The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
Saturday, February 16, 2019
"Politics is the art of the possible"
German chancellor Otto von Bismarck famously pointed out, "Politics is the art of the possible". Any successful politician has to learn the arts of negotiation and compromise - not to mention the Pareto principle, otherwise known as the "80/20 Rule". If he can get 80% of what he wants with a tolerable amount of effort, and getting the final 20% of what he wants will consume an inordinate amount of time, energy and resources, he's often better advised to take what he can get and let go of the rest. To use another well-known idiom, "the best is the enemy of the good".
However, when we view the current debate over the border wall, many of the passionate partisans on both sides are ignoring all those well-known pragmatic realities. They want it all, they want it their way, and they want it now - and to hell with opposing opinions. That, in a nutshell, is why US politics and politicians can't achieve anything meaningful these days. They're too busy insisting on "my way or the highway", and too focused on denying the opposition any victories at all, even partial ones. For too many of them, it's all or nothing.
I find this very disturbing on many levels, but particularly because reasonable people should be able to compromise along the lines of the 80/20 rule. If one side wants something badly enough, and is willing to fight for it, what's wrong with the other side saying, "OK, we'll concede most of what you want, although we insist on these limitations: but only if you give us most of what we want on this other issue." The second party could then say, "OK, but we want these restrictions on it." By a process of back-and-forth negotiation, both sides could end up with a win . . . but not in US politics today. For both major parties, it's all or nothing. They won't talk to each other, they won't listen to each other - and the country is the poorer for it. Both sides are equally bad. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just as bad as Ann Coulter, and vice versa. Both come across as intolerant, histrionic harpies, and I wish they'd both shut up for a while. (I know, I know . . . fat chance!)
This is one of President Trump's weaknesses, too. His personal style is abrasive and combative - not surprising for a New Jersey/New York businessman, to be sure, but not ideal in a politician. I support his call for a border wall, and would even be prepared to pay higher taxes, if necessary, to build it; but I'm not in favor of destroying bipartisanship in order to accomplish that. (I accept that he's not alone in that destruction, of course. Both sides are equally guilty of it.)
I've noted before in these pages that US politics is descending perilously close to the sort of division that sparked the American Civil War. I don't know if we can get back to rationality and reasonable discourse before we end up in a second . . . certainly, events such as the Covington affair and the brutal, savage reactions to it suggest that it's likely to be a steeply uphill battle.
I think we have to accept that extremism has taken root in Congress and the Senate, and is unlikely to be uprooted from those institutions until it's been uprooted in our society as a whole. That being the case, reasonable men and women will have to accept that they're in a permanent minority. The "screaming classes" will insist that if we don't support their side, we must automatically belong to the unmentionable other side, and are therefore their enemies. The only way to avoid that is to avoid political discourse altogether - and fierce partisans will try to deny us the right to not be involved. They won't accept neutrality. To them, that's a weakness; one they must eradicate from national discourse.
We live in troubled times, and I don't have answers for it, no more than anyone else has. The best advice I can offer is to keep our heads down, and don't be or become extremists ourselves, on one side or the other of the political divide. Remember Bismarck. "Politics is the art of the possible." Let's strive to achieve the possible, and ignore the rest. Remember the 80/20 Rule. Let's strive to achieve the 80% while avoiding the over-the-top, very costly final 20%. Let's be pragmatic, be reasonable, and do our best to survive as individuals, as families, and as communities.
Finally, if the fiercely partisan extremists won't let us do that, let's become equally extreme in our refusal to tolerate them. Let them spout their nonsense to all and sundry, but not to us, and make it clear that we won't permit them to radicalize us. It may come to something like another civil war - which God forbid - but let that not be because we helped it become reality.
Peter
The $5B for the wall was the compromise position. It was 20% of what was necessary for completion.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats never stop pushing. They define "compromise" as "my way or the highway!" The Republicans almost always cave in to their demands.
We're done with "losing with dignity". It's time we start winning, or our nation will be destroyed and replaced. This is an existential war, not a middle school debate.
