Glad you appreciated the
Coriolanus reference, JL. It's not the first time someone on this forum has appreciated my reference to that work/figure, though you have to go back into the ranks of the real veterans, here, probably, to find one who remembers the other one.
I think I'm in the kirbyfan seat now, here: not explaining myself clearly, perhaps, and coming off looking bad. Or the situation is coming off looking bad, when I don't think it necessarily is, and when the parts of it that are bad I don't think can be avoided, given the structure of our system.
That last point first: if this were a parliamentary system, we would have more than 2 parties out there vying for our votes, and I'd strongly encourage them all to sally forth with their ideas in their purest forums, because in such a system, you essentially let the voters decide on those ideas at that point and in gradation. You know, if 7% vote for Just Lucky's "Bubba" platform party, well that party will get 7% of the seats in the parliament, that 7% of the voters getting themselves represented in the political machinery. That is to say, even with only 7% of the vote, JL's party/candidate(s)
will actually get into office to start spreading their views and trying to effect change. And if they're just
very lucky, they may even come up with the hole card of being able to make, at that post-election point, some compromises in their platform
after getting into office as part of a power-brokering situation in order to join with 1-2 of the big vote getters and form a coalition government to have
much more power to effect change.
Huzzah for Bubba! 
Alas, we have no such system.
In the U.S. system, that 7% and in fact a relatively whopping
47% gets you... what, again? Oh, yeah,
zero,
zippo,
nada,
out on your butt,
better luck next time, pal,
no office,
no effect on policy,
look like losers,
lost the trust of the people that you can win,
whole platform looks rejected, etc. In this all-or-nothing approach,
IF the parties and candidates really want to get their programs going in the government, they are
downright obliged to compromise their pure views from the get-go, prior to the election (in precisely the way I'm describing) by the very system itself. Their choice is a simple one:
- compromise sufficiently to get over that 50% hump on the first try (no do-overs, here!)
- present position and ideals in their pure form without regard for the public reaction and that 50% do-or-die hump and run the significant risk of only being able to lob in no-vote commentary from the fringes, with no power to govern or effect change directly
(And in this, incidentally, not in the character of the politicians themselves or even in the big money involved in politics, lies the biggest root of the complaints of the people that government does nothing. Just for the record.
)
In other words, my approach is precisely to hear this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Lucky
So now you've got some candiates from the Party that once had great ideas and great ideals trying to figure out how they are going to make compromises before they're even elected ...
|
and say, "Yes, brother! That is our system! You've got it, now!
And welcome to the U.S. governmental system.
The Founding Fathers were mightily askeered of dictators and despots and demagogues and also the unfettered populus and established this system to prevent change and let moderatism thrive. Pay attention the public at large and compromise before the election or get yourselves 4 more years (at least) of the opposition running' things.
The remaining points you have succumb to the above point, in my mind, though I don't think it's entirely fair, the following description:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Lucky
How are you going to be able to make a compromise with the Republicans on those things? Even if you could why would you show your hand early in the nomination process. Those folks from the right who's vote you seem so worried about are looking for a leader with a plan not a plan that's going to get cut in half. If they were really right wing voters they'd be in the right wing party. People want a man or woman who can lead ,not one who is overly amiable to the opposition.
While it's too early to tell who will be at the top of the heap at the end of the nomination process I'm hopin' for some one who is a leader and not some fellow who seems to think he's runnin' for high school president and has to get along with everyone.
|
Personally I think you underestimate the extent to which the right has been successful in attracting people to them and painting the left in a bad light. However apart from that, I think there are other ways than just sheerly watering down your ideals in order to succeed. I was impressed in reading Obama's book, for example, with the consistent and sincere (or at least sincere sounding!) bipartisan tone, backed up by numerous examples of his work with Republicans on x-and-such legislation, and corroborated by a liberal sprinkling of positive comments from Republicans about his non-intransigence. That's just one example -- Bill Clinton's known policy wonk tendencies, his penchant for the meetings and the discussions and the give-and-take and (yes) compromise -- may be another. Still another could be just simple sincerity and decency in the person him/herself.
But I'm really out for that -- clear signs of
non-intransigence -- and while it sounds nice at first plus, this "
Don't water down your ideals!" battle cry, upon further consideration to me it seems to be going in the opposite, direction, "
Dig down -- let's get more intransigent!" or something. You may well be able to win the election with that approach, and do so with a candidate (I see many) with deep division baggage connections to the past. But as I've said, I think you'll just buy 4 more years of that deep division, simply in a guise you fine more amenable, but deep division, just the same. And as in violent cycles, that will just engender more of the same in the future. Breaking that cycle I think would be preferable, and especially since I don't think you have to just pander and sell out to offer compromise and our system anyway structurally requires compromise, I don't have a problem with it.
You?
Steve