Why join a political party if you are unwilling to compromise?

[LoZoccolo]

I think at one time, it was understood that when you joined a political party, or even voted for a candidate, that you were going to subdue some of your issues in order to get other important things accomplished, and that it was your responsiblity to convince the rest of the part to take your side on any minority opinion that you held. And I would expect that this understanding would effect the tone in which you try to persuade the rest of the party as well. If you don't agree, what was your understanding of this enterprise?

[ixion]

1. The idea of 'party' should not take precedence over the common good.

Period.

[LoZoccolo]

3. >Implying that the people vote Democratic despite the common good.

[ixion]

11. I've seen plenty of people put party politics before the common good...

I don't know why you'd be surprised.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. But, who decides what the "common good" is? I don't believe in...

private property ownership and can make a good case why, but even if it's a good idea I know I have no chance of seeing it happen. I see the greatest single problem as too many people destroying what is left of the planet. The Gulf oil mess might speed up some extinctions and create new dead zones, but we were well on the way to doing that anyway, albeit in a less spectacular manner. But, what answer is there to overpopulation when we are driven to extend life expectancy?

Even though everyone seems to have the one, true answer for every problem, there are legitimate differences of opinion even in those rare times we can actually agree on the facts of the matter.

[boston bean]

2. What minority opinion would say, someone like me, hold that you don't?

I try to convince people that the party is corporately controlled.

Do you think that is a minority opinion?

Most people take it as an attack on them personally because they support the party and incremental progress (if you can call it that) over a principle (any principle take your pick, or would that be a minority opinion).

[LoZoccolo]

5. Why do pro-corporate donors spend so much to defeat Democrats? n/t

[Raineyb]

35. They also spend a lot of money on Democrats. It's called hedging your bets. n/t

[Oregone]

4. So, don't contribute if you aren't willing to capitulate?

If anyone is uncompromising to the extreme, they wont stay in a party, so its nothing to worry your sweet little head over anyway

[KonaKane]

63. Since when does compromise equal capitulate?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. But what about when your political party just ignores the opinions of the MAJORITY

of it's members? Like what happened with the public option? When it was negotiated away to get non-existant Republican votes?

Did it matter that 52 vs 43 percent of ALL Americans wanted Bush impeached? Or that 66% of Democrats did?
http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

What happens when your party IGNORES its own voters? Can it rely on their continued support? why?

[BootinUp]

19. Call me Captain obvious

People get their views represented via House Reps and Senators as our Government is designed. Obviously national poll results have some influence but this is not how laws are made.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. And you blame the party for that? Politics is always a disgusting...

business and good ideas get pushed aside all the time for a multitude of reasons.

The majority is not only often wrong, it is even more often deluded into believing what is possible under the circumstances.

[Romulox]

7. The Party is supposed to move with the base. Not the other way around.

It's like an informal re-apportionment. The parties want to choose their constituents, and let's just say that they've never been that thrilled with some of the traditional constituencies to begin with.

[notesdev]

8. Because a party is supposed to stand for something

you know, those things that distinguish it from the other party... when those get compromised away, what good is a party?

[LoZoccolo]

9. >Implying that the party doesn't stand for anything.

[msongs]

12. you are inferring. nt

[notesdev]

13. Well, it stands for Wall Street, we know that much

But for the life of me, I can't find "selling out the American people to the highest bidder" in the platform.

[MedicalAdmin]

22. That's not implying anything.

I think it is saying it loud and clear.

Paul Wellstone, a great man and a great Democrat said, “A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail.”

[Oregone]

23. Are you just posting tombstone bait?

You have nothing better to do?

[Ignis]

41. Same as it ever was.

[zanana1]

70. That occured to me, too. He won;'t last long. nt

[zanana1]

15. Take the realistic approach...

Ask yourself how you'd feel with the other party in power. I predict that, if the other party becomes the majority AGAIN, it will think itself indestructible and go ahead with even more outrageous schemes than last time. Remember last time? Try to think about last time when you feel disappointed with this administration. You can't tell me there isn't any difference between the two.

[notesdev]

25. If one makes those assumptions

and calls it realism, then what point is there for anyone to be involved in the political process?

The way to move closer to having the country we have is for our side to stand on principle, and let the other side compromise.