I am all for reasonableness, and sensible actions by governments that make day to day living less challenging or disturbing, whenever that is possible. Unfortunately, the latter is almost never.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I must point out that the left, the democrat party, threw reason and sensibilty out many years ago. Ever since the Clintons it has been obvious that more government control is their only goal. None of it will make living in the United States easier or safer. The only response to this is resistance, as quietly and calmly as possible.
The left has shown since Mr. Trump's election that there are almost no limits to their determination to defeat the will of the people. The good economic and other news means nothing to them. Their only interest is removing Mr. Trump by whatever means possible, then going on to destroy any vestige of a two party system. The left is no interested in the possible, as evidenced by their New Green Deal, which is insanity. There is no reason whatsoever to try to work with them.
I see what you are saying, and I don't completely disagree with it. However....
ReplyDeleteThere are major differences in approach. What Ann Coulter says is abrasive. What AOC promises is actually insane. Donald Trump's rudeness and verbal excess is simply what the Democrats have unleashed on their Republican opponents, time after time, turned around. The Democrats don't like that? Let's have a pity-party!
*spit*
It's hard to keep perspective in the blizzard of snow job the Media puts out about Trump. They carry on as if he was shipping them off to labor camps. All he's done so far, that I know of, is call them liars and rude. Well, they ARE rude liars. Have been for decades, if not forever.
The Progressive Left is losing it. Their platform(s) don't make any frigging SENSE. 100% 'renewable' energy? In what county of The Wonderful Land of OZ is that going to be POSSIBLE?!?! Getting rid of cows and aircraft? What have they been smoking, and can I have an ounce sent to my rooms?
There are lots of things we can demand that are NOT extreme but will seriously disadvantage the Left. Start with Antifa (and similar groups). The First Amendment enshrines the Right to PEACEABLY assemble. The Left is seldom peaceful in its assemblies. Start demanding that certain basic laws be enforced. Hand out citations for setting fires in public places without a permit. I'm not against flag burning because I have a flag fetish, I'm against flag burning because somebody os going to end up wrapped up in several yards of burning petroleum based cloth. Start demanding that, if an Antifidiot who commits assault and battery can't be identified because of a mask, the organizers of the 'protest' (riot) be held responsible in some way.
Antifa are the Nazi Brownshirts without the fashion sense. It's beyond time people who like their streets clear of thugs pushed back.
Declaring a national emergency after twice not getting everything you want is going to bite us in the ass; guns, healthcare, and climate change will come up to the plate with the next Democrat to hold the Presidency.
ReplyDeleteI pray Congress and/or the courts slam this one down.
Lawdog's cake analogy for gun rights illuminates why your call for reasoned discussion isn't useful now. We are down to that last slice (or close to it) on most things because the right was always bargaining about what was left on the table, never about getting cake back.
ReplyDeleteTrump isn't yielding because he is going for 80% of the whole pie again.
Antibubba. Not twice, try like since he was elected. The left and Paul Ryan stymied his continued request and attempts at solving any of the issues responsible for the Border Crisis.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is the issue. He wouldn't have made it a National Emergency if the parties had played fair and proper. After the last shutdown the Dems under Pelosi had promised to fund the wall appropriately, to do the things that need to be done. But once again, their socialistic agenda (as the top socialists, who always live like royalty in every socialistic society) screwed over the very people they were supposed to be 'saving.' No DACA fix, no fix on any immigration policy.
The Border Crisis is very much a crisis, and needs to be treated as one. The whole process needs to be shut down and rebuilt from the ground up in reference to illegal aliens.
I'd have to say that a majority of the 65 million citizens who elected Trump just want a government that provides a few basic services and otherwise leaves us the hell alone.
ReplyDeleteWhat the other extreme demands is that we surrender our religion, our guns, any say so in how our children are educated, and dig ever deeper into our pockets to pay for extremely generous social programs for those who cannot or will not support themselves.
