working Americans feel betrayed by both parties. Republicans have little or no agenda, other than stoking the anger and frustration of voters. They attack the president for inflation, crime and the crisis at the border, all legitimate issues, but they offer no ideas or solutions to solve these problems.
“Democrats seem incapable of capitalizing on their congressional majority. The most recent example is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who announced that he will bring a bill to the Senate floor to codify the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, in anticipation it will be struck down.”
Sure enough, Chucky did bring the Roe codification to the floor and it was shot down like a duck leaving a pond surrounded by Louisiana “Duck Dynasty” Robertsons. There isn’t much room to “compromise” on abortion, and yet this is another issue area Democrats couldn’t get an accurate read on public opinion.
Democrats’ chronic unwillingness to listen to voters is nothing new. Who can forget how “Chucky” Schumer promised to change America and the world once he realized Donald Trump would no longer be in the White House? Even “Chucky’s” best friends and backers would admit there wasn’t much “compromise” suggested by the man’s post-election joy tantrum. Well, America and the world have changed alright, but not quite in the way Democrats envisioned.
Who knows whether Democrats would be better off today if they’d only “compromised” with Mitch McConnell on more aspects of senile Joe’s “Build Back (More) Better” agenda, but one thing is certain for Republicans: the only way to truly right the enormous wrongs in today’s America is through victory, not settling for half a moldy loaf of Democrat socialist baloney stuffed with pork, progressivism, “woke” set asides and coupled with a side order of cultural rot.
While I’ll concede that some issues can logically promote compromise, others cannot. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but tax rates are an area where some meeting in the middle might take place. If supply-side Republicans believe that low tax rates ultimately generate larger tax collections because they increase economic activity (hence, more tax revenue due to more profits to tap) and Democrats counter with higher tax rates on the productive class (hence, more redistributionist Robin Hood nonsense of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor), it’s theoretically doable to split the difference and make some from each side happy.
But consistent appeals to the lowest common denominator (the point where both sides would be able to agree but still not be satisfied) pleases no one. If it could be said that if a negotiation ends and neither side is happy with the product, it’s a successful compromise -- what’s the benefit of it? This sounds like the late John McCain teaming with other legendary “moderates” to forge some embarrassing agreement that neither camp can present to their party base as a win.
Try fundraising off of that, politicians. “Oh, we were able to convince enough Democrats to cut their demands so we got 60 percent of what we wanted.” Yippee! “We funded 75 percent of an aircraft carrier! You can just chop it off at one end, can’t you?”
There’s also the very real fact that Republican “compromise” with Democrats only serves to advance the slow creep of socialism and big government. Some proposals are just flat-out bad ideas from the outset. Take a college loans entitlement program, for example. Say Democrats hope to push through two years of paid tuition for every cash seeking student in the country, regardless of family income or the individual’s record of academic achievement.
A bevy of wishy-washy RINO Republicans aren’t keen on the two-year idea but would settle for funding one-year. The bill passes Congress, is signed into law by a liberal president and a new entitlement program is henceforth created. Liberals and socialists in future congresses then argue that one year just isn’t enough “help” for the populace to attain the oh-so-valuable college education and they demand three years’ worth be extracted from Uncle Sam’s pockets.
Republicans manage to negotiate them down to two years. Both sides claim victory, but now there’s a federal entitlement that just doubled in size overnight. Anyone see a problem with this?
Compromising with Democrats is extraordinarily hard because liberals ask for the most outlandish things. If you’re a conservative who believes “climate change” is a theory that requires more study before the U.S. or any industrialized nation puts self-imposed shackles on the private economy, how do you “compromise” with the other side that wants to outright ban current and future oil, coal or natural gas production?
Or how about cultural issues? What kind of “compromise” is possible on the abortion issue? If Roe is overturned, some states will ban the procedure entirely, while others, like California and New York, could very well legalize it up until (or even after) the moment of birth. Whether a baby lives or dies could be determined by where his or her mother is domiciled.
Could you have half of free speech or religion? What “compromise” is there for gun rights? Democrats think they’re doing something productive by reducing magazine sizes or banning certain types of firearms like so-called “Assault Rifles”. All conservatives see in such half-measures is one hundred percent authoritarianism. It simply cannot be done.
Some argue the American political system was built on “compromise”, but it often boiled down to which side was bigger and more powerful. There were a series of compromises prior to the civil war, for instance (1820, 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc.), but the north and south ran out of patience and cool heads and finally fought each other.
Politically speaking, “compromise” isn’t even possible today. One of the main Republican “compromisers” in the senate, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, may not be as willing to sell out her colleagues and her party as she would be otherwise because she’s up for reelection this year. To even make a case that Murk deserves another six-year term (she definitely doesn’t), Lisa would need to hold the line at least until election day. Principle ain’t her thing, but Murkowski isn’t stupid, either.
In such an entrenched political environment like we have today, conservatives and Republicans don’t need to “compromise” with Democrats as much as we need to home in on beating them outright at the ballot box. How could the two sides meet in the middle on immigration? Donald Trump tried it, offering legal status for DREAMERs in exchange for concessions on legal immigration and more border security, but Democrats wouldn’t do it.
Trump taught Republicans to fight for their principles. It’s the reason why so many still love him today.
Compromise between individuals and businesses might be a smart way of doing things, but in the political arena, giving in on principles signals weakness. Conservatives and Republicans would be much better off concentrating on winning elections and governing from a position of strength rather than hoping to appease the liberal opposition with “compromise”. Who will win this year?
Joe Biden economy
Democrat welfare bill
Build Back Better
13 House Republicans Infrastructure bill
Marjorie Taylor Green
2024 presidential election