Compromise means getting something in return for giving something up. What are we getting, and what are we giving up? A compromise is a deal, a bargain, a contract to be honored - but if the deal we are being asked to make is a poor one, if what we are getting doesn't compensate for what we give up, then "compromise" is just another way of saying "give up".

I'm more than willing to make reasonable compromises. Putting up with endless bailouts of the well-to-do and well-connected, epidemic corruption, to live in an eternal state of war, to watch the whole of the population succumb to debt slavery... in cases like these, compromise is indistinguishable from acquiescence.

There are few great things in this world that have ever been accomplished through compromise. Almost all great achievements have been because someone stood for something against all odds, against all critics.

[zanana1]

30. So you'll vote for the other party the next time?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. VBoting out of anger isn't the way to go, either. If you want to drop out of the voting public, then drop out. But don't make it harder for the Dems. I realize it's frustrating as hell, but did you really think that everything would be fixed in a few years?

[notesdev]

36. Please stop throwing strawmen at me

Nobody expects everything to be immediately fixed. But what we are seeing isn't even in the direction of fixing things.

How many lives of my countrymen shall I compromise to accommodate the corruption and cowardice that keeps us in Afghanistan?

How many of my countrymen shall I acquiesce to seeing unjustly impoverished so that corporate bondholders can be made whole on bad investments?

Compromise is for things that don't matter very much. Principle is for things that do. For those of us who can tell the difference, compromise is not an option.

[zanana1]

43. I'll give you an example of how the Obama Admin. has improved my life...

I've been on Medicare Part D for three years. For the first two years, it really didn't help all that much. I'd fall into the donut hole in April and I'd have to pay out of pocket for the rest of the year and that meant literally having to choose between food, rent and meds.
I just qualified for special assistance under the Health Reform Act. NO MORE donut hole, NO deductible, premiums down from $60 to $6. For someone who is disabled with heart disease and Muscular Dystrophy that is A GREAT BIG DEAL. If you think that isn't much, there's nothing I can do for you and you'll just have to be dissatisfied. If you think it's selfish of me, that's tough, but I never was naive enough to think that Obama was not a politician. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. You're pissed about corporate America? You'll just have to hold your breath until things change and more regulation is adopted. Having a tantrum won't help anything. giving up never improved anything. Working for progrss, no matter how long it takes, improves things.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zanana1]

69. You definitely have an anger problem.

And you sound like a Right Wing Loony who swears that Healthcare Reform will just ruin this country. Don;t throw the argment back at me, bucko. You're the one who made the original OP. So "It's coming sooner than I think," huh? You just gave yourself away as a troll.

[zanana1]

71. I'll tell you what; I'll trade places with you, OK?

Then you can deal with advanced heart disease and Muscular Dystrophy. How selfish of me to be thus afflicted! Wanna change lives? You'd change your mind about my post in a second and you'd stop sniveling about disabled people trying to take your money away.

[Forkboy]

10. So when do the centrists start compromising? Or I should say, start compromising with the Left?

I've compromised on every single vote I've ever cast. What did the center compromise in voting for a centrist. You're firmly in a bloc of people that hate to compromise, yet here you are expecting it of others.

[LoZoccolo]

14. Maybe you can name the Republican or independant that I endorsed over a Democrat ever.

If you actually go and do the footwork you'll see that I even told people to vote for Lamont after he won his primary, and only endorsed Lieberman before the primary for strategic reasons (and I turned out to be right).

[Forkboy]

26. telling people to vote for Lamont after he won the primary was your big compromise?

After supporting Lieberman (for strategic purposes, of course...after all, we need you to save us from ourselves).

Tell me what positions of yours you had to compromise in voting for Obama? I compromised my anti-war stance and my equal rights stance (among others) when I voted for him. You're big on compromise, clearly, so throw a couple that you made with your Obama vote at me.

[LoZoccolo]

31. Just because I haven't had to compromise with this one candidate...

...that doesn't negate that the act of compromising can get you more of what you want rather than less, which is my main point. I want people to explain to me why they won't take responsibliity for their decision to join a political party and for knowing how political parties generally operate on a priniciple of compromise.