I consider the current creeping gun control policies being forced on vulnerable states to be a bellweather for the ultimate break with the extreme leftist socialist progressive policies that the Democratic Party has apparently welcomed with open arms.
Should they finally succeed in the general disarmament of the people we truly will see a very uncivil war in this United States.
"Let's strive to achieve the 80% while avoiding the over-the-top, very costly final 20%. "
ReplyDeleteThe right has been getting 20% and calling it 80% for the last couple of decades.
For the last 30 years, if not more, the Dems have defined “compromise” as “we don’t get all we want, you don’t give up all we demand”. Trump is using their playbook. At this point, they’ve moved the goalpost way, way, left. Right now, I’m in a mood to ask for every Dem politico’s head on a pike - and compromise with half of them and all Mueller’s team in orange prison jumpsuits.
ReplyDelete" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just as bad as Ann Coulter, and vice versa."
ReplyDeleteWhether I agree with her or not - and I agree less and less as time passes - Coulter is an intelligent and educated woman who writes and speaks for a living. Ocasio is a much-less-intelligent woman who graduated from a supposed excellent university with two advanced degrees but evidently got no education therefrom and has made no use of those degrees except to tout them.
Most importantly, Ann is not a member of Congress and so lacks the political power and influence granted by that office.
Ann is a voice with a platform. Ocasio is a danger. They are not equivalent in any way.
If all politicians had the honor, inetrity, manners and decorum of Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, the Hildabeast the braying donkey from NYC, why then America would be paradise.
ReplyDeleteTrump is to be despised because he tells the truth that the media cannot tell. He solves problems which politicians cannot do. He is a racist because he cannot understand the benefits that diversity brought to Detroit, NYC, St Louis, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Memphis, Flint, Gary, etc.
Trump believes in liberty as opposed to the gigantic leviathan that our politicians nurture. Our enemies dictate the course of politicial discourse. To ignore this is to take the course of the politicians who appeased Hitler in the 1930s.
We must recognize what we are dealing with. The fact that these creatures are Americans make them no less odious than Hitler.
"People who stand in the middle of the road get hit by traffic going both ways."
ReplyDeleteWe're far, far past the time for reasonableness, Peter.
Pretending it isn't so won't make it so.
The for reasonable positions and compromise was a decade and three ago.
There isn't anything reasonable left to compromise on.
Politics is the art of the possible.
War is the continuation of politics, by other means.
The Left thinks they want to try those "other means".
They're perilously close finding out just how bitter is the vinegar they'll swill from the bottle whose cork they're furiously trying to pull off.
And some people just have to grab the hot stove with both hands, and there's no help for them but watching it happen.
Some others have to give it a body hug before the lesson is learned.
So be it.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI am very confused, how you comprise with a Democratic party that thinks it is reasonable to murder just born babies. The new New York abortion law allows this. This is not the 20% lunatic fringe of the Democratic party, this is majority of the elected members of the New York state assembly. How do you comprise with evil.
@George: I entirely agree that it's impossible to compromise with evil. To that extent, I won't. However, abortion is only one aspect - and a relatively small proportion - of all government responsibilities. If you refuse any and all cooperation because of it, how much working government are you likely to get?
ReplyDeleteWe're living in a post-Christian society, whether we like it or not. Our Christian definitions of moral good and moral evil are no longer shared by many - perhaps a majority - of our fellow citizens. We can either withdraw into monasteries and convents, and let the world go by outside our walls, or we can bear witness in the public forum in whatever way we can. That's not compromising with evil. That's being a city set on a hill, a light to the world - even if the world doesn't like that light.
Absolutism in moral terms is all very well, and in critical areas we dare not compromise by making ourselves complicit in evil. However, we are not in a position to impose our ethical and moral standards on others. The best we can do is live our lives in such a way that the truth shines through, and convinces others more by example than by argument. Remember St. Francis of Assissi's famous admonition: "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words."
Your point holds only in the context of parties that have an underlying agreement on first principles. Thomas Sowell states it far better than I in his book: "A Conflict of Visions".
