The White House and Congress are going to be engaged in intense and fraught negotiations for months and months over budget-related matters. These are negotiations that are going to require standing up for principles and knowing when to compromise. I thought about this a lot a few months ago as the new Congress came into office, and have really been thinking about it ever since the Tea Party came into the fore. Why, I have asked, is the Tea Party appealing in some way? And why is it flawed? This column, which ran at Partisans in February, provides a framework — that of the unhappy legislator — that explains how I think legislators need to balance their dual responsibilities for convictions and compromise.
Here is an excerpt; read more at Partisans.org.
John Boehner became Speaker of the House intent to find “common ground,” not “compromise.” Unfortunately, “common ground” doesn’t cut it. We want our legislators to have strong positions, but recognize the need to make compromises. Yet Boehner’s impulse is understandable. Real compromise is disappointing and frustrating. “Common ground,” on the other hand, is comforting; it imagines a satisfying middle that legislators can somehow find. But it is a fool’s fantasy that denies the reality of the unhappy legislator.
Our legislators must meet two standards. First, they must be able to articulate a clear vision for the country and the underlying policies that constitute that vision. Second, they must be willing, if unhappily, to concede where necessary to bring that vision to light.
You can read the rest of this column, and check out lots of other great insight from across the political spectrum, at Partisans.org.