[Forkboy]

38. It's not a given that compromise will be good or bad until after the fact.

So your main point is questionable to start with. Compromising also gives the Republicans more of what they want, and we're the only side giving. So where does it get us when only one party does the compromising 99% of the time (and I'm being generous to the RW by giving them 1%)? If both parties approached it the same your point would have more validity. When it's all one sided (and you're free to tell me how it isn't if you disagree here), what's the benefit? You're big on strategy. How does giving away more than you get back help you get closer to your long term goals? If I have 10 beans but my goal is to get 20 beans, how does my giving away 5 beans to get 1 bean back get me closer to those 20 beans?

I want people to explain to me why they won't take responsibliity for their decision to join a political party and for knowing how political parties generally operate on a priniciple of compromise.

I think someone who admits he didn't have to compromise in 2008 probably has little ground to stand on when talking about it to those who did. You dump on the Left here any chance you get (far more than you do those to your right), and now you want those people to explain to you why they're Democrats?

Good stuff, dude. :thumbsup:

[LoZoccolo]

40. Republicans have to compromise all the time.

Abortion, gun control, affirmative action, prayer in school; there's a whole host of things that the base wants and has never gotten.

I would think that people would want to explain themselves but I can't make them.

[Forkboy]

42. Do you feel that Bush, Cheney, McCain and Palin were the RW's compromise candidates?

[LoZoccolo]

47. "The" compromise candidates?

There are different degrees of compromise.

Do you think that Barack Obama was "the" compromise candidate, and not Hillary Clinton?

[Forkboy]

56. "There are different degrees of compromise."

You're learning.

Do you think that Barack Obama was "the" compromise candidate, and not Hillary Clinton?

As he's the one who won the nomination, he sure was for me.

[LoZoccolo]

48. P.S. Do you really think I wouldn't notice that you omitted John McCain from your list?

They ran their most moderate candidate last election on top of the ticket.

[LoZoccolo]

49. P.S. Do you really think I wouldn't notice that you omitted John McCain from your list?

They ran their most moderate candidate last election on top of the ticket.

[Forkboy]

52. Um...this is my list, quoted verbatim from above......

"Do you feel that Bush, Cheney, McCain and Palin were the RW's compromise candidates?"

Hmmm, seems like that would be a certain John McCain in there, no? I'm starting to wonder just what you do notice if this is throwing you for a curve.

They ran their most moderate candidate last election on top of the ticket.

And who was that "most moderate" candidate's running mate? Do you consider Palin to be moderate? Or do you see her as the loopiest fucking Right winger to come down the pike in dog's age like the rest of the sane world?

[LoZoccolo]

54. I'm on crack rock today, which is why I wrote the original post.

Notice that she was appointed and not elected though; the rank-and-file actually had to do the compromising to try to win, and did so on their own through the primary process.

[Hannah Bell]

76. but not about money & ruling class power. which is where the action is.

[LoZoccolo]

18. P.S. As long as Kucinich has a better chance of winning than his primary opponents...

...I endorse him too.

[MineralMan]

46. Yup. And he keeps winning.

When he made an attempt at the Presidency, though, he failed to get enough support to be a viable candidate. He should remain where he is unless he can increase that support.

[joeybee12]

16. Why join a political party that thinks compromise is ignoring you? n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

17. We are a two party, winner take all nation. That is reality...

All those expectations that the Republicans were on their way to the ash heap of history were just that tint of red cast over the eye by rose colored glasses. We should have known that after 1994, when the media predicted the end of the Democratic party. We should have known that in 2006 when the media asked what happened to the permanent Republican majority.

One side or the other is going to be in control. And when one side gets taken down a notch, they have media and marketing guru's to wash their image because they know the American electorate has no memory.

The question we should answer is which side do we think will serve our interests the best.

No party will take anything but baby steps in their constituents direction. Republicans, in spite of their majority, never took down Roe V. Wade. They did not make the constitution a voluntary addendum to the ten commandments. They enacted the bills they could, and Democrats stopped the real excesses.

Democrats actually wrote a health care bill, something the Republicans never even considered. Yes, it could be a lot better. But the make up of the House and the Senate simply would not allow anything more. But more will come in baby steps if we are willing to work for them.