ReplyDeleteWe no longer agree on first principles. In this context, I believe that compromise is detrimental and will lead to our downfall if we pursue it.
We have been screwed on border security since Tip O'Niell & Co. rolled Reagan on amnesty back in '85. And Anne Coulter, while brashly entertaining, is only an author who has no power. Antonia Occasional-Cortex is a CONGRESS-CRITTER, with the ability to write LAW, that we have to live with. BIG DIFFERENCE.....
ReplyDeleteI’ll pass on the sanctimonious admonishment, thanks.
ReplyDelete20% of that wine in your glass is sewage. Suck it up, Pastor!
And I’m just curious - how many times are you going to negotiate with the Donks on the 2nd Amendment? Or the First that it protects?
Peter said "We can either withdraw into monasteries and convents, and let the world go by outside our walls, or we can bear witness in the public forum in whatever way we can. "
ReplyDeleteFallacy of excluded middle.
We can also do unto others as they would do unto us, but first and harder.
I understand that you've seen too much war to want to go through it again. The Democrats don't care. We either fight, or die. We may win or we may lose, but if we don't even try, we all end up in ditches. This all ends in mountains of skulls and rivers of blood. The only question remains, whose skulls, whose blood? I resolve that it shall not be me and mine.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - A. Solzhenitsyn
With respect to illegal aliens, we have repeatedly compromised, and gotten our 20% priorities enacted into law.
ReplyDeleteAt which point, they've been actively ignored or undermined by both political parties.
Compromise is possible with somebody reasonable, who is acting in good faith, and who is not diametrically opposed on basic precepts.
Clearly, none of this applies to the more vocal Democrats, and most Republicans manage one of the criteria at best.
Citizenship is our birthright.
It is not to be sold for pottage.
Trump is willing to talk, and compromise, and make deals.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems are not.
Peter, you say: "reasonable people should be able to compromise along the lines of the 80/20 rule."
Then you say both sides are to blame.
Here's a challenge -- name any policy Trump has been unwilling to compromise on?
He compromised with Ryan; then again with Ryan; then again with Pelosi on the wall.
If we are going to resolve the problems, without violence, we must insist on the truth.
Reps in general, and Trump in particular, are willing to be reasonable, and compromise, and even give a LOT in order to get. Where there is no deal, it is because the Dems are looking for 100%, and unwilling to accept less.
The problem is the Dems. Not the Reps, not "both sides". The Dems in office, with their votes. Well, maybe also the lying RINOs who get elected as Reps, but aren't willing to vote for conservative policies.
Trump's hot air is a false excuse -- he insults back, twice as effectively. Words. His tweets are words. Don't like them? Don't read them. Don't go to his massive rallies. That's the permanent campaign. What are his gov't speeches? What are the policies he's proposing? That's what is important.
Had the Dems cared about DACA, and other issues, they could have had a long list of reasonable, 80/20 demands in return for the Wall funding. They didn't do that. They are NOT being reasonable.
It's terrible.
A catastrophe.
A crisis.
An emergency - a National Emergency.
... Trump will build the reasonable Wall.
We've already given away much more than 20%. Same with the gun debate, we give up 20% and get 0. Give up another 20% and get 0. At some point folks like me are saying "this negotiation thing isn't working out too well for us". So, how about no more negotiation and build the freeking wall. I'm now willing to fight ANY more gun restrictions. How about abortion, are we now going to use negotiation to take killing live viable babies off the table and allow killing during birth?
ReplyDeleteF--K it. I'm pretty well done with negotiation.
Sometime between 1972 and the 1990s, politics became weaponized. The Democrat-filth didn't like Nixon, so they ginned up a "scandal" (mainly yelling about Nixon doing things that the several previous Democratic presidents had done or countenanced) to get rid of him. That enraged a lot of the people who had swept Nixon into office, and the gloves started coming off. Part of their anger was knowing perfectly well that had Nixon been a Democrat, or the same charges had come up with under Saint JFK, the press would have laughed it off as "boys will be boys."
ReplyDelete