Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive science, social behavior, morality and history.
Monday, August 12, 2019
Is Significant Political Compromise Possible?
A New York Times article, ‘You Control Nothing’: House Republicans Brace for Life in the Minority, published yesterday raises the question of what role, if any, that political compromise should play once democrats assume control of the House. Congressional democrats and republicans see each other as generally unwilling to compromise.[1] That seems to be at least somewhat in error. Some legislation does pass through congress. The process is complicated in view of President Trump’s unpredictable temper and his preference to insult rather than negotiate.
Surprisingly, there appears to be some democratic thought to loosening House rules to allow more rank and file democratic participation: “Ms. Pelosi is now under pressure from some in her own party to cede some authority, give committee leaders more leeway and bring more Democrats into House decision making. As she rounded up votes in her drive to return as speaker, Ms. Pelosi also agreed to demands to enact rules changes intended to make the House more bipartisan and empower the rank and file. As a result, Republicans could have a chance to get proposals considered in committee and by the House provided they can secure some level of Democratic buy-in.
All of the Republicans said there was still a possibility, even in this hyper-polarized congressional era, for the two parties to find some consensus on a few issues, notably infrastructure. But given that the new Congress is kicking off with a shutdown caused by a deep partisan stalemate, it is hard to see much room for big compromises.”
Adding to the possibility of even more bitter division, one prominent House republican, Rep. Peter King (NY) commented about his party and its minority status: “You control nothing. . . . . There are going to be a lot of investigations. We have to be ready to be on defense when the investigations go too far.” Democrats plan relentless investigations of Trump, his campaign and his business activities, including his tax returns. Both Trump and some congressional republicans consider Trump family business activities and especially tax return audits to be off limits. That Trump promised in the 2016 elections to release his tax returns after alleged IRS audits were completed is now irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether IRS audits were nonexistent or are complete by now -- the investigations will come whether republicans like it or not.
Given that there is nothing House republicans will be able to do to block House investigations, it is not clear what it means to even be on defense. At most, the US Senate can reopen investigations into the Clintons, Obama, George Soros, James Comey and any other democratic or perceived enemy target they deem worthy of investigating and trying taking down, or at least smear.
The NYT is probably right that there is not much room for major compromises. That would require compromise by both the Senate and Trump for any legislation that comes from the House. Time will tell.
Footnote:
1. Reasonable compromise is considered here to be a core moral political imperative. It is necessary for liberal democracy. Without compromise, there is either gridlock when political opposition can at least slow and sometimes stop the majority exercise of power. Under tyranny or authoritarianism, compromise is unnecessary and political opposition can be ignored or crushed as political leadership deems appropriate.
BYB orig: 12/30/18
No comments:
Post a Comment