The question we should answer is which side do we think will serve our interests the best and fight to make them serve us better.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Big or small, steps in the wrong direction are counter-productive

All movement is not created equally nor will a snail's pace out run boulders rolling dow hill and almost upon you.

I'm not of the opinion that going from privilege to obligation in health care is an advancement. It seems like incremental movement toward economic feudalism rather than toward a just and decent society to me.

A cure is also meaningless if you are only given such a small dose that your symptoms improve right before you die.

Every strategy has it's limits and circumstances where it is not effective enough to be applicable.

Certainly, there is no Constitutional basis for a two party system or in fact any parties at all. It is only a winner take all, two party scam because we allow it to be. It is a system that we are tricked into self imposing not dictated by law or the structure of our type of government.

[Ozymanithrax]

60. It is a winner take all, two party system because it is legislated to be.

Our founding fathers left flaws in the Constitution, and its blindness to parties was a big one. Today, every state has its own laws about how parties are handled. That is because national elections are really 50 individual state elections. New parties need a lot of cash to meet the requirements in 50 states where many of the laws are written to make it difficult. The Green party began in the U.S. in 1996, and has yet to make any inroads into the political scene. Libertarians have been around since 1971, and has succeeded in little more than being a storefront for Republicans.

The reality of our system is that there are two parties, Democrats and Republicans. It will be that way for the foreseeable future. If we want to bring in any change, working on the inside is the only way.

[TheKentuckian]

68. Take the system apart at the state level then. Two parties means an instant failure

All one has to do to win 40%+ of the vote is to not be the other guys and the party cannot be moved when there are always enough of our guys to support the oppositions policies.

You are on a hamster wheel if you insist on staying in a two party system AND stick with yours regardless of what they do to avoid allowing the other side to take control. There is no impetus for change and every time the other side moves right we our people are quite free to follow them, as they seem inclined to do.

Incremental is morphing into doing the same thing over and over while hoping for different results.

I refuse to allow the conservative Democrats to drive us into the ditch, they must let the Democratic wing drive or the pukes can be responsible for the wrecks. Not with my votes will we keep destroying our future.

[asdjrocky]

20. There is a huge difference between compromising-

and being compromised.

[dana_b]

59. bravo!

I couldn't agree more.

[MedicalAdmin]

21. When I joined the Whiggs I knew I would have to compromise on some things...

... but I have stuck by my party.

[Romulox]

28. You win the thread.

Well fucking played! :thumbsup:

[leveymg]

27. Politics is the art of compromise, but you never give up arguing your own principles

or else you lose them. Politics without principles is dictatorship, and I for one refuse to live with one.

[LoZoccolo]

37. I agree with your post, but people often argue their principles in a way...

...that does not take responsibility for the fact that they knew they were going into something with people who might not initially agree with them. It's one thing to say "I'm working to support X, you should as well for reasons Y and Z" and "I'VE BEEN BETRAYED! THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS! THEY'RE WHORES! THEY DON'T REPRESENT ME AT ALL!". The rest of us know that we're compromising along the way and it's really detrimental for people to be adding a tone of beligerence over something that should be understood. I want people to advocate new things but the combativeness is unnecessary because it's understood that there will be disagreement.

[LoZoccolo]

58. P.S. Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful comments.

I'm not seeing many of them.

[leveymg]

62. When people are disappointed they tend to feel betrayed and respond belligerently.

I guess you could say, that's normal and to be expected, considering how hard we worked and how high our hopes were in 2008.

I'm not surprised at the level of belligerence people are expressing around here about the way that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congressional Majority are turning out. It just shows that DUers have strong ideals and high expectations, and that they have been disappointed. People may think you're belittling their feelings.

[meow mix]

32. i must have missed the compromising.. all i see is conservative agenda continuing

and millions of liberals under armies of buses

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Compromise is a two party act. Not a one sided act.

The one sided version is called 'capitulation'. Compromise must occur on both sides or it is not, by definition, a compromise. Words mean things. Always have.

[Enrique]

39. compromise is ok, betrayal is not ok n/t

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stranger81]

50. Why join a political party if you don't have any principles you're willing to stand on?

If the whole endeavor is just an exercise in selling out your most deeply held beliefs, why bother?

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

51. >Implying that I have no principles.

[stranger81]

53. You said that, not me.

But if the shoe fits . . . .

[jonnyblitz]

55. party loyalists usually don't. it's all about their team winning

why else would so many of you support shit under a DEM president you would never support under a republican. i believe the only reason many of you didn't like Bush is because he wasn't a Democrat.

[LoZoccolo]

57. Why didn't I switch to Republican during the 2001-2005 period when they seemed invincible? n/t

[depakid]

73. Same reason why Dallas Cowboys fans don't become Redskins fans

in the end for some people- that's all there is.

[NYC_SKP]

61. Crap, LoZo. Now you've done it.

Good question and recommended.

I'm afraid that the question is going to reveal that, in the end, people are not going all to be in agreement about concepts like "what is for the common good".

Everyone is a one-person party.

And it's always messy when the areas of disagreement turn up.

This is where battle lines get drawn, among Democrats, among Progressives, among Liberals, and others.

Many can not seem to accept that labels don't work and that my definition of a Progressive, for example, is no more or less valid than the next persons.

Yet we argue over it all the time.

But political parties are a fact of our political world and the more we understand them, the better we can make them work for US.

Yes, compromise is a fact.

:kick:

[KonaKane]

64. Too many here have opted for "my way or the highway" especially on their pet issue.

And that is myopia in the extreme. Not only is it petty and selfish, but it does greater harm to the party who stands the best chance of affecting many of the changes we all want to see.

[JoePhilly]

65. Agree completely.

We'd rather dismiss small gains, fight each other, then recognize that if the GOP gets control, we will get nothing we want, and all lose far, far, more.

The Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, white water, Clinton's BJ, and the gulf oil spill tell us as much.

If we listen.

[mdmc]

66. the only game in town

[Stinky The Clown]

67. Compromise is smart. Wise. But not when one side gives and the other side takes

"My way or the highway" isn't compromise. Neither is "We Won. Get Over It."

[Bonobo]

72. Huh? Why eat raspberries if you like Beethoven?

My question makes about as much sense as yours.

You honestly think people join political parties IN ORDER to make compromises to their beliefs?!?

What kind of bizarro world were you born in?

[LoZoccolo]

77. Nobody wants to compromise their beliefs.

But it's generally understood that if you want the power that comes with having a lot of people band together on some issues, that you'll probably have to compromise on others.

I think you mentioned elsewhere that you are married. Do you have to compromise about some things? Overall, is it still worth it because of other things that you get from it?

[JHB]

74. That's a valid question, for yourself, that is.

Leaving a portion of the party base demoralized and feeling used, then chiding them about it, doesn't seem particularly "pragmatic". "At one time, it was understood that" the party leadership would work to shore up that support.

[LoZoccolo]

78. There will always be portions of the party who will feel demoralized, if they let themselves be.

There are pro-life and pro-gun constituencies in the party, for instance.

If you can think of a way of wording my original post that seems less like "chiding" than the way I did it, I'd be curious to see. I think some people are always going to act and/or feel "hurt" that not everybody agrees with them or that they won't get some things that they want. My point is that I would think that it's pretty understood that trying to ally with others will involve sacrifice, and that you may have to work to get consensus on the thing not yet agreed-upon.

[Hannah Bell]

75. "it was your responsiblity to convince the rest of the part to take your side"

i thought it was the party's responsibility to uphold the principles they supposedly stood for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Principled politician = oxymoron.

In the much vaunted "real" world politicians have to sell out and compromise their principles (and our lives) to get reelected. All one has to do is look at the war funding bills that were passed by "realistic" and allegedly "anti-war" Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. Compromise on what? Basic principles or trivia?

Abortion rights? Civil rights? War? The right to strike? Freedom of speech, the press, religion, and protest?

I don't give a rip if a politician wants to compromise on who gets his/her mug on postage stamp or gets an airport named after him/her. Or, even if they porkbarrel some projects for the homies.

The politician's first job is to get elected and then re-elected. They "compromise" for their own ambitions.

It is also their job to earn our votes. We don't owe them our votes because they have a (D) after their names. When they "compromise" on certain issues to our detriment they haven't earned our votes by proclaiming that what they voted for/against is "not as bad" as it could have been.